The authorities are trying to challenge the privatization of Metafrax
[ad_1]
The authorities launched a wave of judicial deprivatizations in the chemical sector. A few days after the lawsuit was filed to claim the shares of Volzhsky Orgsintez, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a similar claim against the methanol producer Metafrax. Lawyers note that, given the current practice, the owners of Metafrax have little chance of keeping the asset or receiving compensation for it.
As it became known to Kommersant, on July 31, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a lawsuit with the arbitration court to invalidate the results of the privatization of JSC Metafrax Chemicals, one of the largest producers of methanol and formalin in the Russian Federation. The essence of the claim in the file of the court has not yet been disclosed. The defendants in this case are Togliattikhimbank JSC, Metaholding JSC and Metafrax Trading LLC. According to Kommersant, the Prosecutor General’s Office requested interim measures in the form of arrest of a controlling stake in Metafrax. The next meeting is scheduled for August 25th.
The UK Metafrax Group confirmed to Kommersant that the Prosecutor General’s Office is challenging the privatization of the group’s head enterprise.
They noted that “they have documents confirming the legality of the privatization procedure, which took place under the full jurisdiction and control of the State Property Committee of the Russian Federation.” “The company filed an objection to the application for securing the claim. We intend to clearly defend our position within the legal framework. In the current situation, the company will continue to fulfill its obligations to counterparties, creditors and employees, ”the statement of the board of directors of the Management Company Metafrax Group, received by Kommersant, says.
According to SPARK, the shareholders of Metafrax Chemicals are Metaholding with a share of 95.88%, the general director of the enterprise Vladimir Daut (0.5%), Metafrax Trading (0.27%) and Viktor Mayer (0.01%). In turn, Metaholding, according to data for 2016, belongs to the US-registered company Clever LLK, but in the explanations to the financial statements for 2022, Metafrax Chemicals indicated that Seifeddin Rustamov was its beneficiary at that time. Sources of Kommersant explain that Togliattihimbank (formerly the backbone bank of Togliattiazot) has historically been a minority shareholder of Metafrax with a share of less than 1%. At the end of August 2022, the management of all divisions of the Metafrax Group (Metafrax Chemicals, resin manufacturers Metadynea and Karbolit, as well as foreign enterprises producing resins and fine chemicals) was merged into Metafrax Group Management Company. Revenue of Metafrax Chemicals at the end of 2022 according to RAS decreased by 15%, to 27 billion rubles, net profit decreased by 22.6% to 10.6 billion rubles. In June, the company launched a complex for the production of urea, ammonia and melamine with a total capacity of 1 million tons.
The Prosecutor General’s Office has recently been increasingly challenging the results of the privatization of industrial enterprises, despite the sometimes extremely long statute of limitations.
Less than a week ago, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a lawsuit against the owners of Volzhsky Orgsintez. In mid-July, the Prosecutor General’s Office confiscated over 80% of the shares of TGC-2 PJSC (which controls energy assets in five regions of Russia) through the court from the company’s beneficiary, ex-senator Leonid Lebedev.
Notable Stock Seizures – Cases Bashneft, Bashkir soda company, Solikamsk magnesium plant, “Kuchuksulfata” – were carried out in connection with the violations suddenly discovered by the prosecutor’s office during privatization 25-30 years ago, recalls Olga Zhukova, senior lawyer at ProLegals. The general limitation period of three years applies to cases for the recovery of shares, but it is counted from the moment when the person whose rights have been violated directly learns about it. “In situations of claiming shares acquired as part of privatization, a vicious practice has developed, according to which the period begins to be counted from the moment the authorized body (the prosecutor’s office, FAS) conducts an inspection that reveals violations,” the lawyer notes.
Ms. Zhukova does not see a direct connection between the seizure of assets and the presence of their beneficiaries abroad. In her opinion, the decisive criteria for the start of deprivatization are most likely the ability of the enterprise to replenish the budget in the future, as well as its significance for the current needs of the country. The expert considers the prospects of shareholders, who are subject to demands for the recovery of shares, disappointing: as a rule, such claims are satisfied without payment of any compensation.
[ad_2]
Source link
