On September 4, 2011 the workshop Future of Investors in Light of New Legal Position of the Russian Supreme Arbitrazh Court: Risks, Implications, Recommendations organized by EPAM under support of Commercial Real Estate magazine and Arendator.ru took place in Moscow.
The workshop was focused on how investors should respond to new Resolution No. 54 of the Russian Supreme Arbitrazh Court Presidium ‘On Certain Issues of Resolving Disputes Arising out of Contracts Concerning Real Estate, to Be Created or Acquired in Future' dated July 11, 2011.
The event evoked a wide response from developers, investors, real estate advisors, construction companies, retailers and government authorities. The subjects touched upon over the course of the seminar aroused the interest of the audience and triggered lively discussions.
The workshop featured reports from EPAM experts as well as representatives of the Legal Department of the Federal Agency for Management of State Property, Legal and Methodology Section of the Moscow City Property Department and heads of corporate legal departments.
Maxim Mozgov, Associate at EPAM, delivered a report entitled The Russian Supreme Arbitrazh Court Clarifications Regarding Disputes Arising from Agreements Involving Real Estate to Be Created or Acquired in the Future: Civil Law Aspects, in which he elaborated on civil law matters arising out of the Plenum's clarifications with respect to each of the contracts that may be executed in investment and construction (sale and purchase, simple partnership and construction contracts).
Konstantin Fradkin, Deputy Director of the Legal Department of the Federal Agency for Management of State Property, talked about practical aspects in interpreting the Resolution.
Georgy Osipov, Counsel at the Litigation Department of EPAM, delivered a report titled Procedural Consequences of Plenum Resolution No.54. Speaking of the consequences of the Resolution, Georgy noted: "Certainty with regard to absolute right has been raised whereas certainty with regard to developer's obligations has been diminished: if previously several co-investors could vie for the same property, now it is several buyers. Furthermore, investors' risks have risen - the property law is replaced by an obligation, which prevents oversight of the process, and the registration process is also hampered causing excessive iterations".
Renat Abubakirov, Head of Litigation and Legal Department at Dixie Group OJSC, presented a case study on Recognition of Ownership under an Investment Agreement using as an example of the dispute caused by non-performance by a developer of its obligations to transfer built premises to Dixie Group OJSC that had entered into an investment contract with the developer for the construction of a store.
Igor Schikow, Head of Tax Practice at EPAM, dwelled on tax aspects in executing investment agreements in his report Effect of Qualification of Contractual Relations on Taxation.