The winner of the ARMA competition in Morshyn has been linked to Mindich’s inner circle
The winner of the ARMA tender to manage the seized corporate rights of IDS Ukraine—which owns the “Morshynska” and “Mirgorodska” brands—may have ties to Timur Mindich’s business circle.
According to People’s Deputy Anastasia Radina, the company in question is “Prioritas Law Firm” LLC, which ARMA selected as the winner of the competition in September. According to Radina, the company’s chain of connections leads to Yaroslav Pakhalchuk, co-owner of Atlas Weekend and head of “1+1 Media.” According to public records, Pakhalchuk, along with Timur Mindich, was a co-founder of “Kvartal TV” and other legal entities.
Radina also cites data from the British registry, according to which Pakhalchuk and Mindich were among the controllers of the London-based company Global Media Trend Trade Ltd. Mindich left the company after 10 days, and Pakhalchuk left in 2021.
At the same time, the lawmaker emphasizes that this information is not direct proof that Mindich is behind “Prioritas,” but she considers it a chain of connections confirmed by documents.
Documents with dates that could not have existed
Separately, a number of violations regarding participation in the tender were identified. According to Radina, “Prioritas” may have submitted false documents to confirm the experience required for participation in the tender.
In particular, the law required participants to confirm their experience in real estate management. Among the documents that “Prioritas” uploaded to the Prozorro system is a handover certificate dated December 1, 2024. However, it contains a reference to a power of attorney dated January 1, 2025.
Thus, at the time the act was drawn up, the document to which it refers did not yet formally exist. ARMA explained this discrepancy as a possible typographical error. Radina, however, believes this is a sign of possible document forgery.
In addition, the lawmaker drew attention to the method used to verify “Prioritas’” experience. According to her, the company cited, among other things, contracts between the husband’s and wife’s firms, and the letter of recommendation for “Prioritas” was provided by a company wholly owned by the agency’s owner herself. This letter was signed by a director who, according to Radina, was appointed by “Prioritas” itself.
According to the lawmaker, the tender procedures call for disqualifying a participant in the event of materially inaccurate information or questionable experience. However, “Prioritas” was not disqualified.
Does “Prioritas” have sufficient resources to manage “Morshynska”?
Certain questions also arise regarding the financial and organizational capabilities of the competition winner.
Prioritas’s authorized capital is 1,000 UAH, and its profit for the past year was approximately 8,000 UAH. At the same time, the company announced an additional contribution of 7.4 million UAH to its authorized capital. However, according to Radina, as of October 6, the company’s authorized capital remained at 1,000 UAH in the state registry.
Against this backdrop, the question arises as to how prepared a company with such indicators and resources is to manage an asset whose value, according to Radina’s estimate, is approximately 5 billion UAH. At the same time, the state expects dividends of nearly 1 billion UAH from the management of “Morshynska.”
Is there a competitor to “Morshynska” on the manager’s team?
Another concern involves Serhiy Herman, who has headed “Prioritas” since October. According to public records, he remains the director and co-owner of entities affiliated with “Rosinka,” a company that produces water and beverages and is a competitor of “Morshynska.”
At the time of “Prioritas”’s victory in the tender, Herman was a co-founder of “Rosinka” Trade and Production Group LLC. He has since left that company; however, according to Radina, he remains a co-founder of the company “GER,” which owns a stake in the “Rosinka” corporation.
Radina emphasizes that the law explicitly prohibits competitors from managing seized assets. The reason for this restriction is that the administrator gains access to sensitive commercial information, particularly regarding contracts, clients, and the distribution system.
According to the lawmaker, this is precisely why the situation with Herman could create a conflict of interest and raise questions about compliance with the law. She also suggests that appointing him as director may have been a way to formally circumvent the ban on competitors’ participation in asset management.
What Happened with the October Palace
Separately, Radina links “Prioritas” to the history of the management of the October Palace in Kyiv.
According to her, the owner of “Prioritas” also heads a law firm with the same name. According to ARMA documents, she was the one who, acting under a power of attorney, signed management agreements between ARMA and the company “Kombinat Plus,” to which the October Palace was transferred for management in July 2025. In August 2026, the building was returned to the state.
Radina claims that the manager subleased the October Palace to companies that, according to her, were established on the same day. Moreover, the founders and employees of these companies included, among others, the co-founders of “Prioritas” itself, its employees, and their relatives. In one instance, she says, the subleasee’s registered address was identical to that of “Prioritas.”
According to the lawmaker, as a result, a significant portion of the revenue from the October Palace’s operations may have remained with private companies affiliated with “Prioritas,” while the state received only minimal guaranteed payments.
At the same time, Radina specifically emphasizes that this is her reasonable assumption. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) is investigating the circumstances, and it is up to the investigation to determine whether there were signs of a crime in this scheme.
What Will Happen to “Morshynska”
Currently, the transfer of the “Prioritas” asset is blocked: a court in Dnipro, acting on a lawsuit filed by another bidder, has prohibited ARMA from signing the relevant agreement.
A separate issue remains regarding the valuation of “Morshynska’s” seized corporate rights. According to Radina, the need for such a valuation had been raised previously, but ARMA failed to comply with the relevant legal requirement.
Thus, the transfer of the asset has not yet taken place, and the questions regarding the tender winner cover several aspects—from documentation and proof of experience to a potential conflict of interest and prior experience in managing state property.
This case has revealed a number of problems in ARMA’s handling of seized assets; therefore, the Committee has initiated a series of measures to address them and establish an effective process for generating budget revenue from the management of such assets.
This was reported with reference to a statement by Anastasia Radina, a member of the Verkhovna Rada and chair of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy.
The new administrator of Morshynska has announced a full audit of the company’s assets.
On September 23, the ARMA commission appointed a manager for the corporate rights of the IDS Ukraine group, which includes the “Morshynska” and “Mirgorodska” brands. The law firm “Prioritas” won the tender.
Previously, ARMA had rejected the winning bidder for the management of “Morshynska.”
ARMA explains that transferring seized assets to a manager is necessary to ensure they do not lose their value and can operate in the state’s best interests. In the case of “Mozart,” the goal is to maintain the operation of the existing hotel and restaurant complex and generate revenue from its activities. This was reported by ARMA’s press service.
