15.06.2026
Dear friends,
I would like to provide an update on the situation regarding my dismissal from the position of an independent member of the Supervisory Board of Ukrainian Distribution Grids (UDG) JSC.
As you may know, the decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv, which was upheld by the Northern Appellate Commercial Court on May 26, 2026, invalidated the decision of the sole shareholder of UDG JSC – the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine, issued as Order No. 505 on December 9, 2025, regarding the termination of my powers as an independent member of the Supervisory Board.
After the court decision entered into legal force, my representative appealed to the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine with a request to execute the court ruling and account for its legal consequences.
In response, the Ministry stated that, in its opinion, the court merely invalidated the shareholder’s decision but did not oblige the Ministry or UDG JSC to take specific actions to reinstate my powers or restore the civil-law agreement.
I consider this position legally incorrect and inconsistent with the substance of the court decision.
The court did not grant certain claims regarding reinstatement and restoration of the civil-law agreement. However, it is important to understand why. The court did not refuse these claims because it found no grounds to restore my legal status. On the contrary, the court explicitly stated that declaring Order No. 505 invalid is an independent and effective method of protection that leads to the restoration of my rights.
Moreover, the court ruling explicitly states that the consequence of invalidating Order No. 505 is that it carries no legal effect from the moment of its issuance, and therefore, it does not terminate my powers as a member of the Supervisory Board nor the agreement concluded between me and UDG JSC.
This conclusion is the key point.
Therefore, any attempt to reduce the court’s decision merely to the formal fact of “invalidating the order” while ignoring its legal consequences is a misinterpretation of the judicial act.
This is not about a personal dispute over a position. This is about a matter of principle: whether state authorities and state-owned companies can execute court decisions purely formally, ignoring their content and the reasoning behind them.
If the court has established that the decision to terminate the powers of an independent member of the Supervisory Board is invalid and creates no legal consequences, then the state shareholder and the company cannot continue to act as if this decision remains in effect.
This story once again demonstrates how critical real, rather than declarative, corporate governance is in the state energy sector. The independence of supervisory boards, legal certainty, respect for procedures, and compliance with court decisions are not mere formalities. They are the foundation of trust in state companies, the institution of independent directors, and the state as a shareholder.
I continue to act exclusively within the legal framework. My position remains unchanged: the decision to terminate my powers was made in violation of the law, a fact already confirmed by courts of two instances.
The further actions of my representatives will be aimed at ensuring that the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine and Ukrainian Distribution Grids JSC not only formally acknowledge the court decision but also address its real legal consequences.
For me, this case remains a matter not only of personal reputation but also of corporate governance standards in the Ukrainian energy sector.
Moving forward.
