In early April, the Ariant group of companies lost control of four LLCs by a decision of the Chelyabinsk arbitration court, including Russia’s largest wine producer Kuban-Vino and its brands Chateau Taman, Aristov, and Vysoky Bereg. The case centers on allegations that the Prosecutor General’s Office seized state property from another enterprise, the Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Plant (CHEMK). The evaluation of this large claim was completed in just seven days, a rapid timeline for such disputes.
Work sharing
At the outset, Etalon Company JSC and its shareholders, Yuri Antipov and his wife Lyudmila, were named defendants. The Prosecutor General’s Office later added Antipovs as co-defendants and brought in Lyudmila and Alexander Aristov, along with Elena and Alexander Kretovs, whom prosecutors described as closely connected to Ariant.
Aristov and Antipov founded Ariant and remained business partners for more than thirty years before they split assets in 2020. Aristov received agricultural concerns, while Antipov took control of the Chelyabinsk metallurgical complex. Subsequently, Aristov exited the company, transferring ownership to his daughter Elena Kretova and her husband Alexander Kretov, who led the agricultural enterprise.
What is known about the participants in the case?
Ariant Group of Companies LLC is controlled by the Kretov family and includes Kuban-Vino LLC, Agrofirm Yuzhnaya, Agrofirm Ariant, and TsPI – Ariant.
Etalon Company JSC is the former owner of CHEMK, Katav-Ivanovo Foundry, Serov Ferroalloy Plant, and Kuznetsk Ferroalloys JSC. Before Etalon, these assets belonged to USMK, a venture led by Yuri and Lyudmila Antipov and their sons Mikhail, Alexey, and Sergey. After restructuring with Aristov, the assets converged into USMK, which merged with Etalon in 2023. The Antipovs’ family became involved with USMK shareholders again a year ago.
How did the process proceed?
The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation filed a case against Etalon, Lyudmila, and Yuri Antipov on February 5, 2024. The demand called for the return of assets deemed illegally owned by others, including shares in CHEMK and ferroalloy plants, and their transfer to the state. Prosecutors alleged that privatizations in the 1990s violated rules and that the group formed a network linked to defense enterprises involved in weapon systems manufacturing. They argued that privatization decisions to transfer such plants to private hands should have been made by the government, with local governments only approving. Prosecutors also claimed that Antipov’s children were co-owners while living abroad.
Etalon’s private owners countered that the three enterprises cited do not belong to the defense sector; they supply ferroalloys to metallurgical firms and ship steel to defense facilities. The privatization plan was implemented widely, yet after three decades issues emerged mainly at CHEMK and two other facilities.
On February 26, the Sverdlovsk Arbitration Court granted the Prosecutor General’s Office’s request to seize the five enterprises. Antipov and his wife appealed on March 5, and the next day filed a petition to cancel interim measures. By March 14, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office pressed a new claim against the Antipovs, their sons, and Etalon in the Chelyabinsk Region for 25.8 billion rubles, alleging illegal enrichment tied to a 2022 debt forgiveness agreement between Yuri Antipov and USMK that released the defendants from returning public funds.
The case details include a debt-forgiveness agreement estimated at 25.8 billion rubles, with a structure comprising roughly 19.9 billion rubles in loans plus interest. Prosecutors later sought damages up to 105 billion rubles and the seizure of the group’s assets, extending the dispute to Ariant and related entities controlled by current and former owners.
Confiscation decision
In the Ariant dispute, the Prosecutor General’s Office argued that other defendants illegally contributed to the incorporation of three metallurgical plants. Prosecutors said the defendants enriched themselves unlawfully and used those funds to acquire other assets, including Kuban-Vino, Agrofirm Yuzhnaya, Agrofirm Ariant, TsPI – Ariant, and Katav-Ivanovsky Foundry. The latter, Etalon’s sole asset, did not belong to Ariant.
Managing shareholder Alexander Kretov spoke with RBC about Ariant’s stance, noting that the Civil Code remains in force and that the company cooperates with law enforcement. He expressed confidence that the state and the Prosecutor General’s Office will resolve the matter fairly.
On April 5, the Chelyabinsk Arbitration Court ruled in favor of the state, approving the seizure of all five LLCs in a closed session. Five days later, SPARK data showed the Unified State Register of Legal Entities reflecting state ownership of the companies. On April 11, Ariant appealed to the Supreme Court, criticizing the conduct of the proceedings. The appeal highlighted the unusually short seven-day review period for a 25-volume case and suggested possible pressure on judges. The court file also shows Ariant Group of Companies filing an appeal on April 12.
What Vladimir Putin said about the risks of privatization
Privatization issues rose to the presidential level. President Vladimir Putin stated at the Eastern Economic Forum that there would be no privatization in Russia. He emphasized that prosecutorial work can influence how the economy is viewed, but that this does not change any privatization decisions. He stressed that no one should be oppressed for simply doing their job, and that government authority must respect the laws of the Russian Federation. Putin noted that the Prosecutor General’s Office would coordinate with the state on these matters, and Krasnov, the Chief Prosecutor, acknowledged the comment with a nod.
What do lawyers say?
Civilian lawyer Alla Georgieva told socialbites.ca that the rapid court action in such a substantial case suggests procedural violations in considering the claim. She noted that a 105-billion-ruble dispute, documented in 25 volumes, is typically not resolved so quickly, and that formal considerations notwithstanding, violations in privatization of state real estate are becoming more apparent. Georgieva suggested that, even if prosecutors prove their case, the judgment could be overturned on procedural grounds.
Igor Semenovsky, an Associate Professor at the Department of International and Public Law at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, remarked that the Ariant and CHEMK cases proceeded unusually fast and likely avoided wide public disclosure of reasoning. He offered several possible reasons, including shielding the public from sensitive economic details, protecting the investment climate, or simply avoiding public fatigue with privatization-era actions. Semenovsky also reflected on privatizations from the 1990s and the authorities’ interventions at the time, as discussed with socialbites.ca.