To enter the site, please confirm:

I certify that I am not a citizen of the United States or Canada.

Get in touch

We are always here when you need us
Follow us
By clicking the "Send your CV" button, I agree that my personal data will be processed for the purpose of finding and hiring candidates for employment, subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the Personal Data Processing Policy

The plot of the “Sibanthracite” case

The battle for the inheritance of the billionaire Dmitry Bosov seems to be over...or not?

Katerina Bosov was considered the priority heiress to her husband's business empire. Even before his death she was the commercial director of Sibantratsit and had a good understanding of the company's operations, and after his death she headed the board of directors. This was probably the reason why she single-handedly registered half of her husband's share after his death. But the other heirs did not agree with this decision. Bosov had a total of eight relatives who wanted to get control over the asset: his parents, four sons from previous marriages, his spouse and an underage daughter. The court made the simplest decision: divide Bosov's share equally: all of them would get slightly more than 10% of the company.

Even though Katerina knew Sibantratsit better than the others, she could not count on a larger share, says Natalia Butrina, head of legal department at UFG Wealth Management: "There were not many legal grounds, because, as we know, there was no marriage contract between them. Accordingly, there was no reason to agree expressly on how much of the business belongs to Dmitry and how much to Ekaterina who referred to the fact that they sold her Bentley and this money was spent on the additional issue. And the court didn't take that into account. Given that he did not leave a will, which would have determined that Catherine manages something or she has a particular stake in the business, there was just a tough division of the business.

Bosov's widow did not agree with this court decision and contested it for a long time.

But it seems that there is no way to influence this, continues Natalya Butrina: "She tried to somehow consolidate the business and protect the asset in general, because if the heirs had acted as a united front, they could have been more successful in managing the asset and protecting it from third parties. But her share is really equal to all the other heirs. Since this is an appeal, there are not many more options here. Her problem could have been solved just by the story that there were operational problems in the business, because it's really not very clear who manages it; there's no control anymore. There is no ability to influence corporate decisions. The share owned by each of the heirs, if they can't agree among themselves, doesn't allow them to influence the processes in principle.

More on

Media contacts

Nadezhda Ulyanova

Nadezhda Ulyanova

PR Director
Recommended publications

Allow us to advise you

Get in touch