RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
14/12/2025
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
14 December 
1970 The "Stalinskiy" anthem of the USSR was approved.
1970 the anthem of the USSR "Stalinskiy" was approved.
1970 The island of Crete was annexed by Greece.
1970 the island of Crete was annexed by Greece.
1970 The GUM shopping center was opened in Moscow
14 December
1970 The "Stalinskiy" anthem of the USSR was approved.
1970 the anthem of the USSR "Stalinskiy" was approved.
1970 The island of Crete was annexed by Greece.
1970 the island of Crete was annexed by Greece.
1970 The GUM shopping center was opened in Moscow
OZON DEMANDS 5.5 BILLION FROM THE DEVELOPER OF ITS BURNT-OUT WAREHOUSE IN ISTRA
Ozon, represented by the Internet Solutions company (LLC), appealed to the arbitration of the Moscow region with a statement against the developer who manages the warehouse in Istra, which was destroyed by fire several years ago. The marketplace requires Orientir Zapad-1 to provide financial compensation for fire losses in the amount of 5,494,390,812 rubles.
At the same time, the developer himself, who is part of the Orientir group of companies, considers the application to the court groundless. The organization refers to the results of the examination, which did not reveal its guilt in the incident.
The emergency at the warehouse, which occupied an area of 76 thousand square meters, happened in August 2022. The goods were insured by Ingosstrakh for 11 billion rubles. However, despite the payment of insurance compensation in the amount of 6.4 billion, Ozon considered the amount insufficient, estimating the damage at 10.8 billion. The company demanded that the owner of the premises refund the remaining losses.
The firm has twice sued the defendant. The first time this happened was on February 5, 2025 (case no. A41-8388/2025). The Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region returned the application to the plaintiff, refusing the request for a delay in payment of the state fee. The arbitration judge Galina Garkushova referred in the ruling to the fact that Ozon had not provided evidence that the fee (10 million) was a significant amount and the company's representative could not pay it. The court also took into account that the plaintiff is a professional participant in intellectual property protection disputes.
Then, on February 6, the organization filed a lawsuit with the court again. The arbitration judge Inga Leles dismissed the claim (case no. A41-8695/2025). Thus, the parties to the conflict continue to argue about the causes of the fire.
The developer claims that the examination conducted in the framework of the criminal case showed no violations on his part. The causes of the fire were not related to the shortcomings of fire protection systems. But experts point out that problems with the fire protection system in the warehouse could have affected the scale of the damage. Based on the data of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, several fire fighting compartments did not fulfill their function, and the water supply for extinguishing the fire was in poor condition.
In the fall of 2024, the developer also filed a lawsuit against the marketplace in the amount of 3.7 billion, citing the costs of repairing the damaged warehouse (case no.A40-221245/2024). The court rejected it in January 2025, as the safety violations were considered insignificant, and the deadline for fixing the problems expired before the fire started. Thus, the lawsuit considers not only issues of compensation for losses, but also a possible violation of the terms of the lease agreement and security requirements.
Experts believe that the final decision will depend on whether Ozon can prove Landmark's guilt in the incident and justify the amount of damage that was not covered by insurance. The possibility of an out-of-court settlement of the dispute is also considered as the most likely way to resolve the conflict.
At the same time, the developer himself, who is part of the Orientir group of companies, considers the application to the court groundless. The organization refers to the results of the examination, which did not reveal its guilt in the incident.
The emergency at the warehouse, which occupied an area of 76 thousand square meters, happened in August 2022. The goods were insured by Ingosstrakh for 11 billion rubles. However, despite the payment of insurance compensation in the amount of 6.4 billion, Ozon considered the amount insufficient, estimating the damage at 10.8 billion. The company demanded that the owner of the premises refund the remaining losses.
The firm has twice sued the defendant. The first time this happened was on February 5, 2025 (case no. A41-8388/2025). The Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region returned the application to the plaintiff, refusing the request for a delay in payment of the state fee. The arbitration judge Galina Garkushova referred in the ruling to the fact that Ozon had not provided evidence that the fee (10 million) was a significant amount and the company's representative could not pay it. The court also took into account that the plaintiff is a professional participant in intellectual property protection disputes.
Then, on February 6, the organization filed a lawsuit with the court again. The arbitration judge Inga Leles dismissed the claim (case no. A41-8695/2025). Thus, the parties to the conflict continue to argue about the causes of the fire.
The developer claims that the examination conducted in the framework of the criminal case showed no violations on his part. The causes of the fire were not related to the shortcomings of fire protection systems. But experts point out that problems with the fire protection system in the warehouse could have affected the scale of the damage. Based on the data of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, several fire fighting compartments did not fulfill their function, and the water supply for extinguishing the fire was in poor condition.
In the fall of 2024, the developer also filed a lawsuit against the marketplace in the amount of 3.7 billion, citing the costs of repairing the damaged warehouse (case no.A40-221245/2024). The court rejected it in January 2025, as the safety violations were considered insignificant, and the deadline for fixing the problems expired before the fire started. Thus, the lawsuit considers not only issues of compensation for losses, but also a possible violation of the terms of the lease agreement and security requirements.
Experts believe that the final decision will depend on whether Ozon can prove Landmark's guilt in the incident and justify the amount of damage that was not covered by insurance. The possibility of an out-of-court settlement of the dispute is also considered as the most likely way to resolve the conflict.
11.02.2025
