The layout of the helicopter R-34 was recognized as advertising

Bashkir LLC “Rotor” failed to recover 30.4 million rubles from the Moscow JSC “Aeroelectromash”. unjust enrichment as a result of the costs of developing design documentation for the R-34 light helicopter and manufacturing its exhibition model. The Moscow Arbitration Court found that Rotor did not fulfill the terms of the contract, and brought the model to the competition in the capital of Russia at will “for advertising purposes.”

The Moscow Arbitration Court reconsidered the application of the Bashkir experimental design bureau “Rotor” for the recovery of unjust enrichment from the Moscow joint-stock company “Aeroelectromash”. The first application for the recovery of 21.7 million rubles. costs (12.8 million rubles for the development of a mock-up of the R-34 passenger helicopter and 8.9 million rubles for design documentation) were satisfied in April 2022, in June the appeal court upheld the decision, but in September the arbitration court of the Moscow District returned the case for a new trial, where the plaintiff increased the claims to 30.4 million rubles.

The contract for the development of working design documentation for R-34 light helicopters was concluded in April 2018. The plaintiff stated in court that in May 2019, among other things, he produced and handed over to the customer a mock-up helicopter. The work was not covered by the contract. This model, the company said in court, was presented by the customer at the international exhibition of the helicopter industry HeliRussia in 2019 and at the Golden Wings MAKS-2019 competition. According to the plaintiff, the current director of Rotor, Sergei Fatkin, did not conclude an agreement for the production of a mock-up “in violation of the interests of the company and abusing his powers,” since in February 2021 he moved to work at Aeroelectromash.

The cassation recognized the conclusions of the courts as unfounded, since in July 2020 the Moscow Arbitration Court satisfied the claim of Aeroelectromash JSC against Rotor, which proves the company’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the contract. During the consideration of the case, it was established that Rotor did not transfer the design documentation to the joint-stock company, and also did not provide evidence of its delivery in the manner prescribed by the contract, in connection with which an advance payment of 51.5 million rubles was collected from the company by the court.

Refusing to satisfy the claim during the second consideration of the case, the court indicated that in April 2019 the company “on its own and in its own interests” transported a model of a helicopter from Kumertau to Moscow, since Aeroelectromash JSC “allowed to place property belonging to Rotor on its exposition” ”on the basis of an oral agreement “for advertising purposes”. After the exhibition was over, the mock-up was stored by Aeroelectromash until the parties entered into a storage agreement in January 2021, after which the mock-up was transported to Kumertau in the summer.

In October, by decision of the arbitration court of Bashkiria, the layout was again transferred to the custody of Aeroelectromash as a security measure as a creditor, which filed claims for 53.2 million rubles. as part of the consideration of the bankruptcy case of the Rotor company (is in external management until September 2023). The court found that the parties did not agree on the purchase and sale of the model and its manufacture specifically for the needs of Aeroelectromash.

The external manager of Rotor, Aidar Valeev, told Kommersant-Ufa that the company was preparing an appeal.

“The decision in this case is considered prejudicial, and the relevant circumstances are established and not subject to proof. In general, I would note that the judicial acts on this dispute will obviously be used by the arbitration manager for the possible recovery of damages from the former head of OKB Rotor LLC,” says Roman Rechkin, senior partner at Intellect law firm.

Kirill Baranovsky, Senior Associate at Rustam Kurmaev & Partners Law Firm, considers the prospect of overturning the court’s decision extremely low. “It follows from the judicial acts in the case that the plaintiff proved the fact of unjust enrichment on the defendant’s side by finding a mock-up helicopter in the possession of the defendant. During the second consideration of the case, the court described in great detail the circumstances of the location of the model helicopter in the possession of the defendant, referring to the agreement of the parties on the storage of property, ”he believes.