Academician has lost the lawsuit with A1

the Judicial Board of the Supreme court refused to consider the Statute of limitations on an oral contract for the sale of the shares since the filing of claims for payment for the shares. The decision the court rendered in a dispute academician Vladimir batalina with the widow of the former Executive Director of “Korund-M” Bella Raevskaya, said the representative A1: the court upheld the decisions of the courts of appeal and first instance.

to Raevskaya Betelin suing 2018: she got 50% of “Korund-M” in 2017 by inheritance after the death of her husband Alexander Stavisky, which Betelin worked for over 30 years. Betelin was initially the only shareholder of “Korund-M”, but nine years ago, concluded an oral contract for the sale of 50% stake in Stavisky. The fact of the conclusion of an oral agreement supported by documents of transfer of shares in favour of the Stavisky: it became to own 50% of the company in 2011 in 2018 Betelin decided to break a verbal agreement and went to sue Raevskaya – he appreciated belonging to the widow of the package to RUB 310 million and indicated that no Stavitsky, no Raevskaya for shares not paid for. Rayevskaya after the start of litigation for RUB 15 million sold his share of the company, “Gothenburg”, which belongs to A1 and CEO member of the Supervisory Board “the alpha-groups” Alexander Fino. Now A1 accompanies this trial.

Between Betulinum and Stawicki was signed the only agreement under which the term of payment of the shares and the amount of their value was determined at the time of their withdrawal from Beeline, says the plaintiff. However, Stavitsky became seriously ill in 2014 and went abroad for treatment, so Betelin did not require him to pay for the shares until the death of Stavisky in 2016, said the lawyer Beeline the Supreme court: it was a business on trust, so the format of the agreement could and should exist.

the First instance of the claim Betulina not supported: the Moscow Arbitration court established that the Betelin not prove the existence of a contract of sale of shares between him and Stavisky. The court also pointed to the expiration of the limitation period in 2014 – at the expiration of three years from the date of breach of contract. According to the plaintiff, the oral agreement should be considered as obligation till demand, and the Statute of limitations shall run from the date of presentation of the requirement about payment of the shares.

the appeal Betelin was won: the court in March agreed with his argument that the Statute of limitations has not expired and found sufficient evidence of the conclusion of an oral contract, as in 2011, 50% of the shares of do were disposed of in favour Stavisky account Betulina. The court of cassation has considered the findings of the appeal unreasonable, reversed his decision and upheld the first instance decision.

Betelin filed a complaint with the judicial Collegium of the Supreme court.

While the courts continued, Betelin asked the state Corporation “rostec” “to consider the possibility of joining the Corporation in capital “Korund-M” as the main consumer of the company’s products” because “raiding” of the company, but in the “assistance” he refused, wrote RBC.

Between Betulinum and Stawicki actually was a real contract of purchase and sale, and Stavitsky it paid, but Betelin this document withheld, said the A1 at the meeting on Tuesday: Betelin, “feeling a deep hostility” to the fact that the business was to own Raevskaya, decided to use the fact that the widow has not received from Stavisky all supporting documents because he was sick. Betelin invented the legend of the oral contract without a price and the date of payment, according to the defendant: from 2011 until his death Stavisky Betelin no one claims his partner did not show payment of the shares and the only explanation is that the payment actually was made.

“We are pleased that the highest court law, justice and common sense prevailed, said Andrei Elinson, the managing partner of A1. We are convinced that such actions to the widows, placed years after the death of the parties to the transaction, – barefaced scheme for the acquisition of another property. The fact of the filing of such a claim is clear bad faith of the claimant. We are glad that did not allow the creation of a vicious practice, which could have an impact on all Russians”.

previous topic: What threatens Elena Baturina confrontation with A1 Michael Friedman