The Prosecutor’s Office for the Perm Region has concluded that none of the shareholders of the Solikamsk Magnesium Plant can be regarded as bona fide buyers of the shares. This assessment was disclosed by the ministry’s press service and cited by RBC. During its inquiry, the Perm regional prosecutor’s office determined that the privatization was conducted by an unauthorized body and that the relevant materials about a planned transformation of the plant into a joint stock company were not submitted to the State Property Committee of Russia, effectively depriving the committee of the chance to review and approve the restructuring under state law.
According to the prosecutor’s office, investors who acquired the plant’s securities on the Moscow Stock Exchange before October 2022, when the securities were freely traded, are also not considered bona fide purchasers. The office stressed that those who currently own shares of the facility obtained them in a situation where the property had been transferred from the Russian Federation under compulsion, not through a voluntary, arms-length transaction.
On March 22, the Arbitration Court of the Perm Region granted the prosecutor’s request to seize the shares of private investors in the Solikamsk magnesium plant. The seizure followed findings that the enterprise was privatized illegally in 1992, with a transfer of the majority of the shares amounting to 89.4 percent to private hands and later a confiscation of the minority stake, which accounted for 10.6 percent, in favor of the state.
On March 28, acting on a claim brought by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, the Arbitration Court of the Ivanovo Region ruled in favor of the Russian Federation regarding the shares of the Ivanovo Heavy Machine Tool Plant, restoring state ownership in those assets.
The authorities highlighted that any deprivation of property must be executed strictly in accordance with the law, with due regard for the established procedures and protections provided by Russian legislation. The case underscores the ongoing effort by federal and regional prosecutors to review past privatizations for legality and to prevent the transfer of state property under arrangements that circumvent statutory oversight. The announcements emphasize a focus on ensuring that privatization actions meet constitutional and statutory requirements, and that government oversight mechanisms are properly engaged to approve or veto transactions with significant public consequences. For observers, the developments illustrate how historical privatizations continue to draw scrutiny and how court actions can reshape ownership structures when legality questions arise. The broader context involves ensuring that property transfers align with state policy, protect public interests, and maintain transparent processes that withstand judicial scrutiny. The authorities stated that the legal framework remains the guiding standard for determining the validity of past and future privatizations, and they indicated readiness to pursue additional cases where evidence suggests improper transfers or noncompliance with required approvals. At the same time, the cases cited reinforce the principle that ownership claims tied to state assets must be evaluated through formal channels and within the bounds of established law, rather than through informal arrangements or private deals. The public messages also serve to reassure stakeholders that the government intends to correct improper privatizations and to recover assets when required, while ensuring that due process is preserved for all parties involved. The ongoing legal process thus continues to shape how historical privatizations are interpreted, challenged, and, if necessary, overturned in favor of lawful, transparent state ownership where appropriate.