Upon an order from our client PST Energy OOD we performed legal advisory services through the whole procedure of acquisition of 100 % of the share capital in another company Opes 94 EOOD. The main goal of the operation was the acquisition of one wind power turbine, which was part of the property of Opes 94 EOOD.Thus, by the acquisition of the company shares of Opes 94 EOOD our client acquired the wind power turbine as well. Before the effective purchase of the company shares of Opes 94 EOOD we performed a due diligence of Opes 94 EOOD in order to establish its real financial situation.

We were engaged by our client Project Planning and Management OOD in a dispute with the debtor Plovdiv Municipality related to collection of receivables.Both parties concluded a contract for preparation of a major project for modernization and socialization of the Maritza riverbed within the space running through the city of Plovdiv.  Our client fulfilled all its obligations but it could not collect the full amount of its remuneration since under the contract the final payment was conditioned from an approval of the project by the environmental bodies (RIOSV and the Ministry of the Environment and Water). For 2-3 years after delivering the project the necessary administrative approvals were still missing.Therefore, we filed a lawsuit against Plovdiv Municipality in court and we succeeded to prove that the continuing lack of a final approval of the project from the competent administrative bodies was only due to the passive behavior of Plovdiv Municipality.Hence, the court accepted our view that it was unjust that our client suffers from the above said passive approach of Plovdiv Municipality and not being able to effectively collect all its receivables from the contract and ruled wholly in favour of our client.

We were engaged from our client Agroevroplant EOOD in a dispute with another company Patno stroitelstvo AD for suffered damages.Our client ordered and the other side undertook to build three silos. Soon after building the silos and the beginning of their effective use, some serious defects came to light. During rains water came therein and also some of the machinery came out of order, some of the main pipelines, through which the grains moved between the different installations also broke.Our client informed Patno stroitelstvo AD for the defects and asked their repair. The other side did nothing to cover their liability. Therefore, our client ordered the repair works to other third parties and after that we claimed in court the expenses for the repair works against Patno stroitelstvo AD.After almost 6 years of court procedures on all three possible court instances we won the case and our client managed to recover all amounts due.All three court instances ruled in favour of our client.