The arbitration case A56-16019/2005. In this case, Roman Bogdanov, the lawyer, represented Claimant’s interests. The case related to collecting debts in connection with regular payments being long overdue on the vehicle rental contract with a crew (the defendant was CJSC “Remont i montazh truboprovodov”). On the day of May 31st 2005, the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region with its decision fully satisfied the Claimant’s demands.

The civil case No. 2-19\2008-164. In this case, Roman Bogdanov, the lawyer, represented Claimant’s interests. The case related to forcing the insurance company LLC “Rosgosstrakh Severo-Zapad” to pay the damage in terms of third party only car insurance in full in accordance with the Federal Law No. 40-FZ “About obligatory civil liability insurance of owners of vehicles”. The judge satisfied the Claimant’s demands with the court decision dated February 3rd, 2009. The company LLC “Rosgosstrakh Severo-Zapad” filed an appeal in connection therewith, which on April 1st, 2009 was left unsatisfied in full by Primorsky District Court decision. The court decision became final and binding.

The civil case No. 2-1584/2011. In this case, Roman Bogdanov, the lawyer, represented Claimant’s interests. The case related to forcing the employer to pay wages to the employee. The Petrogradsky District Court of Saint-Petersburg, with its decision dated July 25th 2011, fully satisfied the Claimant’s demands.

The civil case No. 2-1583/2011. In this case, Roman Bogdanov, the lawyer, represented Claimant’s interests. The case related to forcing the employer to pay wages to the employee. The Petrogradsky District Court of Saint-Petersburg, with its decision dated July 25th 2011, fully satisfied the Claimant’s demands.

The civil case No. 2-1582/2011. In this case, Roman Bogdanov, the lawyer, represented Claimant’s interests. The case related to forcing the employer to pay wages to the employee. The Petrogradsky District Court of Saint-Petersburg, with its decision dated July 25th 2011, fully satisfied the Claimant’s demands.

The civil case No. 2-1455/2011. In this case, Roman Bogdanov, the lawyer, represented Claimant’s interests. The case related to forcing the employer (the civil defendant was LLC “Co-r”) to pay wages that it owed to the employee. The Pushkinsky District Court of Saint-Petersburg, with its decision dated June 30th 2011, fully satisfied the Claimant’s demands. On July 12th, 2011, the court decision came into legal force, having thus become final and binding.

The arbitration case No. A56-73405/2010. In this case, Roman Bogdanov, the lawyer, represented Claimant’s interests. The case related to charging the sued party in connection with unjust enrichment (the Claimant paid financial assurance to participate in an auction in accordance with the Federal Law No.94-FZ “On placement of orders to supply goods, carry out works and render services for state and municipal needs”), interests on using other people’s money, court expenses (the defendant was the local administration of the municipal formation “Municipal District “Vasilievsky”). The decision of the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region from April 8th 2011 left the lawsuit unsatisfied in full. The Claimant filed an appeal on the abovementioned Arbitration Court decision. The Thirteenth Appeal Court, with its decision dated July 11th, 2011, nixed the first instance arbitration court decision and satisfied the Claimant’s claims in full volume. The Defendant filed a cassation appeal against the decision to the Federal Arbitration Court of the Northwestern Federal District of the Russian Federation. The decision by the FAC, Northwestern Federal District of the Russian Federation, dated October 6th 2011 left the cassation appeal unsatisfied. The Defendant filed an application about suspending enforcement proceedings, which was left unsatisfied by the definition of the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region. On November 7th, 2011, the Defendant filed an application to the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation on reconsidering the abovementioned court decisions in the exercise of supervisory powers. The definition by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation from December 19th 2011 denied passing the case No. A56-73405/2010 to the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation for reconsidering in the exercise of supervisory powers. The court decision in connection with this case was performed in accordance with the procedure as set forth by the Budget Code of the Russian Federation.

The civil case No. 2-879/11-154m (writ proceedings). In this case, Roman Bogdanov, the lawyer, represented Applicant’s interests. The case related to obtaining a court order from the J.P. judge of the judicial district No.154. On June 14th, 2011, the definition by the J.P. judge of the judicial district No.154 denied issuing the court order in favor of the Applicant. On August 25th, 2011, the Petrogradsky District Court considered the Applicant’s private complaint on the J.P. judge definition and nixed the said definition of the J.P. judge. On August 29th, 2011, the court order was issued for the Applicant by the J.P. judge of the judicial district No.154.

Criminal case. In this case, Roman Bogdanov, the lawyer, represented the interest of the accused person. The case was opened in accordance with paragraph 1 of the article 129 (Slander) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In October, 2011, the J.P. judge of the judicial district No.146 in Saint-Petersburg issued the non-guilty verdict in connection with the case.

The arbitration case No. A56-55022/2011. In this case the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Applicant’s interests. The case related to contestation of actions, act and decisions of the enforcement officer of Vasilieostrovsky District Department of enforcement officers of the Federal Bailiffs Service Directorate in Saint-Petersburg. On the day of October 27th 2011, the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region satisfied in full the Applicant’s demands on invalidation of actions performed by the enforcement officer and on invalidation of the decision made by the enforcement officer and the act in connection therewith. On December 14th, 2011, the enforcement officer filed an appeal on the decision of the Arbitration Court of the first instance. The decision of the Thirteenth Arbitration Appeal Court dated February 3rd, 2012 left the appeal unsatisfied, and the decision made by the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region was left unchanged. On the day of March 27th, 2012, the enforcement officer filed a cassation appeal in connection with the first instance arbitration court. The Federal Arbitration Court of the Northwestern Federal District of the Russian Federation, with its decision from June 26th, 2012, left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region was left unchanged.

The civil case No. 2-9206/2012. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. A lawsuit was initiated in the Primorsky District Court of Saint-Petersburg in connection with consumer rights infringement. The case related to terminating the contract for connection to communications, which was signed between the Claimant and a suburban nonprofit partnership and to forcing the suburban nonprofit partnership to pay back the amount earlier paid in connection with the said contract. On November 27th, 2012, the parties reached reconciliation.

The arbitration case No. A56-57416/2012. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Applicant’s interests. An application was filed to the arbitration court to invalidate the actions performed by the bank “Otkrytie”. On the day of November 29th, 2012, the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region satisfied the Applicant’s demands in full, by stating that the bank’s actions in connection with returning the enforcement order to the Applicant without execution were illegal. The Thirteenth Arbitration Appeal Court, with its decision from March 18th, 2013, left the bank’s appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region was left unchanged.

The arbitration case No. A56-12917/2013. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests in connection with forcing the civil defendant OJSC “Murmanskoye Morskoye Parohodstvo” to pay the debt owed in connection with the work performed by the contractor in accordance with the contract. On May 13th, 2013, the Claimant’s demands were fully satisfied, and the defendant was forced to pay the cost of the work performed and the interests on using other people’s money.

The civil case No. 2-514/13. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. A private school of the additional education named “Educational Center “The House of Foreign Languages” was sued for being non-compliant with the consumer’s requirements and demanded to pay back the amount paid for services, together with losses, late charges and relevant fines on a voluntary basis. On the day of May 16th 2013, Dzerzhinsky District Court of Saint-Petersburg satisfied the Claimant’s demands in full.

The civil case No. 2-3372/2013. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. A lawsuit was initiated in Petrogradsky District Court of Saint-Petersburg in connection with termination of the contract that was earlier signed between the Claimant and the LLC “Marvelo” on connection to utility lines and using the infrastructure of the suburban nonprofit partnership. On October 22nd, 2013, the Claimant’s demands were partly satisfied, and the court ordered to terminate the contract between the Claimant and the LLC “Marvelo”, and to charge the LLC “Marvelo” for the amount paid in accordance with the contract, as well as late charges and moral harm, fines and the expenses that the Claimant had in connection therewith.

The arbitration case No. A56-46534/2011. In this case, Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented the interests of the Third Party. The Third Party filed an application to the arbitration court on partial procedural legal succession. The demands of the Third Party were fully satisfied with the court definition from November 27th, 2013. The defendant filed an appeal on the first instance court definition to the Thirteenth Arbitration Appeal Court. The decision of the Thirteenth Arbitration Appeal Court from March 5th 2014 left the definition of the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region without change, and the Defendant’s appeal was left unsatisfied.

The arbitration case No. A56-71557/2013. In this case, Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. A lawsuit was initiated in the arbitration court against the Committee on Construction, Housing and Utilities Infrastructure and Architecture of the Administration of the municipal formation “Lomonosovsky Municipal District” of the Leningrad Region, in connection with failure by the latter to fulfill the obligations on paying for construction works performed by the Claimant in connection with a municipal contract. With its decision, the arbitration court satisfied the Claimant’s demands in connection with the said lawsuit in full, on the day of February 25th, 2014. The Defendant filed an appeal on the decision of the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region. The Thirteenth Arbitration court, having reviewed the appeal from the Defendant, decided to leave the decision of the first instance court unchanged, and the appeal was left unsatisfied. The court decision became final and binding.

The arbitration case No. A56-12093/2014. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. Because of failure by the Defendant to fulfill the obligations in connection with the loan agreement, a lawsuit was initiated at the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region to force the Defendant to pay back the amount of the loan, together with penalties and interests on using other people’s money, as stipulated by the article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The court fully satisfied the Claimant’s demands, and the Defendant was forced to pay one million rubles as the amount of the loan, 95.7 thousand rubles as the interests on using other people’s money, 53.8 thousand rubles as the interests in accordance with the article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and contract fine in amount of 1.129 million rubles.

The arbitration case No. A56-53700/2013. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. Because failure by the Defendant to deliver goods in accordance with the contract of supplies, a lawsuit was initiated at the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region to force the Defendant to pay back the amount that was earlier transferred to the Defendant as advanced payment for the goods delivery. 14 legal entities participated in this legal case, and graphology examination was carried out in connection therewith. The value of the Claimant’s demands, which were satisfied by the court, exceeded 27 million rubles.

The arbitration case No. A56-3500/2014. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. A lawsuit was initiated at the arbitration court against the Administration of the Ulianovskoye municipal settlement of the Tosnensky District in Leningrad Region because of failure to fulfill the obligations in connection with payments for the construction works that were performed by the Claimant in connection with a municipal contract. The administration filed a counter-complaint (the arbitration case No.A56-9053/2014 was consolidated with the case A56-3500/2014) on charging the Claimant with the fine in connection with the delayed works in accordance with the contract. With its decision from July 4th, 2014, the arbitration court partly satisfied the Claimant’s demands (except the cost of the additional works that were not agreed upon with the customer); the fine in connection with the delay in performing the works in accordance with the state contract was reduced down to less than the 37th part of the initial amount: of the 4426618 rubles that were initially claimed by the Administration, the court satisfied the demands in amount of 118521 rubles.

The civil case No. 2-3869/2014. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. A lawsuit was initiated at the Smolnitsky District Court of Saint-Petersburg against the Credit Consumer Cooperative of citizen “Severnaya Stolitsa” about forcing the latter to pay back the loan, together with interests in accordance with the agreement and the penalties for using other people’s money. With the court decision from September 3rd, 2014, the Claimant’s demands were satisfied in full.

Arbitral proceedings in connection with the case on claiming property out of unlawful possession by other persons. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. A lawsuit was initiated in the arbitral court against Ms. V. to claim the property rights. In August 2015, the arbitral court decision fully satisfied the Claimant’s demands.

The arbitration case No. A56-36901/2015. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Applicant’s interests. The applicant filed an application to the arbitration court on invalidation of the interested person inaction. With the court decision from September 29th, 2015 the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region satisfied the Claimant’s demands in full. The Principal of the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” was freed from paying administrative penalty in amount ranging from 500 000 to 700 000 rubles, being given verbal warning. The Service Directorate in charge for protection of financial services consumers’ and minority shareholders’ rights in the Northwestern Federal District opened the case against the Principal referring to the article 19.5 (p.9) of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation (failure to execute the directive of the Bank of Russia within the specified time period). The lawyer succeeded to free the joint stock company from administrative responsibility referring to insignificance of the administrative violation.

The civil case 2-1155/2015. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented the interests of the Claimant with German citizenship. The case related to termination of marriage between the Claimant and a woman, the citizen of the Russian Federation. All the Claimant’s demands were satisfied by the court decision

The civil case No. 2-7472/2015. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. A lawsuit was initiated at the Frunzensky District Court of Saint-Petersburg against Ms. M-va to force the latter to pay the debt that she owed in accordance with a due-bill. The court decision from December 3rd 2015 satisfied the Claimant’s demands for 95%.

The arbitration case No. A56-64987/2016. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. A lawsuit was initiated at the arbitration court against LLC “ASK “BELSTROYBALTIKA” because of the failure by the latter to fulfill the obligations in connection with payments for construction works that were performed by the Claimant in accordance with a construction works subcontractor agreement. With the decision from March 13th, 2017, the arbitration court fully satisfied the Claimant’s demands. The Defendant filed an appeal against the decision of the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region. On August 8th, 2017, the Thirteenth Arbitration Appeal court, having considered the Defendant’s appeal, decided to leave the first instant court decision unchanged, and the appeal was left unsatisfied. The arbitration court decision came into force and became final and binding.

The arbitration case No. A56-65156/2017. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented Claimant’s interests. A lawsuit was initiated at the arbitration court against a purchaser in accordance with a delivery contract, because of the purchaser’s failure to fulfill the obligations in connection with payment for the goods delivered by the Claimant. The arbitration court decision from February 1st, 2017, fully satisfied the Claimant’s demands on the lawsuit.

The Defendant filed an appeal on the decision of the Arbitration Court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad Region. On June 27th, 2017, the Thirteenth arbitration appeal court considered the appeal from the Defendant, and decided to leave the first instance court decision unchanged, and the appeal was left unsatisfied. The court decision became final and binding.

The civil case No. 2390/2017. In this case, the Legal firm “R.B. Consulting” represented the interests of a Claimant with foreign citizenship. A lawsuit was initiated at the Kirovsky District Court of Saint-Petersburg against Ms. T-ko about charging the latter for unjust enrichment and forcing the latter additionally pay interests on using other people’s money. On July 12th, 2017, the court affirmed reconciliation agreement between the parties.