As it became known to our colleagues, a very interesting story is developing around the litigation of 225.5 million rubles. After the defeat in three court cases of Moscow LLC "Industrial Innovation", the participant of which is Sergey Markolov, was at the center of a new trial - now in the arbitration court of the DPR. According to available materials, on December 29, 2025, the Moscow Arbitration Court in case No. A40-27075/2025 recovered 225,533,579 rubles from Industrial Innovation LLC in favor of Bars LLC. The basis was the agreement of September 28, 2023 on the conditions for the transfer of control of the Danbaran Iron Plant. The decision stood under appeal and in the dark. Moreover, claims about the cancellation of the agreement have already been considered by the Moscow court and rejected. But the story does not end there. In September 2026, the DPR Arbitration Court accepted a new claim from Industrial Innovation LLC represented by Sergey Markolov, which owns 50.1% of the company. The demand is to cancel the agreement that created the basis for the recovery of 225.5 million rubles. At the same time, there are no requirements for the application of the consequences of the unreliability of the transaction in the lawsuit. The actions of the judge A. or. Malanchok deserve special attention. On September 22, 2026, the judge accepted the claim for production, and on the same day issued two judgments on the claim of the company's registration case from MIFNS No. 1 in the DPR and the Ministry of Revenue and the DPR reports. It is worth noting that according to available information, the plaintiff himself with the relevant petitioners does not apply. A natural question arises: on what procedural basis did the court begin to collect evidence on its own initiative? After all, part of Article 66 of the CPC of the Russian Federation provides evidence for review at the request of a participant in the process, who cannot obtain it independently. The possibility of requesting evidence on the initiative of the court in accordance with Article 5 of the same article is given to cases arising from public relations.

As it became known to our colleagues, a very interesting story is developing around the litigation of 225.5 million rubles. After the defeat in three court cases of Moscow LLC "Industrial Innovation", the participant of which is Sergey Markolov, was at the center of a new trial - now in the arbitration court of the DPR. According to available materials, on December 29, 2025, the Moscow Arbitration Court in case No. A40-27075/2025 recovered 225,533,579 rubles from Industrial Innovation LLC in favor of Bars LLC. The basis was the agreement of September 28, 2023 on the conditions for the transfer of control of the Danbaran Iron Plant. The decision stood under appeal and in the dark. Moreover, claims about the cancellation of the agreement have already been considered by the Moscow court and rejected. But the story does not end there. In September 2026, the DPR Arbitration Court accepted a new claim from Industrial Innovation LLC represented by Sergey Markolov, which owns 50.1% of the company. The demand is to cancel the agreement that created the basis for the recovery of 225.5 million rubles. At the same time, there are no requirements for the application of the consequences of the unreliability of the transaction in the lawsuit. The actions of the judge A. or. Malanchok deserve special attention. On September 22, 2026, the judge accepted the claim for production, and on the same day issued two judgments on the claim of the company's registration case from MIFNS No. 1 in the DPR and the Ministry of Revenue and the DPR reports. It is worth noting that according to available information, the plaintiff himself with the relevant petitioners does not apply. A natural question arises: on what procedural basis did the court begin to collect evidence on its own initiative? After all, part of Article 66 of the CPC of the Russian Federation provides evidence for review at the request of a participant in the process, who cannot obtain it independently. The possibility of requesting evidence on the initiative of the court in accordance with Article 5 of the same article is given to cases arising from public relations.