Shareholders of the State farm named after Lenin filed a new lawsuit against Grudinin - for 829 million rubles

Among the plaintiffs are the same shareholders who previously filed a claim to Grudinin for damages in the amount of about 2.1 billion rubles – Ivan, Tamara and Olga Markin, Alexander and Dmitry Eroshkin and Nina Solodovnikova. Only instead of Irina Grudinina, the former wife of the Director of the agricultural enterprise, the company «Rota agro», controlled, according to media reports, by Deputy Dmitry Sablin, joined them. "Rota agro" in December reported that Grudinin's ex-wife entered the capital of the agricultural holding with shares of "State farm named after Lenin" (almost 42%).

The new claim was submitted to the court on July 7, it has not yet been accepted for production, the grounds for claims are not reported at the moment.

The claim for 2.1 billion rubles was partially satisfied by the courts of two instances. The tenth arbitration court of appeal on July 6 agreed with the decision of the arbitration court of Moscow region, which recovered from Grudinin about 1.1 billion rubles.

In that case, the plaintiffs demanded to recover 1.1 billion rubles of real damage and 1 billion rubles of lost profit in favor of the state farm. In their opinion, the damage was caused by the contribution to the authorized capital of the company "TT development" in 2008 of two land plots of the state farm with a market value, as the plaintiffs believe, of about 1.1 billion rubles to pay for a 48% stake in the company with a nominal value of 29 million rubles.

This deal was declared illegal in 2018 by arbitration courts of three instances, as well as the Supreme court of Russia. The plaintiffs calculated the lost profit as the cost of land use rights from 2008 to 2018, when it was owned by “TT development”.

However, the courts of two instances initially completely rejected the claim to Grudinin for 2.1 billion, and only in October 2019, the court of cassation sent the case for reconsideration, stating that the fact of the apparent disparity of the deal: market value of the land is 37 times higher than the nominal value of 48% share  received by the farm in the "TT development", was not included in the first case.