Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Winner of the ARMA contest for managing seized corporate rights of IDS Ukraine, which own the brands "Morshinska" and "Myrhorodska," may be connected to Timur Mindich's business circle.
According to her, this concerns LLC "Legal Bureau "Prioritas", which ARMA named the winner of the contest in September. According to Radina, the chain of connections of the company leads to Yaroslav Pakhalchuk, co-owner of Atlas Weekend and head of the "1+1 media". Pakhalchuk, according to registers, together with Timur Mindich was co-founder of "Kvartal TV" and other legal entities. Radina also refers to data from the British register, according to which Pakhalchuk and Mindich were among the controllers of the London company Global Media Trend Trade Ltd. Mindich left the company after 10 days, and Pakhalchuk in 2021 year. At the same time, the deputy emphasizes that this data is not direct proof that Mindich stands behind "Prioritas," but considers them a chain of connections confirmed by documents. Documents with dates that could not have existed were also found. Separately, a number of violations regarding participation in the competition were revealed. According to Radina, "Prioritas" could have submitted false documents to confirm experience required to participate in the competition. Specifically, the law required participants to confirm experience managing real estate. Among the documents that "Prioritas" uploaded to the Prozorro system, there is an act of acceptance-transfer from 1 December 2024 of the year. At the same time, it contains a reference to a power of attorney from 1 January 2025 of the year. Thus, at the time of drawing up the act, the document to which it refers formally did not yet exist. ARMA explained this discrepancy as possibly a typographical error. Radina, however, believes that this is a sign of possible document forgery. Read also: New manager of "Morshinska" plans to immediately begin auditing the group. In addition, the deputy drew attention to the method of confirming experience of "Prioritas." According to her, the company referred, in particular, to contracts between companies owned by a husband and wife, and a letter of recommendation for "Prioritas" was provided by a company that the bureau's owner herself owns as of 100%. The letter was signed by a director, who, according to Radina, was appointed by "Prioritas" itself. According to the deputy, the order of the competition provides for disqualification of a participant in the presence of significantly unreliable information or questionable experience. At the same time, "Prioritas" was not disqualified. Is there enough resources in "Prioritas" to manage the "Morshinska"? Some questions also arise regarding the financial and organizational capabilities of the winner. The charter capital of "Prioritas" is 1000 UAH, and profit for the last year is about 8000 UAH. At the same time, the company announced an additional contribution to the charter capital of 7,4 million UAH. However, Radina says that as of 6 October, the statutory capital in the state register remained at 1000 UAH. Against this backdrop, the question arises as to how a company with such indicators and resources is ready to manage an asset whose value, according to Radina, is about 5 billion UAH. The state expects dividend payments from managing "Morshinska" of almost 1 billion UAH. In the manager's team - a competitor to "Morshinska"? Another accusation concerns Serhiy Herman, who since October heads "Prioritas." According to registers, he remains director and co-owner of structures related to the company "Rosinka," which produces water and beverages and is a competitor of "Morshinska." At the time of Prioritas' victory in the contest, Herman was co-founder of LLC "Trading and Production Group Rosinka." He has since left that partnership, but, according to Radina, remains co-owner of the company "GER," which owns a stake in the Rosinka corporation. Radina emphasizes that the law directly prohibits competitors from managing seized assets. The reason for such a restriction is that the manager gains access to sensitive commercial information, including contracts, clients, and distribution systems. According to the deputy, the situation with Herman could create a conflict of interest and raise questions about compliance with the law. She also suggests that involving him as director could be a way to formally circumvent the prohibition on competitors' participation in asset management. Read also: IDS Ukraine case: British shareholders of "Morshinska" will go to international courts. What happened with the October Palace? Separately, Radina links "Prioritas" to the history of managing the October Palace in Kyiv. According to her, the owner of "Prioritas" simultaneously runs a law firm association of the same name. It is she, according to ARMA documents, who signed management agreements between ARMA and the company "Kombinat Plus" by power of attorney, which in July 2025 year handed over the October Palace for management. In August 2026 year, the building was returned to the state. Radina claims that the manager transferred the October Palace to sublease to companies that, in her words, were created in one day. At the same time, the founders and employees of these companies included, among others, co-founders of "Prioritas," its employees, and relatives. In one case, the legal address of the subtenant fully coincided with the address of "Prioritas." In Radina's view, as a result, a significant portion of incomes from the operation of the October Palace could have remained in private companies associated with "Prioritas," while the state received only minimal guaranteed payments. Radina emphasizes that this is her reasoned assumption. The relevant circumstances are being investigated by NABU, and it is the investigation that must establish whether there were signs of a crime in this scheme. What will happen with "Morshinska"? Currently, the transfer of the "Prioritas" asset is blocked: a court in Dnipro, in a suit by another contest participant, prohibited ARMA from signing the relevant contract. Separately, the question remains about the valuation of the seized corporate rights of "Morshinska." According to Radina, the need for such an assessment had been raised earlier, but ARMA did not fulfill the legal requirement. Thus, the transfer of the asset has not occurred, and questions to the contest winner concern several aspects—from documents and confirmation of experience to potential conflicts of interest and prior experience in managing state property. This case revealed a number of problems in ARMA's work with seized assets, so the Committee has initiated a series of actions to address them and establish an effective process for revenue generation from managing such assets.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Переможець конкурсу АРМА на "Моршинську" має зв'язки з Міндічем, - нардеп". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: RBC-Ukraine.
