Fast-Track Action in a High-Profile Case
The Antipov family, owners of the Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Plant (CHEMK), challenged a court ruling that transferred all shares of the holding to the state, according to a report from RIA Novosti relying on the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region.
The court press service noted that the appeal would be heard in Perm at the seventeenth arbitration appellate court.
On March 5, the Antipovs filed an objection. On the same day, petitions were submitted by Serov Ferroalloy Plant JSC and Kuznetsk Ferroalloys JSC (both part of the CHEMK group) requesting the suspension of interim measures, which are temporary restrictions designed to protect disputed property during ongoing legal proceedings.
The former facility owner, millionaire Yuri Antipov, is now a witness in a fraud case. Reports by media outlets stated he had been detained, but a source within regional law enforcement told RIA Novosti that he was simply brought to Chelyabinsk for questioning and released without a written travel ban.
On February 5, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a case against CHEMK, seeking the transfer of shares in three major enterprises to the state: CHEMK JSC itself, Kuznetsk Ferroalloys JSC, and Serov Ferroalloy Plant JSC.
Development of the case occurred at a brisk pace described by the regional press as having moved with unprecedented speed. The following day, February 6, the court opened the case, seized the shares and properties of the three factories, and by February 26 delivered a final decision to place all assets under state control in a closed-door meeting.
Why Were the Factories Seized?
The Attorney General’s Office contends that the involved enterprises rank among the country’s largest ferroalloy producers and hold strategic importance for national defense due to their role in weapons and ammunition production. Privatization, it asserts, occurred under conditions that did not reflect the will of Russia, and the ministry believes the privatization decision dates back more than three decades and was illegal.
The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office also stressed that the Russian Federation, as owner, did not oversee a legitimate privatization process. The privatization itself required government approval, but in this case it was approved by local authorities, raising questions about the extent of official authority exercised.
Moreover, the ministry claimed the factories are now under the control of residents of unfriendly states. It cited RFA International, a Canadian-Swiss trading company, as an example of the new stewardship.
The prosecutor’s office claimed that ferroalloys produced by the plants are exported at lower prices to the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, and that these buyers have pursued policies seen as hostile to Russia and have supplied arms to Ukraine. The implication is that such arrangements clash with national interests.
“The Business World Has Limited Choices”
According to the press service of the holding, all private-sector enterprises in Russia were privatized under a similar framework, and questions about CHEMK stood out only because they persisted for decades. They noted that during the 1990s, the federal center issued direct and explicit instructions to privatize all industrial enterprises within a six-month window, a plan supported by worker collectives, the Ministry of Industry, and government bodies in line with presidential decrees.
CHEMK representatives argued that the ferroalloys produced at these facilities do not exclusively serve the military-industrial complex. They are used by metallurgists to create steel, which in turn supports defense manufacturing. The company further stated that the domestic market remains vital and more profitable for CHEMK than foreign markets, yet international trade remains necessary as market conditions shift and prices vary. They argued that relying solely on friendly partners would reduce demand in the face of a global market.
In a candid note, the holding suggested that concentrating supply on the domestic market or limiting trade to friendly nations like China and India would be ideal, but those countries also have sizable production capacities and limited need for Russian ferroalloys. The press service concluded that many domestic industrial players operate similarly, and the question remains whether engaging with foreign traders constitutes a loss of control. The remark echoes concerns from the 1930s about balancing national sovereignty with pragmatic economic realities.
Finally, the statement warned that breaking contracts with traders from unfriendly nations could depress production and lead to job losses across Russian factories.