The struggle for one of the most profitable Ukrainian steel mill Mittal Steel Kryviy Rih (ex-Kryvorizhstal) may be starting again with new government elected in
Ukraine.
In early 2005 Ukrainian court ruled out the sale of Kryvorizhstal to a consortium led by Viktor Pinchuk and Rinat Akhmetov as illegal and resold it to the world's largest steel maker Mittal Steel in October of 2005. The sale of Kryvorizhstal was considered as the main success of the ’Orange government' policy of re-privatization directed toward a number of strategic industrial enterprises. After the acquisition of the plant for more than any bidder could offer, Mittal Steel renamed the mill as Mittal Steel Kriviy Rih early this year. Regardless the court decision and resale of the mill, Mr. Pinckuk and Mr. Akhmetov continued to insist that they own the plant.
The conflict over ex-Kryvorizhstal, which was temporarily out of stage after the sale of the mill to Mittal Steel, was brought up again in January this year by the State Property Fund of
Ukraine (SPFU). The SPFU, the privatization body, which supervised the resale of the mill threatened Mittal Steel to renounce the sale due to non-fulfillment of purchase's obligations, such as raising the wages, outlined in the contact. When Mittal Steel had refuted the claims, the head of the SPFU, Valentyna Semenyuk officially declared in May of the current year that there were several domestic and foreign investors who were prepared to pay higher price for the mill and the government was ready to hold yet another tender to resale ex-Kryvorizhstal unless Mittal Steel would raise salaries. Later that month Mittal Steel announced that it fulfilled all obligations regarding the wage raise, and the conflict seemed to be solved.
However the struggle for the mill heated up again when the Party of Regions established dominance in Ukrainian Parliament early this month. With this development at the beginning of August two events happened which may affect the future of ex-Kryvorizhstal. First of all, the SPFU appealed to Ukrainian Trade and Industry Court to investigate whether or not Mittal Steel had fulfilled its obligations with regard to purchase of Kryvorizhstal and asked to reverse the sale agreement in the case of the court's determination of non-fulfillment. Second, the ex-owner of the mill, Mr. Akhmetov threatened to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to overrule Ukrainian court decision that canceled his ownership of the mill. The favorite decision of the EU court would have the same affect as that of Ukrainian Trade and Industry Court - that is the renouncement of Mittal Steel ownership of Kryvorizhstal.
By returning to the original question of whether or not Kryvorizhstal can be re-privatized again, those two significant events' outcome would be able to definitely answer it.