Address change and bankruptcy: what happened to the plant linked to the Suprunenko brothers and Yaroshenko

The metallurgical enterprise, previously known as the Brovary Aluminium Plant, has found itself at the centre of a series of legal and financial changes. The structure, owned by one of the Suprunenko brothers and Kyiv City Council MP Roman Yaroshenko, changed its legal address and name within a few months and became a party to a bankruptcy case. A notable feature of the situation is that the initiator of the procedure is a company whose head is also within the orbit of the Suprunenko corporate interests.

These transformations took place against the backdrop of an investigation by the Bureau of Economic Security (BES), which conducted searches at the enterprise in July 2026 on suspicion of tax evasion.

Move to Zhytomyr Oblast and change of status

On 29 May 2026, LLC "Brovary Aluminium Plant" officially changed its place of registration. Instead of an address in Brovary (30/1 Independence Avenue), the enterprise moved its legal address to the city of Korosten in Zhytomyr Oblast (18 Bohdan Khmelnytsky Street). This action had significant procedural importance: the jurisdiction for future cases transferred to the Commercial Court of Zhytomyr Oblast.

Two months later, on 3 August, the company changed its name to LLC "Profhimtrade". The Unified State Register of Legal Entities code (38108144) remained unchanged, confirming the identity of the legal entity.

The chronology of events indicates rapid preparation for court proceedings. As early as 5 June, a week after the address change, arbitration administrator Ihor Harashchenko dated an application for participation in the future bankruptcy case. On 4 August, LLC "VERMONT INVEST" filed an application to open insolvency proceedings against "Profhimtrade". The document reached the Commercial Court of Zhytomyr Oblast the next day, and on 13 August it was accepted for consideration.

According to the materials of case No. 906/963/26, the enterprise's total creditor debt exceeded UAH 9 million. At the same time, court documents state that there is no debt regarding the payment of taxes, fees, or wages.

Creditor's ties to the business group

Attention is drawn to the person who initiated the bankruptcy. LLC "VERMONT INVEST" changed its head in May 2025. It became Mykhailo Pyrotskyi. He is also the beneficiary of LLC "BUDPROMEKSPLOATATSIYA", which analytical systems attribute to the Suprunenko corporate group.

The debtor's ownership structure also has interesting details. The sole participant of LLC "Profhimtrade" is the Cypriot company ALUMETA LTD (100% share). Kyiv City Council MP Roman Yaroshenko declared rights in another Cypriot structure — ALUMETA GROUP LTD. Both companies are linked to the city of Limassol.

Thus, an intersection of interests is traceable: the head of a company from the Suprunenko business orbit initiates the bankruptcy of another company from the same orbit. It is worth recalling that the metallurgical plant in Brovary belongs to LLC "BRAZ" and LLC "ALTEG". One of the ultimate beneficial owners of both structures is Roman Yaroshenko, and co-owner of LLC "BRAZ" is also Vyacheslav Suprunenko.

Context of the BES investigation

The bankruptcy is unfolding against the backdrop of a criminal case opened by the BES. In early July 2026, law enforcement officers conducted searches on the territory of the plant, linked to LLC "ALTEG" and LLC "BRAZ", for two days.

According to the publication "Ekonomichna Pravda", among the alleged organisers of the tax evasion scheme were named Roman Yaroshenko, former MP Andriy Zaiets, and brothers Vyacheslav and Oleksandr Suprunenko. According to sources, these individuals may have used a network of enterprises for fictitious operations, trading unaccounted scrap metal, and siphoning funds through "ASVIO BANK". The estimated budget losses from underreporting taxes amount to over UAH 32.4 million.

All registration changes and the initiation of bankruptcy took place during a period of intensified investigative actions. Although a direct evidentiary link between the tax investigation and the bankruptcy of "Profhimtrade" has not yet been proven, the coincidence in time creates grounds for further scrutiny.

Conclusions

The sequence of events — the change of address, the rapid appointment of an arbitration administrator, the renaming, and the initiation of bankruptcy by a related party — raises questions about the objectives of these actions. Open documents do not provide a definitive answer as to whether this is a coincidence or an element of a pre-coordinated strategy.

Key questions remain regarding the actual financial state of the enterprise, the origin of the debt, and the role of affiliated companies. Further investigation is necessary to establish whether the bankruptcy is a consequence of insolvency or part of a broader scheme of corporate decisions.