Ukraine Water Firm Ownership Dispute

Published: 07 September 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A growing legal and corporate dispute in Ukraine has drawn a British theatre producer and her billionaire family into a battle over one of the country’s largest bottled-water businesses, as Ukrainian authorities move to take control of assets linked to Russian investors.

At the centre of the dispute is IDS Ukraine, a major producer of bottled drinking water whose brands are widely known across the country. The company is jointly owned by several investors, including a 34% stake held by the family of the late Georgian-born businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili and a 49% interest connected to Russian investors, including billionaire Mikhail Fridman, who is subject to Western sanctions over his links to the Russian political establishment.

Ukrainian authorities froze the company’s corporate holdings in 2022 following Russia’s full-scale invasion, placing the business under scrutiny because of its Russian-linked ownership. Since then, Ukraine’s Asset Recovery and Management Agency, known as Arma, has been attempting to establish independent management of the company while legal proceedings continue over the future of its ownership.

The dispute has placed Liana Patarkatsishvili, a member of the billionaire family who has also developed a career in British theatre production, in an increasingly complicated position. Her family says it has supported Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion and argues that Ukrainian authorities have no legitimate basis for taking assets belonging to shareholders who are not themselves sanctioned.

The family inherited its interest in IDS Ukraine after Badri Patarkatsishvili died in 2008. Patarkatsishvili, who had built a substantial fortune during the economic upheaval that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, moved to Britain shortly before his death at the age of 52. His fortune was estimated at billions of pounds.

The family’s involvement in the water company has now become the subject of proceedings before Ukraine’s anti-corruption courts and administrative authorities. Ukrainian officials argue that IDS Ukraine represents a strategically important asset during wartime and that its ownership structure requires state intervention because of the company’s connection to Russian capital.

Arma chief Yaroslava Maksymenko has said the agency has encountered repeated legal and bureaucratic difficulties while attempting to assume control and appoint independent management. According to the agency, some shareholders have resisted efforts to transfer effective control of their interests, creating further obstacles to the process.

The agency has also said it experienced a cyberattack during one attempt to identify an independent manager for IDS Ukraine. However, there is no evidence establishing who was behind the attack, and the Patarkatsishvili family has not been accused of involvement.

Another point of contention concerns allegations raised by Arma about the potential misuse of the company’s assets. Maksymenko has expressed concerns about possible money laundering and the extraction of value from IDS Ukraine if the company remains under its existing management. Importantly, however, Ukrainian authorities have not publicly established that such criminal activity has taken place.

The Patarkatsishvili family’s investment vehicle, New World Value Fund Limited, has challenged the conduct of Ukrainian officials and has raised allegations concerning the legality of some actions taken by Arma. Maksymenko has rejected those claims as unfounded and described them as misinformation.

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau is continuing to examine allegations concerning possible unlawful conduct by officials. The ongoing investigation adds another layer to a dispute already involving asset-management decisions, sanctions policy, corporate ownership and wartime national-security considerations.

For the Patarkatsishvili family, the central issue is whether a shareholder that is not sanctioned and has not been accused of wrongdoing can legally lose its property simply because it shares ownership of an enterprise with investors facing sanctions.

A spokesperson for the family said it believed Ukrainian authorities were unfairly targeting the family’s interests and maintained that assets belonging to non-sanctioned shareholders should not be confiscated without specific allegations or evidence against them.

The family has also indicated that it is prepared to pursue the dispute beyond Ukraine’s domestic legal system. If Ukrainian proceedings ultimately result in the loss of its stake, representatives have said they could seek remedies through international courts.

The case highlights one of the most difficult legal questions created by Russia’s war against Ukraine: how governments can remove Russian-linked economic influence without violating the property rights of other investors who may have no direct connection to the Russian state.

Since Russia’s invasion began, Ukraine has taken increasingly forceful steps to identify, freeze and potentially transfer assets associated with sanctioned Russian individuals and businesses. The government has argued that such measures are necessary to protect national interests, prevent Russian capital from benefiting from the Ukrainian economy and strengthen the country’s ability to withstand the war.

At the same time, corporate disputes involving mixed ownership structures can be legally complex. Companies may have shareholders from several jurisdictions, with some investors subject to sanctions while others are not. Determining whether an entire company should be placed under state control can therefore become a matter of prolonged litigation.

IDS Ukraine has rejected allegations that its operations have involved money laundering, illegal transfers of funds or other financial misconduct. The company says it has continued operating under Ukrainian law and that no competent Ukrainian state authority has established evidence of such activity.

The company has also stressed its role in supplying drinking water to Ukrainian consumers throughout the war. According to its representatives, production and distribution continued without interruption despite missile and drone attacks across the country.

That argument is significant because bottled water is not simply another commercial product in a country experiencing prolonged war. Maintaining reliable access to drinking water has become an important part of civilian resilience, particularly when infrastructure, electricity and supply chains are repeatedly exposed to military attacks.

The company therefore occupies an unusual position: it is both a significant commercial enterprise caught in a dispute over ownership and a business providing an essential consumer product during a national emergency.

The Patarkatsishvili family’s wider activities have also brought renewed public attention to the dispute in Britain. Liana Patarkatsishvili has been involved in theatre production and recently worked on an ambitious immersive production in London featuring actors Toby Jones and Meera Syal. Her involvement in the arts contrasts sharply with the legal and geopolitical controversy now surrounding her family’s Ukrainian investment.

The family’s wider business and property interests have previously attracted public attention in Britain, but the dispute over IDS Ukraine carries considerably greater geopolitical significance because of the company’s Russian-linked ownership and the Ukrainian state’s attempt to reshape control over strategic assets during wartime.

For Ukrainian authorities, the issue is closely connected to national security and the wider effort to reduce Russian economic influence. For the Patarkatsishvili family, it is fundamentally a question of property rights and due process.

The outcome could have implications beyond a single bottled-water producer. If Ukraine succeeds in transferring ownership or control of assets partly held by non-sanctioned foreign investors, the case could become an important example of how wartime asset-recovery powers are applied to complex international corporate structures.

Conversely, if the courts reject the state’s attempt to take control, investors may view the decision as an important safeguard for property rights in Ukraine during wartime.

For now, the future of IDS Ukraine remains tied to ongoing legal proceedings and the government’s efforts to place the company under independent management. Neither side appears ready to retreat. The Patarkatsishvili family has signalled that it will continue challenging the process, while Ukrainian authorities maintain that protecting national interests and preventing the potential misuse of strategic assets justify their intervention.

As the legal battle continues, the dispute illustrates the difficult balance Ukraine faces between defending its sovereignty in wartime and maintaining the legal protections expected by domestic and international investors. The final decisions could determine not only who controls a major source of drinking water but also how Ukraine handles contested assets in an economy transformed by war and sanctions.