The ubiquitous prosecutors have not stood idle in the face of new property scandals involving the redistribution of assets at enterprises previously under the "family's" influence. This time, questions have been raised about Sumykhimprom, which was allegedly deliberately bankrupted, a claim that is not entirely true.
What is Sumykhimprom and what is its value?
Recently, the State Property Fund petitioned the Prosecutor General's Office to open a criminal investigation into the intentional bankruptcy of Sumykhimprom, a company specializing in the production of chemicals, specifically titanium dioxide pigment (by processing ilmenite concentrate) and Superagro mineral fertilizers of the NP and NPK types with varying nutrient ratios.
The State Property Fund also sent a corresponding letter to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine acknowledging the company's bankruptcy. It stated that Sumykhimprom's net loss in 2013, according to the Ukrainian Accounting Standards, decreased by 4,4% to UAH 200,625 million, while net income decreased by 32,5% to UAH 1.415 billion. The company also reduced its titanium dioxide production by 17% to 32,620 tons in 2013, and its mineral fertilizer output by 45,7% to 206,550 tons.
The State Property Fund also considers the enterprise's rehabilitation plan, developed by its CEO, Igor Lazakovich, to be ineffective, since this plan requires Sumykhimprom to fulfill its loan obligations within 17 years, no less.
The public joint-stock company could have gone bankrupt even before the current creditors arrived.
The creditors of PJSC Sumykhimprom are primarily representatives of DF Group, controlled by Dmitry Firtash, or structures affiliated with this businessman’s closest business partners – LLC AMC Industrial Investments, Bank Nadra, LLC Sintez Resurs, PJSC Crimean Titan, Ostсhem International GmbH, which received five of the six seats on the company’s creditors’ committee.
At the same time, the creditors' committee lacks representatives from the state, which is virtually 100% owner of Sumykhimprom. There was also no seat on the committee tasked with rehabilitating the company for the banks to which the public joint-stock company already owes 1,2 billion hryvnias.
In addition, the prosecutor's office accuses Sumykhimprom of converting titanium dioxide from Tolexis Enterprises AG in the amount of more than 52 million euros during 2012-13, as well as titanium dioxide, Superagro NPK fertilizers and NPK with different nutrient ratios from Sintez Resurs LLC in the total amount of more than 375 million hryvnias, which seems illogical, since the company itself creates similar products (as mentioned above).
However, the claims of the prosecutor's office, the Federal Migration Service, and the Ministry of Justice against Dmitry Firtash's entities have another side to the coin, as the aforementioned members of the creditors' committee received their shareholdings at auctions held as far back as late 2013. Meanwhile, the prosecutor's claims of deliberate bankruptcy of the enterprise relate, as we recall, to 2012-13. That is, the creditors approached Sumykhimprom when the public joint-stock company was already effectively bankrupt.
The prosecutors have strenuously forgotten about a similar situation at Ukrtransnafta
Furthermore, the prosecutor's office's position on other similar cases, which remain uninvestigated, is surprising, despite Prosecutor General Vitaliy Yarema personally promising to look into the situation. We've already reported that a completely similar situation has persisted for many years at Ukrtransnafta, which is 100% state-owned through Naftogaz Ukrainy. However, Ihor Kolomoisky's management operates at the company, and Ukrtransnafta itself pays no dividends to the state budget.
The situation with Ukrtransnafta is completely analogous to that of PJSC Sumykhimprom: both are almost 100% state-owned, but the companies are managed by oligarchic management, which operates in the interests of private individuals rather than the state. Nevertheless, the issues with Ukrtransnafta have been shelved, and in addition to the prosecutor's office, even the State Property Fund and the Ministry of Justice have joined in the "dispossession" of Sumykhimprom.
In this regard, the Prosecutor's Truth has three questions:
— Can the prosecutor's office, the State Property Fund, and the Ministry of Justice reliably state when the current creditors approached Sumykhimprom to determine who exactly carried out the company's bankruptcy?
Are the attempts to bankrupt Sumykhimprom motivated by a desire to re-privatize it cheaply as a loss-making, debt-ridden enterprise, despite the fact that it is, in fact, a multi-billion-dollar asset? To whom do officials from the Prosecutor's Office, the State Property Fund, and the Ministry of Justice want to transfer the public joint-stock company?
— Does Vitaliy Yarema remember his promise to sort out Ukrtransnafta's problems, or has everything already been agreed upon behind the scenes at the Prosecutor General's Office?
Prosecutor's Truth
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!