AfterMiramistin

Part I. Before Miramistin: Family lineage and memory

1. Why this story should start with ancestors

When I first collected material about the conflict around business, it seemed natural to me to start in 2024: with letters, power of attorney, contracts, IP, and people who at some point had lost the same understanding of who had the right to make decisions, but that was a very late point of reference, and if the book is intended for posterity, it should start not with a crisis, but with something that existed long before it.

In 2019, I commissioned a separate genealogical examination, working with parish registers, registry offices, court and military documents, family photos and interviews with relatives, and it turned out that the familiar name hides a much longer geography: the Urals Koltashi and Rezh, Crimean villages, Ryazan province, Kazakhstan, Norilsk, Moscow, and then Vienna and other cities in Europe.

It changed my perspective on my own history, and I saw that the ability of a family to start over didn't come about in the nineties. Before us, there were people who lost their lives to war, went to mines and big construction sites, changed professions, experienced political upheavals, and built from scratch again, and in this context, the Miramistin business is not a miracle, but an extension of a much older family habit of moving on when the old structure stops working.

So the first part of this book is not a genealogical catalog; it's an attempt to understand inheritance beyond property: what exactly is passed down between generations when property can disappear, a company can change ownership, and relationships can collapse? The answer I came to is that there are ways to respond to uncertainty, attitudes to work, to risk, to education, to power and to family.

Direct family line reconstructed in the 2019 study

Ivan Ivanovich → Ivan Alexeyevich → Yuri Ivanovich → Andrey Yuryevich → Evgeny Andreyevich →

Generation – Name and Years – Key Context

I – Ivan Vasilyevich Gorokhov – Peasant of the village of Koltashi, Yekaterinburg district of the Perm province.

II – Alexey Ivanovich (1885 – World War I) – Worked in logging; was mobilized into the tsarist army and died in the war.

III - Ivan Alexeyevich (1912-1978) - People's Judge, military lawyer, investigator SMERSH; front-line soldier.

IV – Yuri Ivanovich (1934-2016) – mine surveyor and builder; Karaganda, Magadan, Norilsk, Vladivostok, Crimea.

V – Andrey Yuryevich (born 1960) – Engineer, entrepreneur, one of the key organizers of Miramistin’s introduction to the market and creation of the production circuit.

VI – Evgeny Andreyevich (born 1981) – Legal and international direction of family business; continuation of the line in a transnational context.

2. Koltashi and Rezh: The starting point

A family study draws a direct line of Gorokhovs to the village of Koltashi in the Yekaterinburg district of Perm province, today the territory of the Rezhevsk urban district of the Sverdlovsk region, an important point not because it can be romanticized as a “family nest”, but because it is there that the name ceases to be an abstraction and turns into specific people recorded in parish registers.

The study provided several possible explanations for the origin of the Gorokhov family, from the mundane name Pea to a nickname associated with occupation or household peculiarity. For me, the most important thing is not etymology, but the environment. Rezhev land was formed on the border of agriculture, forestry, mining and the Ural industry. In the vicinity, people for whom manual labor, metal, forest and road were not metaphors, but everyday life.

In the documents, the first direct ancestor, designated Generation I, is Ivan Vasilyevich Gorokhov, a peasant from the village of Koltashi. His wife is Anna Grigorievna. The date of their lives has not been determined by research. And there is an important lesson in family memory: the lineage is always made up of not only what we find, but also voids. The further away a generation is, the less human voice remains and the more we have to work with indirect traces.

I often think that in the family business, we've treated documents almost the opposite way: we felt that today's conversations and agreements were so obvious that they could not be recorded in detail. The lineage teaches the opposite: if something is not recorded, after two generations, even the most important human history turns into a few lines between dates.

3. Alexey Ivanovich: The war that ended a generation

Ivan Vasilyevich's son was Alexey Ivanovich Gorokhov, born on March 13, 1885 in Koltashi, who was baptized the next day in the church of Cheremisskoye village, and in 1911 he married Glykeria, whom the family called Lukeria, Ivanovna Ushakova, a soldier's daughter from Cheremisskoye.

From their son's personal file, it is known that Alexey Ivanovich worked for logging contractors, then World War I came, he was mobilized into the Tsarist army and never returned, the exact date of death in the study is not established; the family painting gives an interval of 1914-1918.

After his death, Lukeria Ivanovna stayed with her children and later married a second time, and archival records state that she worked “for hire from local kulaks”; in recent years, she was cared for by her son Ivan, and was remembered in the family as “grandmother Lusha”.

For me, this short biography is important because of how little choice it has in the modern sense: work, war, death, the need for a mother to rebuild her life alone. Sometimes, as entrepreneurs of another time, we perceive risk as our own decision: to start a project, to borrow money, to go to a new country. For previous generations, risk often came from outside and did not ask for consent.

4. Ivan Alexeyevich: Judge, war and a difficult character

Ivan Alexeyevich Gorokhov was born in September 1912 into a family of a resident of Koltashi, and in his own documents he named the birthplace of Cheremisskoye; researchers on parish registers identified Koltashi, and even his date of birth exists in two calendar versions: September 13 in the old style and September 27 in later documents.

His family was poor, his profession was not inherited, he enrolled in the Rezhevsk vocational school after elementary school to study locksmithing, but he could not complete his studies due to lack of money, worked in the household of his mother and stepfather, then was nominated by Komsomol as a village council clerk, worked in the savings and finance department, and as a young man, his path passed through documents, money and state institutions.

In the 1930s, he entered the justice system: a court clerk, a notary, then a people's judge; in 1939, he was characterized as a person who was competent in writing court papers and conscientious in his work, and it's almost strange to read decades later, knowing how much the courts and documents would play in my own life.

In August 1941, he was drafted into the army, served as secretary of a military tribunal, then a member of a military tribunal, trained as a military lawyer, in 1943, was appointed senior investigator of the SMERSH counterintelligence department of the 135th Rifle Division, and on May 9, 1945, became chief of the investigative department, among his awards are the Medal for Courage, the Order of the Red Star, the Order of the Patriotic War II degree and the Medal for Victory over Germany.

Andrey Yuryevich recalled that, of all the awards, his grandfather especially appreciated the Courage Medal and hardly talked about war, and Victory Day kept him silent, one of those touches that no official questionnaire can replace.

After the war, life did not turn into a straight career line. Ivan Alexeyevich worked as a judge again, then changed very different professions: he ran a subsidiary farm, worked in a nickel factory, in an artel, in a timber industry, in the 1960s, the family moved from Rezh to Sverdlovsk, and his relatives remembered him as a tough man.

In a family, toughness is sometimes seen as strength, and as I get older, it's ambivalent, it helps with war and crisis, but it can make it harder to talk to loved ones, and I think in every generation, we have to re-decide where hardness protects family and where it begins to destroy our ability to hear each other.

5. Yuri Ivanovich: The geography of work

Yuri Ivanovich Gorokhov was born on January 15, 1934, in Rezh, a young boxer, graduated from the Sverdlovsk Mining and Metallurgical College in 1952 and was sent to a mine in Karaganda region, and his career as a surveyor describes his character well: you need to see what is hidden underground, measure, compare and answer for accuracy where error can be expensive.

Then his biography becomes almost a map of the Soviet Union: the Gulshad mine, the army, the construction of the Urup copper mining and processing plant, the Magadan region, Norilsk, Vladivostok, Crimea, again Norilsk. He worked as a chief surveyor, foreman, site manager, for his work received the Order of the Badge of Honor, medals, the title of veteran of labor.

His wife, Elena Evgenyevna Globina, was born in 1937 in Crimea, and through her direct family history includes the Crimean branches of Globiny and Goncharenko, so the family map connects the Urals and Crimea long before my generation was living between several countries at once.

Yuri Ivanovich retired in 1984, but continued to work as a taxi driver, moving to Moscow with Elena Evgenyevna around 1997 to be closer to his son, a strict man with a wonderful sense of humor.

The study has a phrase that today sounds almost like a warning to the whole family: "We're family, and we only meet at funerals..." I come back to it especially after the events of recent years. The family is destroyed not only by high-profile conflict. Sometimes it just postpones the meeting, honest conversation and joint decision until it's too late for decades.

6. Andrey Yuryevich: From engineer to entrepreneur and Miramistin

Andrey Yuryevich was born on January 13, 1960 in the village of Gulshad, Karaganda region - already within the geography of work that his father chose. He became a master of sports in freestyle wrestling, graduated from Bauman MSTU with a degree in flight dynamics and control, served in the air defense forces, worked as an engineer and leader in the Soviet mechanical engineering system.

In 1990, he took over Mashcenter, a small state-owned enterprise, an era in which old institutions were disappearing faster than new rules were emerging: computer technology, water packaging, new commercial projects -- entrepreneurship rarely began with a perfect business plan, it began with the ability to see an opportunity and gather people around it.

In addition to his familiarity with the scientific development that Miramistin grew out of. A 2019 genealogical study describes the path of additional research and bringing the drug to the wide market as a process of about fifteen years. For the family, it was not a quick commercial project, but a long distance between scientific development, registration, production and market.

Later came teaching, doctoral thesis, banking experience, work in the Kaliningrad Regional Duma and regional development institutions, but for family history, the most tangible trace remains the industrial infrastructure created. In 2009, the company acquired land in Bagrationovsk; the plant and industrial park "Ecobaltik" were built almost from scratch, it was no longer a business of one product, but an attempt to create an industrial environment.

I grew up on this scale. It's very difficult for a son to separate a father as a person from a father as a source of business will. As long as the system works, family authority accelerates decisions: you don't have to design a complicated procedure every time, if everyone understands what the founder wanted, but in a crisis, the same construction becomes a vulnerability. What was yesterday's obvious family mandate, tomorrow you have to prove it with the protocol of a particular legal entity.

So this chapter, for me, is not just about Andrey Yuryevich's achievements, but it explains the origins of the management model that we later found ourselves in. Most of the business grew out of personal energy, the trust of partners and the ability to quickly connect science, production, law and finance. Corporate architecture evolved later and did not always keep pace with the real scale of the system.

7. The sons' generation: One business, different roles

In the next generation, family history is already becoming part of the story that I can tell in the first person. In the genealogical examination of 2019, Andrey Yuryevich's sons, Evgeny, Dmitry and Anton, are recorded; it also reflects the younger daughter Daria. By the time of the study, we had our own families and the next generation of children.

I was born in Moscow in 1981 and chose law and international business, and Dmitry, born in 1985, graduated in economics and management and was primarily in the financial circuit, and Anton was born in Vienna in 2003 and belongs to a generation for whom life between countries was not an exception, but an initial reality.

In a family business, different roles seem to be a natural advantage at first: one person deals with law and international relations, another with finance, a third eventually gets a formal title to a particular asset. If trust is high, the system works very quickly. Everyone knows more in their field, but believes that the common interest is clear to everyone.

Later, this specialization became one of the causes of information asymmetry: finance, law, production, property, and personal relationships were divided among different people. When trust began to decline, no one saw the system in the same way anymore, everyone had their own set of documents and their own understanding of what was decided "really."

It's not that separating functions was a mistake. It's another mistake: we didn't supplement it with a formal system of access to shared information and procedures that would work even in conflict situations. The family can afford different characters. The corporate system shouldn't allow different versions of the same solution.

8. Five family branches and one family map

The 2019 study was not limited to the Gorokhov name, it covered five branches: Gorokhovs, Chumichevs, Globins, Goncharenkos and Swistovs. For a family book, this is important, because the surname always creates the illusion of one straight line, although each person is the result of several stories.

The Gorokhovs in the study are tied to the village of Koltashi in the Rezhevsky district; the Chumichevs to the city of Rezh. Through Zoya Alexandrovna Chumichev, this branch entered the family of Ivan Alekseevich. The researchers managed to establish information about her birth, parents, brothers and sisters through the registry office and the State Archives of the Sverdlovsk region.

Globins and Goncharenko lead to Crimea, and the study points to the village of Mazanka for Globins and the village of Barabanovo for Goncharenko, working on parish registers and archival files, including the investigation of Nikolai Kharitonovich Goncharenko and the filtration case of Vladimir Evgenievich Globin.

According to Swistov, the study corrected the family tradition: the roots were associated with the Ryazan province, not with Kharkiv, as previously assumed, the birthplace of Tikhon Ilyich Swistov, information about his participation in the First World War and the Civil War and about his places of work. On a modern map, the starting point of this branch is Odoevshchina of the Dankiv district of the Lipetsk region.

I draw a simple conclusion from this map: the family has never been geographically stationary. The Urals, Crimea, Kazakhstan, the north, Moscow, Austria, the movement was constant. So the international life of our generation is not a break with the past. It has only taken on a different form: ancestors changed cities for the sake of mine, construction or service; we for business, education, law and security.

9. What is inherited besides property

After years of property disputes, the word inheritance can easily be reduced to assets: shares, real estate, trademark rights, contracts, money, but the pedigree I reread before this edition of the book makes you look a little bit wider.

From Ivan Alekseevich, the family business didn't get to us: character, photographs, a few documents, the memory of the war and the idea of discipline. From Yuri Ivanovich, not the mine, not the construction management, but the habit of labor, mobility and accuracy. Andrey Yuryevich created a material system that could be passed on, but precisely because the inheritance for the first time became so large and complex, it required rules that the family tradition did not know before.

I don't want posterity to read the chapters that follow and decide that the Gorokhov story is a story of corporate conflict, that it took a few years, that the genus lasted longer, that there was war, engineering, relocation, manufacturing, education of children, and that there must be life after that.

If this book really survives in the family, I'd like the pedigree to always be left before the legal one, not to justify anyone by referring to ancestors, but to get the scale right, and no argument should become a major family legacy.

That's why my main message for posterity now begins earlier than in the first version of the memoir: protect more than just property; protect the family's ability to hold a shared memory; otherwise, each conflict will begin with trying to explain anew who we are to each other.

Transition to business history

Then the book goes back to business, but now the participants of the events of 2024-2026 are not in the void: behind each are family roles, long-term relationships and their own ideas about what should have been preserved, it does not abolish legal issues, on the contrary, it helps to understand why the legal procedure was weaker than personal expectations.

Who is who in the business part of this story

Participant/Structure – Role in Narrative

Evgeny Gorokhov - Author; international, IP and management circuit; one of the main executors of restructuring.

Dmitri Gorokhov (GD) - Financial and governance-contour; its actual impact is one of the themes of reconstruction.

Anton Gorokhov – Formal owner and seller of Infamed K LLC in M&A 2025; active negotiator.

Andrey Gorokhov is one of the key family/proprietary centers; its will on individual decisions requires documentary delineation.

Vyacheslav Sidorov is a participant of the joint-stock and information circuit; he is documented involved in the creation of the UAE-structure.

Oksana Kirpenko and Adolina Rudko – Participant of the shareholder circuit; in September 2024 participated in attempts of collective discussion.

Megainpharm GmbH (MIF) is an Austrian company, the historical owner of a significant IP array.

Innovexa Holdings is an UAE-based company established in 2024 as an element of international/IP architecture.

Infamed K LLC is a key Russian production asset; sold in 2025.

NSP – External legal advisers who accompanied Evgeny Gorokhov and M&A circuit in 2024-2025.

Part II. Before everything became a business

10. Why I am writing this

So I started collecting this story as a defense, and it started with dates, letters, contracts and surnames, and it seemed that if you retrace each event to an hour, it would all fall into place: you could see who said what to whom, who signed the document, who changed their position, and when exactly the family dispute turned into a legal war, but the deeper I went into the archive, the clearer I saw that judicial chronology and human history were not the same thing.

The court needs an answer to a specific question: Was there authority? Was there approval? Who owned the asset at a certain date? Those questions matter to posterity, too, but it's more important for them to understand how we ended up in a world where relatives read old messages through lawyers, and familiar words — "family," "trust," "our business" — suddenly require a legal definition.

I'm not writing an indictment. I don't want to leave a list of enemies to my children and grandchildren. I want to leave them with the device of error. Big family conflicts rarely start with one malice. More often than not, the system lives on trust for years, distributes power informally, gets used to what people "understand," and then faces a situation for which it has no rules.

In this book, I'm going to speak in the first person and honestly separate what I saw from what I later learned from documents or heard from others. Some of my suspicions will remain suspicions until independent evidence is found. Some of the actions that I thought were obvious in 2024 look different two years later. That's OK. Memory should be able to correct itself with a document.

It's important for me not to justify every step of the way I've done it. I've been involved, I've made decisions and I've been wrong. But participation, initiative, power, decision-making and ultimate benefit are different things. Misunderstanding this difference has become one of the central themes of history. If the book has one goal, it's simple: to show how to keep a family close to a big business and human dignity when the business has failed.

11. Miramistin as a family system

Miramistin was more than a drug to us, and gradually grew a system around it: manufacturing, registration, marketing, international trademarks, contract sites, warehouses, legal entities in Russia and Austria, employees, consultants, doctors, distributors, and this system looked like a single organism, although it was never legally unified.

In Russia, there were Infamed K, Infamed, I-Pharm, Baltpharmaceutics, Aruna, and other companies, each with its own function and ownership. In Austria, Megainpharm GmbH owned a substantial amount of intellectual property. Production was in one place, rights were in another, registration certificates were in a third. Economically, we said "group." Legally, it was a network of independent entities.

As long as relationships work, the difference is almost imperceptible: you can call, negotiate, ask for a letter, ask for a general accountant or a lawyer to resolve the issue, the system is based on personal trust and a shared sense of purpose, and in good years, this model even seems faster than formal corporate governance.

The crisis has shown the opposite side: at the time of the dispute, the phrase "this is our common business" ceases to answer the question of who has the right to dispose of a particular trademark; the phrase "everyone agreed" does not replace the minutes of the meeting; the notion of "family share" does not coincide with the register of participants in a particular company; historical authority does not equal the powers of the director; financial influence can exist without an official position.

I realized this too late. We ran the complex international pharmaceutical business in much the same way as an extended system of personal relationships. I'm not saying that we didn't have documents. There were a lot of them. But documents often served a decision that people had already made, rather than creating a transparent procedure for making it.

For posterity, the first lesson is that the more expensive a family asset becomes, the less it should depend on family intuition. The higher the trust, the easier it is to sign a good shareholders agreement. Formalization does not destroy trust. It preserves it for the day when people are tired, resentful, scared, or just see the future differently.

12. My role and my vulnerability

I was very hands-on. Before becoming CEO, I acted as the shareholder representative for matters involving the legal department, IT, security, production, government relations in the Kaliningrad region and third-party projects. A great deal of information passed through me: international business, intellectual property, negotiations, external advisers, banking matters and development projects. From 1 July 2023 to 4 November 2024, I was CEO of the entire Infamed Group. Since 2013, I had also headed Megainpharm in Austria, where international studies of the medicine were conducted. My actual role was broader than my title: I translated family decisions into contracts, powers of attorney, registrations and negotiations. So when the formal structure began to change, I continued to see not separate papers but one long story. Ivan Kirichenko held a dual position: he owned a 17% stake in the Infamed Group and also worked in the business, heading its medical activities. According to my information, the overall shareholder map should also identify V. V. Svistov and Khugaeva as the owners of a 15% stake. This is one 15% holding, not 15% each; its formal allocation and the relevant legal entity should be checked against the register, without automatically attributing the stake to MIF.

And then I would spend hours looking through the correspondence, and I would see my name in hundreds of chains, and I would initiate a question, I would do an assignment, I would forward a document, I would argue with lawyers, I would sign on behalf of a company by proxy, and in a quiet life, it would feel like a job, and in a conflict, each file would become a separate statement of motive.

The easiest way to protect yourself after a conflict is to start downplaying your role, which I find wrong, and I don't want to tell posterity that I was a casual observer, and I was very much involved in the creation of the international business architecture and the restructuring of intellectual property, and I thought that was useful to the group, and I acted on the understanding of the mandate that I had then.

But over the years, I've learned to distinguish three things: one is execution authority: the right to execute and sign; the other is decision authority: the right to determine what to do with an asset; the third is corporate approval: the formal decision of a body of a particular legal entity; in a family business, these three levels often merge into one: "we have decided." In court, they diverge.

The signature shows the performer. It does not always show the author of an economic decision. The power of attorney indicates the authority to act on behalf of the company, but does not always answer the question of who approved a large or unusual transaction. The consent of people representing the economic majority of a group can be of great importance to understanding the context, but does not automatically replace the decision of Austrian society. Today I would require a written record not only of my action, but of the decision that preceded it.

12A. Team and results: 2023-2024

I led the entire Infamed Group from July 1, 2023 to November 4, 2024, so it is important to preserve not only the description of the conflict, but also the results of the team that worked under my leadership.

It's the input of people in manufacturing, finance, logistics, and other services, and my role as a leader does not negate their independent work and responsibility for the overall outcome. All the minimum KPIs set by shareholders have been met, and I've already made the tougher demands on the team.

2023. Liquidity and sales-channel management

In the second half of 2023, under my leadership, the team was addressing liquidity and channel issues, and in October, the decision to sell products to a distributor on a discounted prepayment basis was implemented, which, according to the annual report, sold more than 1.2 million units with a residual shelf life of about 50%, increased liquidity and did not increase selling prices.

In the fourth quarter, a radio ad campaign was launched, and a proactive effort was made to secure transparent contracts with pharmacy chains, and the report noted Miramistin’s rebound in the MNN group in the Gorlo segment, from 79.52% in September to 82.86% by the end of the year.

The initial full-year report for 2023 recorded a 10.19% increase in VAT revenue and a 10.32% increase in shipments to distributors compared to 2022, while Miramistin and Okomistin’s sales to the final buyer declined by 11.01 percent in aggregate, with shipment growth not implying the same increase in consumption.

2024. Restoring production and managing the budget

In 2024, I continued to lead the group until November 4, and the report of October 11 noted that after the downtime of 2023, the plant was fully operational in 2024, and in January-September, Infamed K produced 11.715 million units against 5.061 million in the same period of 2023, an increase of 131.49%, and the production of Arun vials for nine months was 11.676 million units, up 59.26% a year earlier.

The team adjusted the costs of advertising, promotion and work with pharmacy chains with behind budget revenues.According to preliminary estimates for nine months, the cost of doing business was below the plan by more than 200 million rubles.

As of October 11, 2024, preliminary revenue from VAT for January-September was 3.656 billion rubles (+13.20% compared to the same period in 2023); shipments - 9.932 million units (+12.81%). OIBDA was estimated at 1.362 billion rubles: 0.60% below the plan and 9.36% below the previous year.

Two years in figures

For an annual context, I'm comparing full calendar years from a single version of the management report for 12 months of 2024. This is not a personal attribution of the results: both years are wider than the period of my leadership. Production growth in 2024 compares with a low base in 2023, when the plant was idle.

Growth does not remove the constraints

At the end of 2024, VAT revenue was 13.77% below plan, OIBDA 14.68% below plan, and net profit was down 5.47% by 2023. These are important indicators for assessing business performance, but they should not be automatically interpreted as failure to meet shareholder minimum KPIs. All shareholder-defined minimum KPIs have been met; I set a higher bar for the team. So meeting minimum KPIs, deviations from the annual plan, and my more stringent requirements must be distinguished.

13. When trust replaces a system

Family business has long rewarded informality: people know each other's habits, understand each other's intonations, remember old agreements; you don't have to explain every backstory; one phone conversation sometimes replaces five meetings; it creates speed -- and at the same time it accumulates invisible debt.

Such debt consists of decisions that everyone seems to remember, but nobody can produce; powers that actually exist but are not described; financial relationships where the intermediary acts habitually, but its legal role is not defined; property that at the family level is perceived one way, but in the registers looks different.

The first alarms tend to seem private: the broker question, the money flow question, the question of who gets the banking information, the question of why the decision was passed on through one relative rather than discussed by everyone, each episode can be explained, the danger arises when you have to explain more and more.

Well, in our archives, well before the climax of 2024, there are issues of financial transparency and the role of individual intermediaries, and I don't want to retroactively declare each of these issues to be part of a future conspiracy. That would be too convenient, but today I see that it is precisely in these small discrepancies that an environment is formed where information becomes a resource of power.

In a company where the authority is clear, the information moves by the procedure. In a company where the procedure is replaced by a personal relationship, the person who knows more starts to weigh more than their position. Sometimes it happens naturally. Sometimes the person takes advantage of the situation consciously. But the result is the same: the actual power structure begins to diverge from the formal.

For posterity, the message is simple: if no one knows what's going on without one person, it's not management anymore, it's addiction. The system has to go through the leave, the conflict, and the departure of everyone involved.

14. What we tried to build

By the summer of 2024, the problem of the complex structure of the group was obvious not only to me: different legal entities performed different functions, assets and rights were scattered, tax and licensing risks required a systemic solution, and the possibility of attracting investors and a future strategic transaction was discussed in parallel.

And so Project Estate came into existence, and it's not just the conversations that are preserved in the archive, it's also the professional documents -- the consolidation presentation, the roadmap, the legal risk matrix -- that's important to me not because every step that was proposed there was right or was implemented, but it's important that by the end of July and August 2024, the restructuring was a stand-alone business project, not a late justification for action after a conflict.

The Risk Matrix shows how many issues were discussed simultaneously: Salaryevo warehouse, tax position, Infamed K ownership structure, FPIF use, royalties, intellectual property, registration certificates. The roadmap included options for transferring assets, creating new structures, licensing IP through a friendly jurisdiction.

I think of it as a time when we seemed to be preparing business for the next phase, not war, but adulthood, to simplify the structure, make it easier for investors to understand, reduce risk, and preserve key assets in a changing international environment.

Later, many of the documents of the time were read through the lens of conflict, and every word about asset transfers sounded suspicious, but any M&A or restructuring project is by definition a transfer of assets, and it's not about the word "transfer" itself, it's about purpose, price, authority, beneficiary and approval.

And that's why I try to remember the summer of 2024 not through the knowledge of 2026. We weren't living in today's lawsuits back then. We were working on a project for the future. The mistake was not that we were thinking about restructuring. The mistake was that, as the tension grew, we didn't stop and turn a common project into a set of flawlessly formalized decisions by each entity.

15. Intellectual property as the centre of gravity

The pharmaceutical business teaches quickly: the plant is important, but the right to a product can be more important than the plant. A trademark, a patent, a registration, a license is not a "legal appendix." It's a way to turn production into a market.

Megainpharm has historically owned much of international intellectual property, an architecture that once had its logic, but by 2024 European jurisdictions were becoming less and less convenient for businesses focused on Russia and international markets outside the EU.

The consolidation materials directly discussed IP licensing through such a jurisdiction; later, the Term Sheet Project Estate of August 31, in a more specific form, considered the withdrawal of intellectual property from Austria to the UAE and the possibility of including a new Dubai company in the perimeter of the transaction after the licenses were renegotiated.

To me, this is one of the most important documents of all history. It doesn't prove that any particular contract was automatically approved, but it does show that the "Austria-Dubai-New IP Structure" direction existed in a transactional context and was discussed before the open September escalation.

As time went on, so much emotion emerged around IP that a simple fact had to be re-archived: intellectual property was not a side topic of conflict, but a major center of value, so any dispute over control of Megainpharm inevitably became a dispute over the future of Miramistin.

Today, I would divide five things: economic decision of owners, independent evaluation, corporate approval of the rights holder, authorisation of the signatory, and bank control of payment: five documents instead of one general feeling: "this is our agreed project."

15A. Review of commercial operations: Difficult questions before the family conflict

When I read the 2024 documents today, it's tempting to think that that's when the whole conflict started, and the archive doesn't give me the right to have such a simple story. Back in 2022-2023, I was doing another line of testing the cleanliness and transparency of the group's commercial block, which was about procurement, intermediaries, foreign suppliers, quality and movement of money.

This investigation was not a court case, nor did it give me the right to declare anyone guilty in advance, but we tried to understand why simple procurement of components turned into a long chain of companies, how economically justified this chain was, where the margins remained, and why individual decisions of the Moscow office influenced the purchases of production in Bagrationovsk.

In January 2023, my father wrote about the purpose of the study, to test the coherence and interest of top executives in procurement. In February, the dispute became open. I wrote harshly, I referred to bank statements, I demanded a transparent model, and I suggested that we move away from what I thought were opaque intermediary chains. Today I would formulate many letters more calmly, but the question of transparency was real.

And the other thing is, the audit didn't end with me just banning one vendor, and in March and April, we compared BONA, STONE and Russian alternatives, we talked about field audits, spray quality, complaints and economics, and that was to say, emotional conflict gradually became a normal supplier audit, and that's one of the lessons of that story: even unpleasant suspicion is only useful when it becomes a verifiable procedure.

In May 2023, the investigation materials were already in place and were passed on to owners and consultants, including GA-2022-98-BES-11, which I keep as part of the family archive, but I don't want to turn its findings into a verdict: the origin of individual data and the banking primary sources should be verified separately.

This story is important to future readers because it shows my role before MIF and Innovexa: I dealt not only with international transactions and intellectual property, but also with internal controls. It made me uncomfortable for some people and at the same time gave me too much concentration of information. However, I cannot honestly write that the investigation of the commercial block was the cause of the family conflict of 2024.

So I'm leaving two lines apart: the first is the management-control conflict 2022-2023 around procurement and transparency; the second is the family/governance conflict, which later turned out to be about MIFs, authority, IP and control. They may have overlapped somewhere. But I have to leave to posterity not a beautiful theory, but the line between proven and presumed.

From that episode, I learned a rule that seems obvious today: suspicion should trigger an audit, not become a memory of guilt.

Part III. April-November 2024: From project to turning point

16. Dubai before the conflict

The Term Sheet Project Estate dated 31.08.2024 explicitly considered the transfer of IP from Austria to a new company in the UAE/Dubai as a likely restructuring scenario, which confirms the business context of the direction, but does not replace the approval of a specific transaction by the bodies of Megainpharm GmbH.

The creation of a new company in the UAE later became one of the most emotionally charged episodes, but the archive now shows that Dubai’s history began earlier than I once restored it from August documents: no later than April 10, 2024, I already asked external patent lawyers to prepare documents for the transfer of patents and trademarks from Megainpharm to the UAE circuit.

In April, WAZIFI Project Management Services was considered as a possible carrier of the structure, and I assessed that its authorized activities were not suitable for the IP project that was conceived. The license found listed Civil Company and Project Management Services; the previous claim of a free zone regime was not confirmed by the document; the legal suitability of this structure for a specific IP operation should be evaluated separately. Therefore, this company should not be confused retrospectively with Innovexa. First, the architecture of the "Megainpharm - UAE vehicle - licenses back to the operating business", then the search for a suitable legal medium, and only later - Innovexa.

In those same weeks in April, I asked the accounting department to understand how patents and trademarks were recorded and how much the company had historically spent on creating and maintaining them, and the accounting department explained that the costs were going through current costs without a separate object book value, and we started to restore the historical cost base, and even then it was not a secret September improvisation, but a working legal and accounting project.

In the spring, another change occurred: I ceased to be a formal Geschäftsführer Megainpharm, but did not leave the company – I remained a full-time employee and continued operating. Later, Dimitrios Papadopoulos, Michael Rebasso and Natalia Begusch independently described in court that the change of director was primarily related to banking and sanctions problems, and the actual role remained with me for a while.

But that's where my legal vulnerability lies, too: actual leadership habits and continued employment relationships are no substitute for power of attorney and corporate approval. At the time, I felt that continuing an operational mandate was natural. Today, I realize that the more formal and factual status diverge, the more documents needed to be created, not less.

In August, outside consultants at White Square started the company, and they did the usual KYC procedures, and Vyacheslav Sidorov was involved in the process, he was sent documents, his residency visa was discussed, and I saw it as a practical work to create the future of the international circuit.

It's important not to override the defensive narrative here, because Sidorov knew about the company and was involved in its design, doesn't mean that he legally negotiated each future contract, knowing the structure and approval of a particular transaction are different things, but early awareness matters for another question: was Innovexa itself my secret personal project?

In those days, I didn't think about how I'd explain KYC in two years, but I did the usual things: the institution, the documents, the banks, the consultants, and in the family business, it's a common paradox that the person who does the work then looks like the main initiator simply because his name is the most common in the correspondence.

If I could go back there, I would, after each key stage, make one short letter to all the parties: "The purpose of the structure is so-and-so; the economic decision is made by such persons; further action requires such-and-such approvals." Five lines. Perhaps those five lines would save us years of argument.

17. 17 August: A conversation, not a document found later

There's one date in the reconstruction that I come back to very often: August 17, 2024, and I personally went to Andrey Yuryevich and asked him twice if he agreed to transfer IP to the Dubai company, and he said yes both times, and I don't have written confirmation of that conversation.

This is a good example of why a memoir should not be turned into an evidentiary stunt. There is no key written document from 17.08.2024 available. So the honest wording is that I remember two affirmative responses from a personal conversation, but the legal conclusion requires different initial confirmation.

Human memory likes closed constructions. I remember the meaning of the conversation and the subsequent behavior of people, but there is no written record. Forensic memory should be stricter: verbal consent, corporate approval and the authority of the signatory are different issues.

It may seem like a trifle to posterity, but it's the little things that build the reliability of a story, and if you can't prove an important detail, don't reinforce it with adjectives, write what you remember, and separately what you don't have.

I hope that there will be letters, witnesses, or other primary material that will verify my account of August 17th and early September, and if it confirms my memory, it will become an important context, and if not, the book will need to be corrected.

There is no limit to the proof of the separate document of Andrey Gorokhov dated 17.08.2024. There is my story about the verbal double consent: you need to check the memory, subsequent behavior and September correspondence, without assuming the existence of a lost written approval of a particular MIF-Innovexa transaction.

18. 23-31 August: When the project became concrete

The last decade of August was important because the abstract restructuring became a list of concrete actions. On August 23, Project Estate already circulated a consolidation presentation, a legal risk matrix, and a roadmap.

On August 28, a full list of Megainpharm’s intellectual property was requested. On August 29, I wrote to lawyers about the planned further sale of IP to a new company in the UAE. On August 30, there was an IP file where you could see a large array of trademarks and other rights belonging to Megainpharm. On August 31, Term Sheet’s direction to Dubai was already prescribed within the investment logic.

This sequence, to me, is more important than any single letter. It shows the process. In real business, intention is rarely born out of a contract. First comes architecture, then the list of assets, then the legal route, then the terms, then the documents.

But that's where the second line of the story started to catch up with the first, and the management of Megainpharm became more and more acute: banks, power of attorney, director, the ability to give instructions, administrative details became a matter of control over the owner of the key IP.

And I think, around August 30, the two stories finally collided, and before that, you could talk about restructuring as a project, and after that, any IP movement was already perceived as a question of who controls Megainpharm and who has the right to decide its fate.

Later, the argument was explained with a single arrow: “IP caused conflict” or “conflict accelerated IP protection.” The archive is better explained by the mutual strengthening of two processes: the dispute over governance made IP more sensitive, and the movement of IP increased the cost of the struggle for control.

19. The agreement of 26 August

At the center of the future controversy is the agreement between Megainpharm and Innovexa, dated August 26, 2024, which for me is one of the points where the human and legal versions of history diverge particularly strongly.

In my picture of the world, the contract was part of an already moving restructuring, and I was acting in an international context, and I was acting on the basis of existing authority and understanding of the general direction, but for a court to do that, that explanation is not enough: the court needs the contract itself, the power of attorney at the exact date, the Megainpharm charter and corporate rules, the decision of the competent authority, the terms of the price and the proof of execution.

In August 2026, the Austrian Procedural Archives were able to recover a full copy of the August 26 contract and the September 27 supplementary agreement: Megainpharm is the seller, Innovexa is the buyer; I am listed by Megainpharm's representative with reference to the power of attorney of July 8, Vyacheslav Sidorov is a representative of Innovexa. The pages of the copy show the signatures and seals. This is an important change in the archive: now the dispute is not about what was written in the contract, but about the validity of the authority, corporate approval and the origin of the signatures.

The mere appearance of a procedural copy does not make a disputed document indisputable. If a signature on a power of attorney is contested, you need to verify the original and the origin of the file. But for memory, it is fundamentally different: I no longer have to retell the contract from memory - the text can now be read and compared with other documents.

I don't need this chapter to say, "I did the right thing," it's to articulate one of the most painful lessons of my career: An artist who is confident in a shared mandate must still ask the formal question, "Who exactly is legally endorsing this particular deal?" Not because he doesn't trust the owners, because in two years, the overall mandate and the specific approval will be examined separately.

For too long, I've seen the corporate will of a group as a single phenomenon. International corporate law doesn't work that way. Megainpharm was a separate Austrian company. Even strong support at the group level, even the economic majority, even obvious strategic logic, should not replace the internal decision of the company itself.

Later, I read the MIF charter more carefully, and it doesn't have a separate list of all the decisions that are exempt from the General Meeting. The current management is for the Geschäftsführer, but the reporting and distribution of profits, the changes in the contract, the shares and the liquidation circuit have special rules for the participants, so I had to ask separately not only "is there general agreement" but "which MIF body should approve this IP step."

20. The economic structure of the transaction

The full MIF-Innovexa agreement of 26.08.2024, the current power of attorney of Evgeny Gorokhov, corporate approvals, valuation and payment trail are the priority documents for the final reconstruction.

At the center of the dispute was the agreement between Megainpharm and Innovexa dated August 26, 2024, which later discussed a different working wording of the commercial terms, and I don't give the sums here: it is more important for my story that the signed chain and subsequent working correspondence existed simultaneously and must be matched by dates, IP perimeter and execution order.

The economic logic of the project, in my memory, was about recovering historical patent and trademark costs, accounting for royalties, and tax-efficient migration to a friendly jurisdiction. Accounting correspondence confirms that such cost reconstruction has indeed taken place, which explains business rationale, but does not replace valuation, corporate approval, and proof of commitment.

I wanted the transaction to be documented and reimbursable, not a symbolic withdrawal of an asset, but the existence of contractual terms alone does not answer questions of marketability and actual performance: it requires valuation, invoices, bank movements and accounting footprint.

Today, I'm leaving two separate things in the archive: the documented outline of the transaction and the open questions about authority, corporate decision, valuation and payment trail. You can't use economic explanation as a substitute for legal procedure.

For a lawyer, this is still a red flag, but now it must be formulated precisely: which version of the terms was signed, which was discussed later, whether the perimeter changed and what documents confirm the transition and execution.

The September 27 supplementary agreement must be read along with the main chain, annexes, and evidence of execution, and the mere existence of multiple revisions proves neither malice nor the absence of real restructuring.

This episode taught me that when a major transaction is changed, not only must the new document be retained, but also the explanation of the change: date, perimeter, cause, competent authority and approval route.

One short note about why the new newsroom came along might have been more important than dozens of emails, and in the family business, we too often relied on the general context and recorded too little formal transitions.

For future readers, the rule is simple: don't mix business rationale, executive authority and corporate decision. These are three different blocks of evidence.

21. 68 percent and the danger of an attractive figure

In our analysis, we have a figure of 68 percent, which is related to the outline of Kirpenko and Sidorov, which is psychologically very attractive: the majority, it seems, if the majority supported the direction of restructuring, the question is closed.

But that's where the lawyer has to stop the narrator. A group of companies is not a single legal entity. Economic support, representational weight or aggregate interest at the group level are not identical to votes at Megainpharm GmbH. Even if 68 percent are fully corroborated by primary documents, they are important above all for the question of whether the strategy was an isolated initiative of one person.

Other documents are needed for corporate approval: who was a member of Megainpharm at a specific date, what voting rights existed, which body should have approved the transaction and whether it was done.

And I'm not only given this difference intellectually, it's contrary to the family business habit of thinking in economic terms of the whole "common cause," but after the conflict, I've come to the conclusion that a beautiful figure cannot be forced to answer a question for which it's not intended.

If 68 percent supported a common architecture, that's a strong context. If 68 percent legally approved a particular Megainpharm contract, that's another statement and requires separate proof. I want to make sure that in the family archive, those two phrases are never mixed up again.

22. September: When correspondence became evidence

At the beginning of September, the very atmosphere of communication changed: what used to be a managerial disagreement became a legal conflict of authority; new powers of attorney, Geschäftsführer questions, banking instructions, correspondence of external lawyers, all this ceased to be a technical background.

On September 5-6, the controversy over Megainpharm was already open, and on September 9, it went to a wider range of shareholders and executives, people asked to meet, demanded explanations, asked about credentials, and gradually the thing that kills informal culture the fastest was the litigation mindset, and every letter is written not only to the addressee, but to the future judge.

I've entered this mode myself, and I've become more assertive, more assertive, more sensitive to sending documents, more responsive to what I think is a dangerous act, and in conflict, the more you think you're right in writing, the safer you are, and sometimes it increases your personal footprint and creates new points of contention.

In mid-September, there were still efforts to bring people together and get things back together, which I now see as one of the last opportunities to stop the escalation, but by the end of the month, there was a direct talk inside the business about corporate conflict, and Megainpharm's problems affected normal banking processes.

I remember the feeling when an organization seems to be still operating, but its management future has already separated from the operational present. Production is underway. People are getting tasks. But at the top, no one is sure who has the final say. This is what a loss of manageability looks like: one order can be considered the right one part of the system and the wrong another.

23. Dmitry and invisible power

It is difficult for me to write this chapter in a way that is both fair and fair. Dmitri held an important place in the financial and informational contour. Over time, I became convinced that his actual influence on a number of participants and decisions was greater than could be understood from formal positions. I also developed a more specific version: Dmitri was angry at the exclusion from the cash flows of Infamed Group and partly therefore initiated and financed the coup in April-August-October 2024. I leave this as my assessment [U/H], not as an established fact.

Documents confirm some elements of this picture. He appears in the management of Megainpharm. Later, in April 2025, an episode occurred when he received from me interest and part of the repayment on monetary relations, which I thought were related to Andrey Yuryevich. For me, this was evidence of his practical role as a financial intermediary. After Papadopoulos' statement about leaving, in my opinion, Dmitry tried to put the husband of Svistov's daughter V.V. I consider this an additional sign of the general outline of control capture; the source and mechanism should be checked separately.

But I'm not consciously turning this aggregate into "Dmitri controlled everyone," which is too big a conclusion compared to the evidence, and the actual impact can be assumed, but for every decision you have to show the mechanism: contact, change of position, decision, economic outcome.

This is especially important for Anton. I think that Dmitry influenced him. But there is no simple chain of "Dmitri ordered - Anton did" in the Gmail correspondence studied. On the contrary, in the spring of 2025, Anton looks like an active independent negotiator, so my personal assessment of influence and the proven mechanism of influence are different levels.

I'd like posterity to learn this discipline before I do: don't describe power in psychological terms, if you can describe it in channels. Who has access to money? Who gets the information first? Who can contact the owner? Who talks to the bank? Who can stop the payment? Here's the real power map.

24. Final attempts at a joint discussion

In any big quarrel, there is a moment that is easy to romanticize: "if we had just sat down at the table," in fact, by the time people have officially proposed meeting, a simple conversation has often long ceased to be simple.

In September, there were attempts to organize a meeting of participants, and Oksana Kirpenko and Adolina Rudko, in separate letters, sought to shift the argument from an emotional plane to a substantive discussion, people tried to determine the date, to gather shareholders, to hear positions, which is important to remember, because the later history of the conflict easily divides everyone into unchanging camps. In reality, positions were formed gradually.

Now, I probably could have said otherwise myself, and when you're sure you're protecting an asset, it's very hard to hear that, to the other person, your "protection" looks like a loss of control, and when you see someone's actions as a power grab, it's hard to assume that the other person thinks they're the restorer of the right order.

Corporate conflict does not become irreversible when there is a difference of interest; it becomes irreversible when the parties cease to believe that the other party can act in good faith; after that, any neutral action receives a hostile interpretation.

If I could put one thought forward to September 2024 today, it would be this: before the judicial war, we need an independent facilitator and a freeze period; for two weeks, stop big deals, change of authority, transfer of assets and mutual accusations; fix the status quo; then discuss property, management and IP separately. We decided everything at the same time instead.

25. A departure that does not happen in one day

I can see this particularly clearly in the history of Megainpharm. The change of entry to Firmenbuch in the spring of 2024 did not mean that the next day I stopped answering letters, working with lawyers, accounting and banks, or lost all my actual mandate. I remained an employee. Dimitrios formally became Geschäftsführer, in many ways to solve the banking problem, and later told the court myself that I should have done what I said.

But actual succession isn't indulgence. It explains why I kept going, but it doesn't eliminate the question of what specific authority I signed each document on. Family business often lives on the principle of "we all understand." The court lives on the principle of "show the basis." Between these two worlds, much of our trouble arose.

Later, the documents featured dates that were described as my exit points: November 4, 2024, out of the Russian circuit, and January 27, 2025, from Megainpharm. Any legal reconstruction, such dates are convenient. Life was more complicated.

Even after the formal change of status, there were correspondence, old tasks, legal issues, people who kept texting me out of habit, leaving a big system doesn't look like a switch, especially when you've been involved with international and IP issues for years.

This creates a dangerous ambiguity: the person no longer controls the company, but continues to answer questions, formal authority has decreased, and the documentary trail is still growing, and later each letter after the "release date" can be interpreted as evidence of continued control, although sometimes it is just the inertia of the previous role.

Today, I'm convinced that executive departure should be a separate project: termination date, withdrawal of power of attorney, bank licenses, electronic signatures, access, archive, formal notice of contractors, transfer of cases, prohibition of using old correspondence as a channel of orders.

We didn't see this as a critical security system, and after the conflict, I saw that the absence of a clean break creates a risk for all parties: a former manager can look like an incumbent, and a current company can refer to the decisions of a person who is no longer in control.

Part IV. 2025: Sale, diverging interests and new control

26. Return of the transaction

In the spring of 2025, Infamed K started a different process: a real sale, a buyer-side draft agreement that was not a family dispute about the past, but an M&A with specific risks, guarantees, liability and buyer.

On April 17th, I looked at the project and I saw a serious asymmetry in it, where the buyer had a lot of options to turn down the deal, and the seller took on a lot of guarantees and responsibilities, and I was particularly concerned about intellectual property: you can't promise a buyer something that might not legally belong to the factory you were selling.

By that time, I was no longer the usual group manager who had to close the deal at all costs.After 04.11.2024, I had no interests in the IP circuit; I studied buyer SPA because of historical liability, seller-side risks and my own legal consequences, rather than as a participant in subsequent IP actions.

On April 23, the NSP lawyers' invitation was called "The Pharmstandard Deal," which shows that the economic contour of the buyer within the legal team was clear, and then we started working on versions of the contract, edits, negotiations and attempts to reduce seller-side risk.

For me, 2025 is important because it can no longer be explained as a family conflict: a new economic interest comes into play: the buyer has its own logic, its own control requirements and its own views on IP. Old internal contradictions become part of due diligence and contract.

27. Anton: Neither an enemy nor a bystander

I want to keep the truth about Anton separate, because family conflicts are particularly easy to rewrite relationships retroactively. In the spring of 2025, there was no simple personal confrontation between us. Correspondence shows cooperation.

Anton would get versions of the contract from the buyer and forward them to the lawyers, and he would include me in a copy, he would go to the negotiations, he would ask for urgent edits, he would say he was going to the next meeting, and that was the behavior of a real negotiator, not of a person who just formally signed what they were given.

In an April 30 email, Anton described his strategy as an attempt to show a buyer that he was ready to deal while gaining time and protecting interests he considered vulnerable, an important document precisely because it was written at the moment of the events, not a year later for the court.

I believe that Anton was influenced by other actors, including Dmitry. But influence does not negate his own subjectivity. I think it is unfair to turn Anton either into the chief architect of all events or into a completely passive denomination. The truth is probably more complicated.

So for posterity, the human lesson here is that when a relative makes a decision that you don't agree with, don't take their agency away just because it's easier to explain what happened, you can simultaneously think of them as being influenced and you can admit that they were making their own choices.

ARCHIVE INSTRUCTION 04/28/2025 Anton wrote to NSP that he was sending "the latest version of the PrEP I received yesterday from PharmStandat." In correspondence, Evgeny Gorokhov was in a copy, as confirmed by the active official negotiation channel Anton - buyer - NSP / Evgeny Gorokhov.

28. Lawyers as a mirror of the conflict

In complex conflicts, lawyers are sometimes better at showing when interests don't align, NSPs have worked with us for days, they've analyzed contracts, formulated risks, engaged in negotiation strategies, and their April-May report shows dozens of hours of work on the sale of Infamed K.

On May 12, the lawyers wrote that the new version did not accept the vast majority of their edits and that the contract essentially rolled back close to the original position, which was an important confirmation to me that resisting certain terms of the deal was not my personal emotional reaction.

But gradually another question arose: Can one team of lawyers simultaneously help the seller close the deal and protect my individual interests over IP and related obligations?

On May 15, the NSPs officially reported the divergence of interests, and I particularly insist on the precise wording of this episode, which was not a document about a personal quarrel between Anton and me, but a professionally ethical conclusion of the lawyers: they could no longer accompany both parties in the same contour of the transaction.

A legal conflict of interest sometimes arises between people who are personally capable of speaking, which means not animosity, but incompatibility of tasks; the seller wants to close the deal; the rights holder wants to not lose rights and not take on other people's guarantees; both interests can be rational.

On May 15, 2025, there was a formal divergence of legal interests represented in the M&A transaction, which in itself does not indicate a personal conflict between Evgeny Gorokhov and Anton.

29. Pharmstandard and the question of a parallel channel

There is one episode in the history of the sale that I still consider potentially important, but I cannot record as a proven fact: I was informed that in April 2025 Dmitry could hold separate talks in Dubai with Velichko, associated with Pharmstandard.

If such a meeting did take place, it could explain some of the information asymmetry, then there would be a formal channel of negotiation through Anton and lawyers and a parallel informal channel where other interests or expectations could be discussed.

The problem is, in the Gmail correspondence that I examined, I couldn't find independent evidence of the meeting itself: invitations, letters, tickets, messages from the participant after the meeting. Lack of evidence does not mean that the meeting didn't take place. But memoirs that claim to be honest should be able to leave the question open.

I'm turning on this episode because it shows the difference between knowledge and belief, and I can be psychologically very persuasive about a particular version of events, but if I want to leave a useful archive, rather than a family legend, I have to mark the line.

If there is ever any air data, correspondence, or a participant's testimony, this chapter can be expanded, and the correct sentence is, "I thought such a channel could exist, but I have no independent documentary evidence."

30. The transaction closes, but the story remains open

By the summer of 2025, the Russian production circuit had changed owners, Megainpharm’s control structure had changed, New Medical Technologies KFT appeared at the Austrian registry level, the director changed, and the old family configuration finally ceased to be the same.

I'd like to talk about the team separately, all the minimum KPIs set by shareholders have been met, and I've already made the tougher demands on the team, so you can't turn my high bar into an argument against people who have fulfilled the goals set by shareholders.

For me, this is a time when it is important to divide three eras: the first is the internal family and corporate crisis of 2024; the second is M&A and the change of economic control in 2025; the third is the actions of companies after the change of ownership and management.

In emotional memory, these phases connect. It seems like a single line, but legally and analytically, you can't automatically attribute the old conflict to the new owner or, conversely, attribute to me the decisions of companies after I've lost control of them.

The MIF's change of control to New Medical Technologies and the appointment of Gyorgy Harmas are confirmed. The direct ownership/control chain from MIF to PST/Pharmstandard in the array studied is not fully proven. I can see economic overlaps, I can have my assumptions, but I have to leave a legal clause in the book.

After the sale, I felt for the first time that the historical responsibility and the current power had completely diverged, the companies were living on without you, but the documents of the period of your management continue to produce consequences. After 04.11.2024, I had no interest in the IP circuit: subsequent IP actions took place without my knowledge, I learned about them after the fact, NSPs were engaged in other things I did, and PST events took place without my participation and knowledge.

30A. Who ultimately received what

Andrey Yuryevich, according to my information, received about 8 billion rubles for a 51% package, and then finally parted ways with the company, conducting a one-sided settlement on transactions with Broker, which Dmitry previously controlled. For me, this is an important end result. But the sale, distribution of money and subsequent credit is not one event or one amount. Anton's formal role as a seller does not itself show who ultimately got the proceeds; it needs to be restored by contracts, statements and credits.

Dmitry, as I assess the situation, finally gained financial independence and retained influence over Andrey Yuryevich through the management of his own money. I also believe that he was actually forgiven previous violations and embezzlement by about 2.5 billion rubles. In my estimation, this was proved by four independent sources. Here I keep the border: this is my position; the full set of four sources, their independence, personal attribution and summary calculation in this edition are not separately verified.

My own outcome is the courts and criminal prosecutions, without any compensation or payment, neither the direct nor indirect economic benefit of the redistribution and sale described, nor the benefit found in the array examined, nor my personal trials against Andrey and Dmitry are related to corporate MIF/IP issues.

The rest of the participants, in my general assessment, also got their money and/or got rid of their previous claims, but I don't want to substitute this general conclusion for a register of specific calculations: for each person, you have to tell what they got, when, from whom and on what basis. Money, retained position, control and no claim are different results; none of them can be attributed to a person just by membership.

For me, the big question now is, why are the benefits and opportunities to influence decisions left to me alone, and a significant portion of the procedural burden to me, without any comparable benefit being identified? That's a reason to check the distribution of outcomes, not just the signature of the performer. But even this asymmetry alone does not prove either pre-agreed capture, or someone else's guilt, or my innocence. Documents should separately answer questions about money, authority, knowledge, and signatures. That conclusion does not imply or imply a personal conflict between me and Anton.

31. Assignment and the conversion of family money into litigation money

When corporate conflict affects personal money relationships, it becomes especially difficult, and in 2025, a lawsuit appeared in which Andrey Yuryevich allegedly ceded a certain claim to Dmitry.

It is important not to mix these proceedings with corporate matters: the courts of Evgeny Gorokhov vs. Andrey Gorokhov and GD were not disputes about corporate governance of MIFs or IP powers. Right now my family literally has nothing to live on, and this is part of my personal reality, but not proof of any corporate or criminal thesis.

The document itself exists and was later used in Dmitry's court position, but the authenticity of the individual signatures, the validity of the will, the reality of the payment, and the economic basis of the transaction have become a matter of dispute.

In December, I wrote to Andrey directly and asked him to confirm whether he had signed the agreement on July 8, and I asked him about the signature, about the movement of money, and about the extent to which Dmitry's actions corresponded to Andrey's real will, and these were my questions and my accusatory suspicions - not a ready-made court ruling.

And this is a particularly painful story, because money between relatives is almost never as carefully handled as money between strangers, and we think that kinship reduces risk, and in practice, in conflict, it increases uncertainty: too much has happened on trust.

If the descendants remember one thing in this chapter: any large loan between relatives, make it as if the parties are unfamiliar, the contract, the purpose of payment, the confirmation of the transfer, the interest, the concession, everything should be transparent. It's not lack of love. It's protecting the relationship from future memory.

32. When conflict moves from business into life

At some point, the dispute is no longer confined to the meeting room, it enters the home, the bank account, the real estate, family conversations, questions about locks, access, powers of attorney, debts, private messages, and it's no longer a pure corporate conflict, but an identity conflict.

It's hard for a person who's been involved in business for years to separate the loss of corporate control from the feeling of personal injustice, and it's hard for me, too. Sometimes I reacted more sharply than I should have, sometimes I tried to put too many events into one explanation.

This is where forensic discipline helped me: each episode separately. Who did it? When? Who did it? Who benefited? Is there an independent document? This boring technique takes a person back from a world of total suspicion to a world of verifiable facts.

And it made me rethink some of my own language, and I could think of the signature as fake, but without the expertise, it's more accurate to say that authenticity is in dispute, and I could think of the person as dependent on the other person, but without a proven chain of influence, you can't turn that into fact, and I could see coordination, but the coincidence of interests doesn't prove the overall plan.

For the court, this caution is a technique. For life, it's a way to keep conflict from taking over the mind completely.

Part V. 2026: Litigation, memory and what will remain

33. The court as a simplification machine

By 2026, the story had broken down into multiple trials: Russia, Austria, IP, debt, registration issues, each court looking at a small piece of the big picture, and that created a constant temptation to tell the court a lifetime at once.

But the court is different. It asks: did the power of attorney work? Was there a duty? Who is the right holder? What act should be revoked? A broad story can even get in the way if it doesn't answer the question of proof.

It took me a while to accept that. I wanted someone to finally see the whole system: restructuring, family conflict, change of control, the influence of individuals, the sale of businesses, the consequences. A judge doesn't have to write a family history. He's got another thing.

So I split two papers: lawyers need an analytical report: sources, evidence, alternative hypotheses. For posterity, this book, you can keep a context that is not legally relevant, but explains the human meaning of events.

There's another lesson: never build a judicial position on a desire for moral rehabilitation. The court has no obligation to recognize that you're a good person. You have to prove a specific legal fact. Moral judgment is a matter of history, family and conscience.

A decision that is not yet final

The decision of the Vienna Court of Labour and Social Affairs, dated 13 April 2026, was published/delivered only on 18 August, is an unfavourable first instance decision in an employment dispute, and I am preparing and will file it; as of the date of this edition, no appeal has yet been filed.

But it's also important to give the same exact status: it's a first-instance decision in an employment dispute, not a criminal conviction. It was handed over to my lawyer on August 18. The next day, I asked for a Berufung appeal, and the lawyer separately pointed out that the timing of the dismissal was controversial, that the court did not establish a specific form of my involvement in the alleged forgery, and in many ways inferred from the logic of the circumstances.

On August 12, even before I received my employment decision, WKStA, the Austrian prosecutor's office for economic crimes and corruption, commissioned additional criminal investigations, the document suspected of facilitating serious fraud in connection with the disputed power of attorney and IP transfers; the prosecutor's office asked for witnesses to be re-interrogated and correspondence obtained on September 19, a suspicion is a serious thing, but it is still a stage of investigation, not an established fault. In my current assessment, only Anton and GD are likely to appear for witness verification; this is a working wait, not a confirmed list.

For posterity, I leave a simple rule: if there is a court order against our version in the archive, it cannot be hidden, but it cannot be attributed to a greater legal meaning than it has, the instance, the subject matter, the standard of proof and the possibility of appeal are part of the fact.

34. Archive versus memory

Over the years, I've read more old letters than probably any person should read about their own lives. It's a strange experience. You meet yourself in a past that doesn't yet know the future.

The usefulness of this archive is precisely that it lacks late wisdom, and if Anton is writing about negotiations and time gain in April 2025, it is stronger than my interpretation of his motive today. If Term Sheet is describing a Dubai IP scenario on August 31, it is stronger than any late claim that such a project arose suddenly, and if lawyers on May 12 write about the rejection of most of the edits, it shows their assessment at the time of the deal.

But the archive is also not all-powerful. A letter can only reflect part of a conversation. A person could know more than he wrote. An attachment could have a different version. An oral decision might not get into the mail, so the absence of a letter cannot automatically be turned into the absence of an event.

My formula became this: a document limits memory, but it does not replace it; memory explains the document, but it cannot rewrite it. There must be an honest gap between them.

Letter of 8 July

The original EML was more important than the usual printout of the letter. It shows that on July 8, when I was outside Austria, I sent Dimitrios ready-made Russian and German versions of a simple power of attorney, directly asked him to sign the document and leave it on my desk.

Later in court, I said that after I returned, I took the power of attorney from my desk in Vienna, and the coincidence of this particular detail with the letter strengthens the consistency of my story, but it does not answer the main technical question: who actually signed the paper copy, and that is the limit that the book should keep.

In August 2026, I found a document that was almost a textbook example of why I needed an archive, and this is the original file of the letter dated July 8, 2024: I write to Dimitrios Papadopoulos, I copy Kristina Konyakhina, I attach the Russian and German versions of a broad power of attorney, and I ask you to sign it and put it on my desk.

The attachment itself is not signed, so the letter does not prove that Dimitrios actually signed the copy of the power of attorney that later became the subject of dispute, but it proves otherwise: the text itself and the request for such power of attorney existed on July 8, before the August deal and before the open September crisis.

Almost simultaneously, another useful contrast emerged. In my email of 18/19 September, I asked Dimitrios to notarise two other powers of attorney: one for NSP and another for the patent representatives. The September discussion refers to Ermanchenko and Ischakova. The disputed procedural copy no. 0337 C names Ermanchenko and Kuptsova, while a separate broad power of attorney dated 8 July names me and Kristina Konyakhina. These are different groups of attorneys and different documents. Neither September draft authorised me to enter into contracts on behalf of Megainpharm. A later account of ‘two powers of attorney’ therefore cannot automatically be attributed to a single set. I draw no conclusion from this about whether anyone lied or who produced the disputed signature. The original email, both attachments and every final copy must be compared side by side: names, dates, reference numbers, powers and signatures. The adverse first-instance finding concerning one particular final power of attorney does not turn every September draft into a forgery.

This is where the archive is stronger than family confidence, and we can all remember that power of attorney in two years, when there are actually several, and the document doesn't always give a definitive answer, but it makes us ask the right question.

I want this principle to be preserved in the family archive: don't throw away inconvenient documents; don't leave only those letters that support our version; if history is ever needed by posterity, let them see the whole spectrum, not the edited legend.

35. My mistakes

The simplest outcome of a conflict is a catalogue of other people's mistakes. The most useful is a list of your own.

My first mistake was believing that consensus was sufficient, and I too often perceived group-level understanding as a sufficient mandate for executive work, and an international framework required more: the individual corporate will of each entity.

The second was concentration of function. I was too involved in many things at once, which made the work quick, but it created a personal dependency and a huge documentary trail.

The third is that there's not enough documentation of transitions, and if the transaction price, the contract version, the composition of the asset, or the role of the participant changes, we need to record the reason in a separate note, and we often relied on a chain of letters.

The fourth is a poor exit architecture, a formal exit date must be accompanied by a full revocation of access and authority, otherwise the power is gone and the responsibility still looks alive.

The fifth is emotional escalation. When I saw the threat to assets, I felt justified in responding harshly and quickly, and today I believe that in corporate conflict, speed of response is often less important than the quality of protocol.

Sixth was the desire to explain too much in one way, and perhaps individuals did exploit the crisis, but the system was fragile enough that conflict could arise without a single architect.

Seventh, I underestimated how much a future dispute would depend not only on the meaning of the decision, but also on the origin of each file. Now I would preserve the original email, hashes, originals, and the short protocol for issuing each meaningful power of attorney as carefully as the contract itself.

Admitting these mistakes does not mean agreeing with the actions of others; it means refusing to build your own memory on infallibility.

36. What I still believe was right

The opposite is important to say after the error chapter, and I don't think it's a mistake to think about the idea of international restructuring. The Project Estate documents show that the problem of complex structure was real, and the transfer of IP to a friendly jurisdiction had understandable business logic.

I don't think it's a mistake to separate intellectual property from the risks of operational conflict, and you can argue about the legal route, approvals, and price, but it was rational to protect a key asset in the face of uncertainty.

I don't think it's a mistake to bring in professional lawyers and try to rewrite a clearly asymmetrical buyer SPA in 2025; a late sale doesn't make any seller protection "sabotage."

And I think it's right that at some point I started collecting documents systematically, not for war per se, but because without an archive, history became a collection of mutually exclusive memories.

The main thing that I'm defending today is the right to context: the signature should be judged with the mandate; the decision should be judged with the person who accepted it; the benefit should be with the person who received it; the late actions of the new owners are separate from the old power; it's not an attempt to evade responsibility, but an attempt to distribute it by real roles.

37. Do not inherit my conflict

I don't know when all the trials will be over, or if the relationship between the people of this story will ever be fully restored, but I do know what I don't want: that posterity, along with the archive, have a duty to continue our grievances.

Family memory is dangerous because it can transmit animosity longer than facts, because a child learns that “this person did wrong,” long before they can understand a contract, a power of attorney, or context, and a generation later, a dispute already exists as a legend, not as an event.

So I leave you the papers, but I leave you no enemies. Read. Compare. If necessary, protect your property and your name. But don't take my emotional assessment as an inherited obligation.

I want the names in this book to become a story over time, rather than a guide to the war, and maybe some of the participants will see it differently one day, and maybe the documents will change my understanding of the individual episodes. That's okay.

It would be a terrible thing if the next generation would only have the ability to sue each other.

Part VI. Portraits without verdicts

38. Andrey Yuryevich: Family authority and legal intent

In the family business, there are people whose real role does not fit into the title of the position, and Andrey Yuryevich for me long belonged to such figures, his position mattered not only because it could be associated with specific rights or shares, it had family and historical weight.

And this is particularly challenging. In everyday life, the words of a person of high authority are perceived as a decision. In corporate law, you have to say, who made the decision, what company is it addressed to, and is it required to be formalized? The family hears yes. The lawyer asks, "Yes, from whom and in what jurisdiction?"

That is why the conversation on August 17, 2024, which was so important to me, there was no separate document: I remember two affirmative answers to the question of transferring the IP to a Dubai company. In my memory, in early September, Andrey Yuryevich again supported translation in conversations with me and the Vienna office, this is my version, which requires comparison with correspondence and testimony; it does not replace a separate verification of corporate approval of Megainpharm.

Later, our relationships and our assessments of events became embroiled in disputes, where there were money issues, and cession, and different ideas about who agreed what. I do not want to describe Andrey Yuryevich only through these processes. In family memory, a person should not become a set of procedural positions.

To me, it's a reminder of how dangerous it is to build a system where historical authority replaces formalized governance, and as long as people trust each other, it seems natural, and in conflict, it forces everyone to figure out where family influence ended and the legal will of a particular company began.

39. Vyacheslav Sidorov: Witness to the early context

Vyacheslav Sidorov holds a special place in this story because his correspondence helps verify events before the conflict finally formed the camps. For forensic reconstruction, such witnesses are especially valuable: what matters is not the subsequent sympathy for one side, but what a person wrote and did to the climax.

The documents show his practical involvement in the UAE circuit, going through KYC, getting corporate documents, discussing next steps, making his early awareness a strong fact, while in other episodes he raised issues of financial transparency and was critical of individual explanations of what was happening around Megainpharm.

I don't want to make Sidorov a "witness to my point," which would be another form of simplification: his own interests, views and shareholder position should be judged separately, but it is the early contemporaneous documents that make him an important control source.

For posterity, a general principle is helpful: when a family dispute begins, look not for the one who is louder supporting you today, but for the documents of people who wrote before the conflict.

40. Oksana Kirpenko and Adolina Rudko: Between majority rule and procedure

Oksana Kirpenko could easily have been described with 68 percent and ended there, and I think that would have been a mistake, and her significance in the September correspondence was also to try to translate the conflict into a collective discussion, when the participants were already beginning to speak the language of pretension.

In one of the contemporaneous episodes, she allowed the trademark issue to be linked to an earlier contour of shareholder decisions, and for my version of the story, it's an important element, because it doesn't fit with the notion of a completely sudden and unknown IP architecture, but it's not the same as the approval of a particular contract.

Later, the 68% became almost a symbol, but the symbols are dangerous in a legal dispute: they give a sense of the ultimate answer, and I prefer to see this figure as an indicator of possible support for the direction at the group level, rather than a magic key to Austrian corporate approval.

The portrait of Kirpenko in my memory is therefore connected with a double lesson: the majority is important, but the procedure is important, too, and if these two levels do not coincide, you need to close the gap before the deal, not explain it after the conflict.

41. NSP: When external lawyers become part of the record

Lawyers are rarely included in family memoirs, but in our history, NSPs have become one of the most reliable watches: their letters and reports show what was discussed on a particular day, what risks the professional adviser saw, and where exactly the interests represented no longer coincide.

In April-May 2025, they analyzed SPAs, prepared seller-side edits, discussed negotiation strategies, and documented intellectual property risks, and their report is also important because it shows the scope of work that was being done in my interest as a trustee.

The May 15 episode is particularly important to me, because the lawyers didn't say, "Eugene and Anton had a fight," but they described the professional-ethical problem of incompatible interests represented, which is much more accurate than the human legend that might have come up later.

The paradox with good lawyers is that as long as they're okay, they seem to be a source of extra formality, and after a conflict, it's that formality that becomes a memory that you can trust more than your own emotions.

If descendants have a complicated business, the advice is simple: a lawyer should be present not only when it is necessary to sue, but his main value is to leave the right document on the day when no one is thinking about court.

42. The buyer: An outsider's rationality

In family conflicts, the buyer is easily transformed into a moral character: a savior, an invader, an ally of one side, in fact, the big buyer acts primarily in its own economic logic.

In the spring of 2025, the buyer-side SPA was tough, shifting significant risks to the seller, demanding guarantees, and leaving the buyer room to protect their own outcome, and I perceived some of the conditions as excessive, and lawyers also saw substantial seller-side risks.

But it doesn't follow that the buyer was supposed to care about our family balance, that the buyer's job was to get the asset with the least possible uncertainty, and that if the sellers come to a deal with an existing conflict over IP, governance and authority, the buyer will inevitably try to turn that uncertainty into guarantees, terms and control.

This is one of the most frustrating lessons for a family business: the market doesn't have to wait for the family to agree; internal weakness becomes part of the bargain price; the worse owners are able to speak with one voice, the stronger the outside side's position.

So you can't explain all of the buyer's behavior as being part of our internal drama, and even if there is later evidence of individual parallel encounters, the buyer's underlying economic motivation remains independent.

Part VII. Practical legacy

43. Family constitution: Twelve rules I would have written in advance

The first rule is that a family business should have a written constitution, not a one-hundred-page legal treatise, but a clear document on who makes strategic decisions, how management is appointed, how conflict is resolved, and how a relative can go out of business without destroying the family.

Second, the economic majority and the legal vote must be mapped together, you can't live in terms of "we have about that much interest," and you have to see for each company who's voting, who's voting, and what issues require a qualified majority.

Third, the power to make a decision and the power to execute it must be separated, and the person with a power of attorney must not be forced to guess whether oral support from the owners is sufficient to justify a major transaction.

Fourth, any change in the price of a substantial asset is written in a separate note: what has changed, why, who proposed what new perimeter, who approved, it seems like bureaucracy before the first trial.

Fifth, one person should not be the only channel between the owners, the bank, the financial services and the company. The information monopoly creates power regardless of the position.

Sixth, intellectual property must have a separate governance model: who determines strategy, who owns, who licenses, who evaluates, who controls payments. IP is too important to be managed “by common understanding.”

Seventh, large loans between relatives are more stringent than loans between strangers, and family does not reduce risk, it makes subsequent disputes more painful.

Eighth, a family business must have an independent supervisor, an adviser, a director, or a board of directors, who are independent of one family camp, not run a family, but tell them in time that the system has stopped working.

Ninth, when a serious conflict occurs, the freeze period automatically activates, no major divestments, changes in key powers, and irreversible actions within a predetermined timeframe without a special procedure, first the status quo is maintained, then the claims are discussed.

Tenth, the executive's departure is checklisted: powers of attorney, banks, signatures, accesses, email, archives, contractors, referrals, no gray areas where the person has already left, but they are still perceived as the manager.

Eleventh: family disputes are not passed on to children as moral inheritance; descendants should be given an archive and the right to draw their own conclusions, not a ready-made list of people to be considered enemies.

Twelfth: the cost of maintaining control must be regularly compared to the cost of maintaining a relationship; businesses can be sold, divided, restructured and rebuilt; family history is much more difficult to reconstruct after decades of war.

44. If I could start again

If I were to go back to a time when business was growing and conflict seemed impossible, I wouldn't be trying to make everyone wiser. I would change the system.

I would collect all the economic owners once a year, and I would show you one map: legal entities, assets, IP, banking powers, actual roles, debts between relatives, power of attorney and potential conflicts of interest, not a presentation of success, but a map of addiction.

I would require that for each key asset, there be two documents: a strategy decision and a performance document, so that the person signing the contract would not be left alone with the question of who decided to make the transaction.

I would create a procedure for mandatory independent review of any transaction between related parties or any transfer of a key IP. Even if everyone believes that the price is fair, independent evaluation is not just for tax or court - it protects relationships within the family.

I would have separated family conversations from corporate meetings, and at the family table, you can talk about feelings and fears and fairness, you have to fix the decision on the board, and mixing these platforms makes both worse.

And I would negotiate a dignified exit, and each participant should understand how they can stop being part of the business without automatically becoming the enemy of the others, and being able to get out is one of the main safeguards for joint ownership.

I think even with that system, we would argue anyway. People remain human. But arguing doesn't have to turn into the destruction of architecture. Good corporate governance doesn't make conflict impossible. It keeps conflict from becoming the only way to govern.

Epilogue

A letter to those who come after us

If you're reading this many years from now, Miramistin, Megainpharm, Innovexa, and the names of the ships may just be words from the archives. I hope they will. So your life doesn't revolve around our arguments.

Don't look for one villain in this book. Don't make me a hero. Big problems rarely have this convenient form. We built complex businesses faster than we built a system of joint power. We trusted each other more than we trusted procedures. We mixed economic majorities, family authority, position and legal authority. As long as everything went well, it worked. When interests diverged, every hidden defect became visible simultaneously.

If you have a family business, write rules before you need them. Separate ownership and management. Separate decision-making and enforcement. Make sure that the person in control of the money doesn't control the only channel of information. Keep records. Make independent valuations of large assets. Don't leave meaningful loans between relatives at the level of verbal arrangements.

Set up an exit procedure. Being able to quietly sell a stake, transfer authority and leave sometimes saves a family better than the most lucrative new project.

And also, never let a legal dispute explain the whole person to you, because in court, we have to simplify the roles of plaintiff, defendant, seller, director, copyright holder, and in life, each participant is more than his or her procedural position.

I don't know how history will judge my decisions. Some I would have taken differently. Some I'm willing to defend. Some of the facts I still don't have a definitive answer for, but I know I had to keep this story in a flawed way -- with gaps, doubts and my own mistakes.

If you turn it into a more peaceful and transparent business, we didn't pay the price in vain.

Evgeny Gorokhov Vienna, 2026

Sources for the family history

1. “Girl of Gorokhovs” – genealogical examination “Project Life”, Moscow, 2019, 189 pages. Includes archival references, generational paintings, biographical essays and family photos.

2. "AYU Gorokhov Tree" - Panoramic Family Tree, 2019. Used to test the structure of generations and as a separate family app.

3.Facts about living relatives indicated in the genealogical study are related to the state of 2019 and should not be taken as current biographical information without updating.

Documentary map of memory

This section isn't meant to repeat a court memo; its task is simpler: to give the future reader a short map of what elements of my memory are based on documents, where gaps remain, and what conclusions cannot be turned into a family legend without further verification.

1. How to read the documentary section

In this book, I distinguish four levels of certainty: [A] is the primary contemporaneous document or official registry; [B] is a strong inference from several independent facts; [C] is a late side position or an incompletely confirmed episode; [H] is a hypothesis that still needs to be proved. The absence of a letter in the archive being examined means only "not found," not "not occurred."

2. Four questions that remain open

Question: What to remember

The IP Economic Contour - Restored Agreement 26.08.2024 fixes the contract amount; Supplemental Agreement 27.09 directly retains this price. Letter 04.09 contains the proposed commercial version. Now the question is not "what figure was at all," but why the other price was discussed and how the contract price was valued/paid.

68% Contour – Support or economic weight of Kirpenko/Sidorov at the group level, even if 68% are confirmed, does not automatically equal the votes and corporate approval of a particular transaction of Megainpharm GmbH.

MIF and Pharmstandard/PST — The change of MIF control to New Medical Technologies KFT and the appointment of Harmas are confirmed. The direct ownership/control link of MIF to PST/Pharmstandard requires a separate chain of evidence.

Critical Origins and Procedural Statuses - Full procedural copy of the MIF-Innovexa agreement and supplement restored, still need original/native signed PoA 08.07, corporate approvals, checking GE's memory of the oral conversation on 17.08 and subsequent communications, preparation of Berufung and further WKStA record.

Power of attorney dated 8 July and email dated 19 September — The original email of 8 July confirms an early, unsigned draft of a broad power of attorney and a request for signature. The attachments recovered on 19 September relate to NSP and patent representatives. These facts must be kept separate: the origin of a text is not proof that a signature is genuine; a later recollection is not a contemporaneous attachment.

3. Individuals and legal entities on one map

Participant/Structure – Documented role and reservation

Evgeny Gorokhov, an active international/IP circuit performer. Original email 08.07 shows that he had asked Papadopoulos to sign a broad PoA in advance; case-file agreement 26.08 refers to it. The main dispute is the validity of the signature/authority and corporate approval, not the absence of Evgeny Gorokhov.

Andrey Gorokhov - Family and Strategic Center. GE describes the oral double consent on 17.08.2024; there is no separate GA document from that date.Later conduct and September communications require separate scrutiny and do not replace corporate approval.

GD / Dmitry Gorokhov – Financial outline and participation in governance MIF. Episode 03.04.2025 confirms the practical financial and intermediary role; general control over Andrey Gorokhov / Anton is not established.

Anton Gorokhov is the formal owner/seller of Infamed K LLC and an active negotiator in the spring of 2025, a personal conflict with Evgeny Gorokhov is not confirmed by documents.

Vyacheslav Sidorov – Early knowledge of the UAE-contour is confirmed by KYC/documents; in the restored copy of the contract 26.08 it is indicated by the representative of Innovexa and the copy shows his signature / seal. This enhances the fact of participation, but does not replace corporate approval Megainpharm.

Oksana Kirpenko and Adolina Rudko are a participant in shareholder communications and collective discussion attempts, and her September correspondence is important for validating the earlier contour of decisions.

Megainpharm GmbH / MIF is an Austrian company, the historical owner of a significant IP perimeter, legally independent; its corporate approval cannot be substituted for the “will of the group”.

Innovexa Holdings, an UAE-based entity that was established before the conflict, was considered by Project Estate as a possible element of the future IP/M&A architecture.

NSP – Evgeny Gorokhov’s lawyers in M&A 2025; documented seller-side risks. 15.05.2025 recorded a divergence of interests represented, not a personal conflict between Evgeny Gorokhov and Anton.

Buyer/Pharmstandard-related contour – By April 2025, the buyer’s economic contour is explicitly referred to as “Pharmstandard” in NSP correspondence.

4. Concise sequence of events

Date - Event/value

08.07.2024 — Original email Evgeny Gorokhov → Papadopoulos cc Konyakhina with wide PoA draft; please sign. Attachment not signed.

31.07.2024 — Presentation of consolidation: the group is considered as an object of restructuring; IP is a separate element of the target architecture.

17-23.08.2024 — Innovexa, KYC, participation of Sidorov; August 23, the restructuring plan, legal risk matrix and roadmap are circulating.

26.08.2024 - Full case-file copy MIF-Innovexa agreement restored: contractual amount; Evgeny Gorokhov cites PoA 08.07; Sidorov presents Innovexa. Validity/authority remain controversial.

28-31.08.2024 – DVC requests full IP MIF; Evgeny Gorokhov reports planned transfer; IP-perimeter file appears; Term Sheet directly describes UAE/IP scenario.

04.09.2024 - Evgeny Gorokhov email contains the proposed commercial version. Found contractual copy 26.08 = contract amount; supplement 27.09 saves the contract amount.

18/19.09.2024 - Recovered email attachments: PoA for NSP + patent representatives; they do not authorize Evgeny Gorokhov to enter into contracts.

27.09.2024 - Recovered Supplemental Agreement No.1 adjusts the IP list and directly stores Purchase Price contract amount.

05-27.09.2024 – Dispute over powers of attorney, Geschäftsführer and MIF management becomes open; on September 27, the term “corporate conflict” is already directly used within the business.

04.11.2024 / 27.01.2025 — In the latest materials appear as the release date of Evgeny Gorokhov from the Russian and MIF circuits.

03.04.2025 - Evgeny Gorokhov informs Andrey Gorokhov that GD received interest and a first repayment on funds that were presented as Andrey Gorokhov's money.This confirms the episode of mediation, but not the general agency power.

14-23.04.2025 – Buyer-side SPA by Infamed K LLC; Evgeny Gorokhov formulates seller/IP risks; April 23, NSP meeting contour is directly called “Pharmstandard Deal”.

28.04-12.05.2025 - Anton is actively negotiating, transferring SPA versions and asking NSP for edits. On May 12, the NSP indicates that the vast majority of the protective edits have not been accepted.

15.05.2025 - NSP terminates the joint escort of Anton and Evgeny Gorokhov in M&A due to a divergence of legal interests.

23.05-06.06.2025 – The ownership/governance MIF changes: New Medical Technologies KFT appears in the public chain, then the new Geschäftsführer Harmas.

June 2025 - The Russian production circuit changes owners.M&A phase is to be analyzed separately from the family conflict of 2024.

08.07.2025 et seq. — The disputed assignment of Andrey Gorokhov → GD is dated; later it is used in litigation.

13.04-19.08.2026 – ASG Wien makes an unfavorable decision of the first instance; it was handed over 18.08; 19.08 Evgeny Gorokhov instructs to prepare Berufung. 12.08 WKStA separately appoints additional investigative actions.

5. Concise causal model of the conflict

The documents most consistently support not the linear formula “one deal caused the whole conflict”, but a sequence of several processes: internal commercial-control track 2022-2023; documented since April 2024 UAE/IP project; formal change of Geschäftsführer while maintaining the actual operational role; Project Estate/Innovexa in the summer; then the collision of this architecture with the governance crisis of the MIF in late August-September. These lines may be mutually reinforced, but should not merge into one pre-proven conspiracy.

Restructuring / M&A → UAE + IP consolidation → control dispute MIF mutually reinforcing risks and distrust → legalization → M&A 2025 → new control

6. Three levels of authority that must not be confused

Level - Question and evidence

Execution authority - Could Evgeny Gorokhov sign or perform an action on behalf of the MIF? Verified by power of attorney, position, scope of authority and its expiration date.

Decision authority - Who has determined the direction: whether to move IP, where, under what conditions and in whose interests? Verified by owners' decisions, correspondence and mandate.

Corporate approval - legal approval - Which body of Megainpharm should have approved a particular transaction and has it been done?

The most dangerous mistake for family memory is to turn the signature of Evgeny Gorokhov into proof of all three levels at once, a mistake just as dangerous: general consent of owners does not replace formal corporate approval if the law or statutes require it.

7. Competing explanations and what could disprove them

Hypothesis - Current assessment

Normal restructuring/M&A – Strongly supported by Project Estate, roadmap, risk matrix, UAE setup and Term Sheet.

H2 Protective ring-fencing IP due to governance risk – Explains the late August coincidence well, but a final withdrawal requires contemporaneous documents directly linking IP acceleration to the threat of losing MIF control.

H3. Evgeny Gorokhov single-handedly deduced IP for personal purposes - As a full explanation still doesn't align well with Project Estate, the original 08.07 request, consultant/Sidorov involvement and contractual infrastructure. But ASG Wien first instance has taken unfavorable conclusions about knowledge and authority; so the formal PoA/approval line now has a particularly high risk.

H4.GD pre-arranged the redistribution of control – There are recurring governance/financial episodes, but no full command chain GD → Andrey Gorokhov / Anton and independent confirmation of GD→Velichko were found.

H5.Pharmstandard was behind the events as early as 2024 -- The array surveyed is not confirmed.Buyer contour documented becomes visible in 2025.

8. What can be stated with confidence and what should not become legend

UAE/IP-architecture documented no later than 10.04.2024, and Project Estate July-August developed the existing direction.

In April, MIF restored historical patent costs; Evgeny Gorokhov chose aggregate cost method; annual accounts do not show patent/trademark portfolio as a separate capitalized asset.

The price formula “costs by the end of August + royalties 2023 + small plus” and tax-efficient UAE rationale are a specific explanation of Evgeny Gorokhov, partially supported by the components, but exact reconciliation/tax memo has not yet been found.

One can say that the formal change of Geschäftsführer in the spring of 2024 did not automatically terminate Evgeny Gorokhov’s labor and actual operational role; this is confirmed by several court witnesses.

TRACK F 2022-2023 confirms Evgeny Gorokhov’s early verification work on the commercial block. Without bridge evidence, one can say that this investigation caused the conflict of 2024-2025.

Evgeny Gorokhov was an active performer and one of the architects of the international/IP circuit.

Anton was an active seller and negotiator in the spring of 2025, and on May 15, a legal conflict of interests arose.

GD had a documented role in financial and governance episodes; the extent of its impact on specific decisions must be demonstrated separately.

It is impossible to say without additional evidence: “68% legally approved MIF-Innovexa”, “GD controlled everyone”, “GD-Velichko meeting established”, “MIF belonged to PST directly”.

The family conflict of 2024, the M&A of 2025 and the actions of the new management after closing as one proven scheme.

The full procedural copy of the contract 26.08 and supplement 27.09 has now been restored; the recovered contractual price is the contractual amount, while the proposed commercial version in the letter 04.09 remains the proposed term.

You can say that the original email 08.07 confirms the early existence of the broad PoA draft and the request of Papadopoulos to sign it; it cannot be said that this in itself proves the authenticity of the signature on the controversial signed copy.

• It is necessary to say precisely: the Adverse Act of ASG Wien of First Instance in an employment dispute is dated 13.04.2026; according to my clarification, the decision was published only on 18.08.2026. I am preparing an appeal and intend to file it; this is not an allegation that it has already been filed. WKStA is investigating; criminal guilt is not established by the effective sentence.

9. Highest-priority documents

Priority - Document

P1 - Forensic authentication source email 08.07 + recipient/provider copy.

P2 - Original/native signed PoA 08.07 + signature/provenance examination

P3 - Berufung preparation for ASG Wien and further appellate acts.

P4 - Updated WKStA file after order 12.08.2026, including 19.09 email acquisition and supplemental witness interviews.

P5 - Recording of GE's recollection of the oral conversation on 17.08.2024 and verification of subsequent communications; there is no separate GA written document from this date.

P6 – Corporate resolutions/minutes/Megainpharm instructions on IP and specific transaction.

P7 — Native/original 26.08 Agreement + 27.09 Supplement and signature provenance.

P8 Valuation and bank/payment trail for contractual amount; explanation of proposed commercial option

P9 — Recipient copy of 18/19.09 email + exact attachments; targeted witness clarification.

P10 — MIF/HIGOR/NMT ownership/UBO/control chain and M&A 2025 closing package.

P11 - Original cession Andrey Gorokhov → GD + payment/signature tracing.

P12 — Independent evidence for/against GD-Velichko Dubai channel, kept separate from proven M&A correspondence.

10. What to preserve with this book

• April 2024 email chain `request for PrEP and patents`, balance/cost correspondence Begusch and `Aufwand Patente ab 2005-23.xlsx`.

Jahresabschluss MIF 2023/2024 with immaterial assets/royalty figures and future exact economic-terms reconciliation/tax memo, if found.

TRACK F 2022-2023 materials: GA-2022-98-BES-11, source bank/source records, supplier comparisons and emails 28.01/10.02/05.05/19.05.2023.

WAZIFI trade license and incorporation documents and Innovexa business license – so that a future version can document why the first UAE vehicle did not fit.

• MIF payroll/employment records after the change of Geschäftsführer and separate corporate approvals/PoA – not to confuse the employment role with legal authority.

Consolidation 31.07.24 and Legal Risk Matrix – as early documents on the target architecture and training of the project.

Roadmap - Consolidation and Term Sheet Project Estate dated 31.08.2024.

Status Megainpharm - Infamed 30.08.2024 (all IP) and associated IP inventory.

• Correspondence White Square 17-23.08.2024 on Innovexa/KYC Sidorov.

Letter 04.09.2024 on commercial terms and all materials, where the contract amount appears.

Buyer SPA "Infamed K", consecutive redlines and NSP correspondence April-May 2025.

Letter of NSP dated 15.05.2025 on the divergence of legal interests represented.

Documents on ownership/governance MIF in May-June 2025.

Andrey Gorokhov’s Cession → GD and the entire litigation block in which it was used.

Native files and metadata. PDF copy is easy to read, but should not replace the original.

The original “RE June Invoice.eml” dated 08.07.2024 together with the Russian/German PoA draft and its forensic hash.

Case-file copies: disputed signed PoA 08.07, MIF-Innovexa agreement 26.08, Supplemental Agreement 27.09.

Email 18/19.09.2024 and both of its original Word attachments (NSP and patent representatives).

ASG Wien Urteil 13.04.2026, correspondence of delivery/appeal and full WKStA record after order 12.08.2026.

10A. Cumulative register of claims

The family archive is maintained cumulatively: no material proposition disappears silently. When a new document changes the picture, the earlier wording and the reason for revision remain recorded.

There are four separate categories: what's confirmed by the document; what I remember but haven't confirmed yet; what's the other side's version; what's still the hypothesis. Descendants don't need an archive where my version won; they need an archive where you can understand why the versions diverged.

11. Family appendix: Family tree

The 2019 panoramic AYU Gorokhov Tree is stored as a separate family archive file. In A5 format, it becomes unreadable, so the book includes a direct line of genus and biographical essays, and the full panoramic tree should be stored and printed separately in a large format.

10B. Reconciliation of the working chronology as at 28 September 2026

The working memo.xlsx chronology is a map of memory, not evidence by itself. It mixes documents, recollections, participants’ reports, procedural statuses and plans. Events scheduled for 29 September and 1 October 2026 remain future events as of this edition.

The reconciled corporate framework is that Evgeny Gorokhov acted as group CEO from 1 July 2023 to 4 November 2024 and remained an ordinary MIF employee after ceasing to be Geschäftsführer. Claims about completed team targets and KPI entitlement require employment and calculation records. Operational coordination is not the same as corporate approval.

The UAE/IP project is documented from April 2024: WAZIFI was considered first and Innovexa was selected later. No written GA approval dated 17 August has been found; the account of two oral confirmations remains the author’s recollection. The 8 July power of attorney, the September Ermanchenko/Ischakova drafts and the final copy naming a different group are separate documents. The GE side did not withdraw Kristina Konyakhina as a witness; an address for proper service could not be found.

After 4 November 2024 the author had no stated IP mandate or economic interest in that track. Later IP and PST events should not be attributed to him without a proven chain of knowledge or instruction. TRACK F for 2022–2023 remains a separate commercial review and does not by itself prove the cause of the 2024 conflict.

No personal conflict with Anton has been established; the recorded divergence concerned represented legal interests. The 12 December 2025 recording, interview protocol and 15 December agreements should be used only with the originals and a verified transcript. The first-instance employment decision was published/received on 18 August 2026; the reported appeal filing of 15 September requires a court-stamped copy. Personal litigation is not evidence of corporate events.

Final entry

I'm deliberately leaving the answer in this book where the answer is not yet known. Successive archival review has shown why: contract 26.08, supplement 27.09, the original email 08.07, the April IP project origins chain, and the earlier TRACK F 2022-2023. Each new primary document changed not only the details but also the causal model. If there are confirmations or denials of the memory of the oral conversation 17.08, the original power of attorneys, the reconciliation of economic conditions and tax logic, labor documents, the appeals, and the earlier TRACK F 2022-2023. Each new primary document can only be updated as its own source of the relevant documents, then the family can not be retrieved.

Memory must be alive, but not comfortable. A document must limit our confidence where we want to know more than we really know.