The state farm associated with the administration of the Purovsky district of the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug is trying to get tens of millions from a business with Finnish roots in the courts. Thus, the company presented financial claims to a structure affiliated with the Anirina Oy Helsinki Finland concern, and in a lawsuit against Norlund Jouko Niilo Olavi, the former head of the Nikole company from St. Petersburg. The latter more than ten years ago concluded a number of interconnected agency agreements with Sovkhoz Purovsky, which provided for the design, construction, supply, installation and commissioning of equipment. However, the project ended with large-scale accusations from both sides and lawsuits. Thus, the Finns were charged with violating deadlines, illegal demands for additional funds, inappropriate spending and work, and goods “in fact not transferred to the principal or non-existent.” In turn, the contractor accused Sovkhoz Purovsky of deliberately sabotaging the project for a long time, saying that the asset used the funds allocated by Gazprom dobycha Urengoy for its own needs, and is now looking for “the person responsible for the misuse of the funds allocated to it.” At the moment, the disputes have dragged on for several years and risk turning into fixing large losses of the Yamal asset. However, Sovkhoz Purovsky does not leave attempts, at the same time insisting on compensation for losses from NOVATEK-Tarkosaleneftegaz.
State Farm Purovsky JSC (according to Kontur.Fokus, 51% belongs to the Department of Property and Land Relations of the Purovsky District Administration, and 49% belongs to STOK LLC, the beneficiary of which is Ramazan Ashba) in the arbitration of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region is trying to attract to subsidiary liability in the amount of more than 94.8 million rubles of Anirina JSC (Finland).
As Pravda UrFO found out, this conflict is connected with another dispute. Earlier, Sovkhoz Purovsky presented the corresponding amount in a lawsuit against Norlund Jouko Niilo Olavi, the former head of Nikole LLC (St. Petersburg; the founder, according to Kontur.Fokus, is Anirina).
In the arbitration, representatives of the Yamal company referred to the debt to Nikola and the entry on the exclusion of a legal entity from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.
“The debt to Nikola <…> arose during the period when the defendant was in the position of the head of the company, as well as the entire remaining period of its non-fulfillment. The plaintiff believes that as a result of the exclusion from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities and the termination of its activities, the LLC gained an advantage in the form of the plaintiff’s impossibility to present a claim against him for the payment of a debt in the amount established by the court, as a result of which the actions of the former head do not comply with the principles of reasonableness and good faith, ”it follows from the documents.
However, the arbitration pointed out that the exclusion from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities in itself is not a sufficient basis for bringing to subsidiary liability in accordance with the said rule.
“The plaintiff has not proved the presence of unfair actions of the defendant, which led to the inability to fulfill obligations to creditors. The very fact of not eliminating false information about the address of “Nikola” does not indicate that society has been brought to a state of inability to meet the requirements. At the same time, the plaintiff himself was not deprived of the opportunity to raise objections to the exclusion of the company from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, ”the first instance explained. The court also emphasized that the disputed debt was formed before 2015, and the rules allowing to attract to the subsidy, in such cases, were approved later.
As a result, “Sovkhoz Purovsky” was denied the requirements, which is now trying to challenge in the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal.
No less interesting is the history of the emergence of debt. As the publication found out, from 2007 to 2011, Sovkhoz Purovsky concluded a number of interconnected agency agreements with Nikole. In particular, the agreements provided for the design and construction of a building, a production line, installation and commissioning of equipment, and more than 204 million rubles were transferred to the defendant in advance.
However, in the course of the execution of the treaties, a number of serious disagreements arose. “The design work of the technological process of the fish factory is inadequate. The agent unlawfully demands additional funds from the principal for work and goods not covered by the contracts. The agent unlawfully desires to re-receive funds for installation, start-up of the plant and training, which have already been included in the specifications and paid. The agent misused a significant share of the principal’s money, many of the work and goods paid by the agent at the expense of the principal’s money were not actually transferred to the principal or are non-existent <…> The agent’s reports under the contracts cannot be considered proper. The terms of delivery of equipment are violated. Installation supervision, equipment assembly and commissioning of the fish factory were not carried out, ”the list of claims in court was announced.
Based on this, multimillion-dollar claims were made against the contractor in court. However, “Nikola” did not want to agree with him, declaring their losses.
In accordance with the position of the representatives of the LLC, over the course of two years, Nikole has repeatedly requested the signing of an agreement for the assembly work of the plant.
“Sovkhoz Purovsky” did not want and does not want to compensate the agent for the funds spent in order to fulfill the principal’s order. <….> over the course of two years, by his actions or inactions, he created impossible conditions for the implementation of the project <…> Financing of the fish factory was carried out by Gazprom dobycha Urengoy in order to restore the fish resources of the YNAO. State Farm Purovsky used these allocated funds for its own needs – it carried out the construction of garages, warehouses, residential premises and others. “Sovkhoz Purovsky” needs to find the culprit in the misuse of the financial resources allocated to it,” it followed from the position of the defendant.
It also emphasized that the concern Anirina Oy Helsinki Finland, whose subsidiary is Nikole, spent its own financial resources, as a result of which losses were incurred in the amount of more than 170 million rubles.
However, the court in this dispute, relying, among other things, on the conclusions of experts, sided with Purovsky State Farm, which launched the proceedings described above.
It should be noted that in parallel with them, a dispute between the state farm and NOVATEK-Tarkosaleneftegaz LLC is developing, which was presented with losses of more than 35 million rubles. The conflict is related to the land issue – for example, the lawsuit states that the losses were caused by the early termination of the lease agreement for plot N <...> in connection with the actual withdrawal of a number of allotments in the Tazovsky district of the YNAO and land plots in the Purovsky district.
It should be noted that earlier the publication spoke in detail about a probably similar conflict of one of the oldest currently operating state farms in the YaNAO – Verkhne-Purovsky State Farm LLC.