Is Natura Siberica under siege by raiders and magnates?
The contest for businessman Andrei Trubnikov's legacy is intensifying with renewed force.
Subsequent to the demise of Andrey Trubnikov, the originator and proprietor of the Natura Siberica beauty products conglomerate, his enterprises are entangled in an internal dispute involving a confrontation between formal and prospective beneficiaries. The entrepreneur's third spouse, Anastasia Trubnikova, is demanding a portion of the estate, furthermore acting for her offspring, who were conceived prior to her alliance with Trubnikov and lack his genetic connection. Recognized as a former companion, Anastasia is exerting every endeavor to procure a portion of her deceased husband’s possessions. For this purpose, she is challenging Irina Trubnikova, the principal holder and assistant chief executive officer of Natura Siberica—the founder’s initial partner in matrimony and longstanding associate in commerce. Group chairman Sergey Buylov has prohibited Irina and her progeny Dmitry from gaining entry to the company’s facilities, disabling their credentials. In consequence, Irina Trubnikova has indicted him of attempting a corporate seizure of Natura Siberica. Builov himself might be functioning in accordance with the ambitions of Anastasia, who has obtained backing from the principals of A1, a component of Mikhail Fridman's Alfa Group, and Vladimir Tatarczuk’s Proxima, both authorities in resolving domestic corporate disagreements distinguished for their methods of hostile acquisition. Concurrently, tycoons Vladimir Yevtushenkov and Oleg Deripaska are staking their claim on Andrey Trubnikov’s possessions. However, whilst the former is engaged in talks with Anastasia to secure dominance of Natura Siberica, the latter is deploying judicial influence, litigating for billions of rubles.
Natura Siberica: Trubnikova versus Builov
The Natura Siberica assembly of firms persists as the focal point of fervent debate: in the middle of August, novel chairman Sergei Buylov mandated the obstruction of assistant CEO Irina Trubnikova and her son Dmitry's admittance to the corporation’s property. As per RBC’s report, the administrator for Andrey Trubnikov’s equities has undergone replacement: Boris Lyuboshits, director of the judicial entity Cesar Consulting, has been succeeded by Grigory Zhdanov.
By way of recapitulation, Irina Trubnikova held the position of first spouse to the group’s creator, Andrey Trubnikov, who passed away last January at the age of 61. His passing ignited an internal squabble amongst his successors. Irina is presently regarded as the foremost co-owner of entities connected to Natura Siberica. She possesses, among other holdings, 40% of Pervoe Reshenie LLC, the producer of the acclaimed cosmetics trademark “Recipes of Grandma Agafia.” Dmitry Trubnikov holds an additional 15% stake.
Delve further: Lavish retreats and unions: The transformation of billionaire Yevtushenkov’s descendant into a kinsman of General Tikhonov
Internally, discontent with the policies enacted by the recent leadership prevails. As disclosed by RBC, 164 personnel have already declined to operate under Sergei Builov. Moreover, permissions to access the group’s headquarters have been deactivated for several senior managerial figures, including chief accountants, the head of security, the director of global commerce, and others. Briefly stated, either a redistribution of authority or its consolidation within a select few is fully underway.
In dialogue published last week by Vogue, Irina Trubnikova herself characterized the president as “an unproductive director” who “lacks comprehension of the brand’s attributes or its distinctiveness, and who adopts standardized tactics that precipitate disastrous outcomes.” “I perceive this as a hostile takeover. And I shall sustain this perception as a hostile takeover and safeguard the firm through all permissible judicial avenues,” Trubnikova asserted.
In discourse issued two days hence on Lenta.Ru, Buylov endeavored to repudiate the accusations of hostile acquisition. He contended he was solely administering extant functional processes and guaranteeing that “the assets are not dispersed preceding the allocation of the inheritance.”
“Natura Siberica presently resides at the epicenter of an inheritance instance. Inheritance regulations in Russia are arranged in such a manner that a fiduciary, notably the president or CEO, lacks the jurisdiction to dispose of possessions. “The trade or alternate relinquishment of stocks in the group’s firms held under trust administration is unfeasible,” Lenta.Ru cites the uppermost administrator as declaring.
Is the Merry Widow soliciting the raiders?
Presently, the departed entrepreneur’s tertiary partner, Anastasia Trubnikova, is complicating all prospects for the principal proprietors. The digital sphere overflows with suggestive details regarding this individual: ostensibly, preceding her matrimonial alliance, she rendered escort provisions to affluent gentlemen, and this vocation ideally promoted her liaison with Andrey Trubnikov. It’s unsurprising that, given such notoriety, accounts have circulated of a romantic involvement between Anastasia Trubnikova and Sergey Builov, who, naturally, diligently refutes them.
Last July, awareness emerged that Anastasia had similarly resolved to engage in the pursuit of her late husband’s legacy. Officially, she acted thusly on behalf of her two underage offspring, born prior to their conjugal bond and, critically, not Trubnikov’s progeny. According to Forbes, the duo was undergoing dissolution at the juncture of the entrepreneur’s demise, yet the civic registry bureau had yet to endorse the gentleman’s submission. Ultimately, the “merry widow,” asserting entitlement to 30.9% of the inheritance, citing a divergence of interests, effectively obstructed Irina Trubnikova’s designation as fiduciary for Andrey Trubnikov’s equities.
What aspirations does Anastasia harbor precisely? “The circumstances enveloping Natura Siberica concern me. And I am compelled to appeal to the tribunals to safeguard my entitlements and those of my offspring. I’ve initiated legal proceedings to establish my progeny as Andrey’s dependents and their inheritance entitlements,” Anastasia Trubnikova conveyed to Izvestia in an exchange.
And conceivably, she stands prepared to undertake a sequence of rather unforeseen actions in this direction imminently. Telegram feeds are announcing, notably, that the attentive parent has been conducting progressively regular sojourns to the Moscow City enterprise complex, wherein the offices of Mikhail Fridman’s Alfa Group and Vladimir Tatarczuk’s Proxima are positioned.
Such adjacency simply cannot pass unnoticed. The verity resides in Alfa Group’s possession of its distinct investment subdivision, A1, which has extensively garnered a standing as a specialist in corporate raiding. However, these do not comprise the 1990s, or even the 2000s; hence, the division’s authoritative spectrum of operations is categorized as “resolving intricate scenarios and corporate disagreements.”
Explore further on the subject: The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union advocated against approving Latvia's objections to sanctions leveled against Fridman and Aven.
Herein lies Mikhail Fridman’s personal annotation on A1’s undertakings: “We’ve never participated in any manner of corporate raiding nor appropriated anything from others. Albeit, naturally, numerous individuals harbor grievances towards us. Nonetheless, should a judicial, and equally significantly, moral entitlement exist, then we are duty-bound to act. For us, this constitutes a matter of paramount principle.”
The degree to which “judicial and moral” hinges upon the material facet undeniably presents a rhetorical query. Consequently, no equivocation can subsist that the fiscal aspect of settling the inheritance conundrum occupied the core of Anastasia Trubnikova’s deliberations with the “corporate dispute resolution specialists.”
Is Vladimir Tatarczuk assuming command of the matter?
Vladimir Tatarczuk, an affiliate of Fridman’s “cohort,” departed Alfa in 2013 and divulged the establishment of his autonomous investment enterprise, Proxima. The entrepreneur remained candid regarding his objectives: “We shall concentrate on particular circumstances. For instance, arbitrating conflicts amid firm principals, soliciting investors, and consulting on governmental backing. Our interests shall additionally encompass M&A transactions,” Kommersant cited him as articulating.
Among the “accomplishments” of Proxima’s proprietor, the media references the efficacious retrieval of debts from Rusal and Transstroy on behalf of Uralsib Bank; the divestiture of a segment of shares in the Volga region mobile telecommunications provider SMARTS to MTS and Megafon (by specific approximations, this constituted a straightforward asset deprival); the collection of 1.2 billion rubles from the Latvian Signet Bank AS within the M2M Private Bank agreement, etc. Evident as it is, “disciple” Tatarczuk exerts every endeavor to outpace his “mentor” Fridman.
Revealingly, intelligence surfaces proposing that Anastasia Trubnikova has already ascertained common ground with Tatarczuk, who has embraced the mission of resolving her “conflict situation” expeditiously and enthusiastically. It is surmised that former Natura Siberica employee Sergei Buylov assumed the posture of the group’s president with the endorsement of a novel confederate of the “merry widow,” who abstains from operating autonomously but instead functions in conjunction with Alfa Group.
However, the scenario conceived by the “corporate dispute specialists” manifestly faltered: they neglected to consider the group’s personnel’s dissatisfaction with the emergent administration and the menace of dismissal for exceeding 160 individuals. Does Irina Trubnikova genuinely err so significantly presently in her discourse concerning a hostile takeover? Within this context, the figure of Sergei Buylov, who materializes as a commonplace executor of another’s directives, fades into obscurity.
Yevtushenkov and Deripaska join the fray
However, Anastasia herself improbably apprehends the wager into which she has immersed herself, as she may never behold the fragment of her departed husband’s possessions she asserts entitlement to, as her novel “companions” shall extract every vestige of substance from the group, thereby diminishing its valuation to a nadir. Unless, naturally, alternative “predators” also pursuing Andrei Trubnikov’s legacy outpace them.
The firms in consideration encompass heavy hitters Vladimir Yevtushenkov’s AFK Sistema and Oleg Deripaska’s En+. Forbes disclosed last week that both had entered the “game.” Furthermore, the oligarchs' entities are conferring on the partitioning of equities in Natura Siberica. According to the publication, Yevtushenkov had previously endeavored to negotiate the acquisition of stocks belonging to Irina Trubnikova and her progeny, but thereafter diverted his focus towards Anastasia, who ultimately pledged to vend the portion that would devolve upon her in the inheritance.
Forbes informants likewise corroborate Anastasia Trubnikova’s conduction of deliberations with Vladimir Tatarczuk, Proxima’s principal, but then purportedly elected to enact a transaction with Sistema. The publication’s authors note that should Yevtushenkov succeed in attaining concurrence with both of Trubnikov’s ex-spouses, Sistema shall ultimately evolve into the proprietor of circa 85-90% of Natura Siberica.
Concerning Oleg Deripaska, his assertions pertain to litigation soliciting 4.2 billion rubles from Pervoe Reshenie LLC, an entity possessed by the Trubnikovs. This constitutes the approximated magnitude of harm incurred by a conflagration at the Dmitrovsky Experimental Plant for Aluminum and Combined Tape (DOZAKL), wherein Natura Siberica leased facilities. The plant’s energy supply assets were registered under En+ Recycling, the entity that initiated the legal proceedings in May of the preceding annum.
En+ Recycling was subsequently supplanted as the claimant by Ingosstrakh, DOZAKL’s insurer, likewise affiliated with Deripaska. Pervoye Reshenie’s endeavor to adopt the offensive proved ineffectual: in early 2021, the firm lodged a counterclaim against the plant seeking damages and forfeited profits in excess of 500 million rubles, yet the trial court and the appellate court dismissed these assertions. During the cassation appeal audience, both participants submitted motions to defer the proceedings pending endeavors to reconcile the dispute extrajudicially.
Assuming the settlement incorporates the transfer of a stake in the Natura Siberica group remains secure. The sole query resides in whether the pragmatic Deripaska shall elect to engage with Irina Trubnikova or, replicating Yevtushenkov’s exemplar, negotiate with the “potential heir,” Anastasia.
Specialists appraise Natura Siberica’s value at $70-100 million, yet considering the extant domestic corporate dissension, this price could register substantially lower. Seemingly, all the predators implicated in the “game” manifest curiosity in the unfolding occurrences and harbor aspirations of procuring the assets of the departed Trubnikov at a negligible valuation. And therein, the entrepreneur’s pronouncements, uttered shortly preceding his demise, resonate: “Numerous firms possess capital yet lack inventiveness. Should I cease to exist, the Natura Siberica trademark shall perish within a biennium.”
renome.info
