PJSC “Zhytomyrmoloko” plans to sell 100% of the corporate rights to its subsidiary, the “Novograd-Volynsky Cheese Plant,” to PJSC “Favorit Company”—owned by the family of former People’s Deputy Boryslav Rosenblat—for 47 million hryvnias.
The matter will be discussed at an extraordinary meeting of Zhytomyrmoloko shareholders on July 3, according to the company’s filing with the National Securities and Stock Market Commission (NSSMC).
According to the agenda, shareholders will also consider increasing the state-owned enterprise’s authorized capital by 80.1 million UAH prior to the sale, which could be achieved by offsetting the debt of the “Novograd-Volynsky Cheese Plant” to “KOMO Ukraine” LLC, the claim rights to which the LLC will previously assign to “Zhytomyrmolok.”
According to the draft resolution, the cheese plant’s authorized capital is planned to be increased to 80.37 million UAH from 0.23 million UAH.
In addition, the meeting will consider the issue of the free-of-charge transfer to the cheese plant of real estate owned by “Zhytomyrmolok,” specifically production buildings with a total area of 22.6 thousand square meters and wastewater treatment facilities in the village of Natalivka, Zhytomyr Oblast.
The agenda also includes a proposal to terminate the mortgage and pledge agreements concluded with Ukreximbank to secure the loan obligations of the “KOMO” Group.
PJSC “Zhytomyrmoloko” is part of the “KOMO” group of companies, one of the largest cheese producers in Ukraine. State Enterprise “Novograd-Volynskyi Cheese Plant” is a production asset of the group.
According to data from YouControl, the state enterprise had no net revenue from product sales in 2025 and the first quarter of 2026. Its net loss for the past year amounted to 3.12 million UAH, and its current liabilities as of March 31 of this year totaled 84.24 million UAH.
According to information in the NSSMC disclosure system, 94.9755% of Zhytomyrmoloko’s shares are owned by the Cypriot company WMG West Milk Limited. According to information in the NSSMC’s disclosure system, its beneficial owners are Sofia and Roman—the children of Igor Yeremeyev, a lawmaker who died in 2015—each holding 23.75%, and Mykhailo Romaniv, who holds 47.04%.
According to information on its website, the “Favorit” Group of Companies is a vertically integrated holding company founded in 1994. It encompasses the dairy, construction, hospitality, and service sectors. As noted on the website, the dairy business is a strategic focus of the group and is represented by the Galiivka Butter Plant, located in the village of Galiivka, 75 km from Zhytomyr. The plant produces 50 types of dairy products across 7 categories: butter, soft cheeses, condensed milk, skim milk powder, sweet cream spread, milk-based cheese products, and milk-based condensed products. Its stated production capacity is 1,000 metric tons per year.
According to data from YouControl, Favorit Company’s revenue grew by 7.1% last year to 28.08 million UAH, and its net profit amounted to 5.29 million UAH, compared to a net loss of 5.12 million UAH the previous year.
According to information in the NSSMC’s disclosure system, the owners of “Favorit Company” are Borislav Rosenblat (16%), Zhanna Rosenblat (34%), and Olena Rosenblat (50%).
dairy industry, Favorit Company, Novograd-Volynskyi Cheese Plant, Житомирмолоко, КОМО
Renovation of the border crossing points on the border with Moldova in the Odesa region—“Starokozache–Tudora,” “Dolynske–Cishmikiu,” “Lesne–Seits,” and “Maloyaroslavets 1–Cadir-Lunga,” according to a statement by Deputy Prime Minister for Reconstruction and Minister of Community Development Oleksiy Kuleba.
“The infrastructure at these sites has been upgraded; new modular structures, backup power sources, modern lighting, and utility networks have been installed; pedestrian zones have been developed; and working conditions for border and customs services have been improved,” he wrote on his Telegram channel. In addition, construction of a modern service area near the “Reni–Giurgiulești” border crossing on the Odesa–Reni highway has been completed.
“The site is designed to accommodate 46 trucks and 13 passenger cars. Comfortable rest areas for drivers have been created here, along with lighting, water supply, sewage systems, and barrier-free infrastructure,” Kuleba noted.
He thanked Ukraine’s international partners and the European Union for their support in implementing these projects as part of the “Roads of Solidarity” initiative.
The Administrative Council of the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEDB) has approved two applications from Ukraine totaling 140 million euros to support housing programs; these funds will be used to provide housing for internally displaced persons from temporarily occupied territories and war veterans, according to the bank’s website.
A loan of 80 million euros will be allocated to support the “Housing for IDPs” component of the “eRecovery” program. In the first phase, this support will be directed toward IDPs who have left the temporarily occupied territories and have combatant status, as well as individuals with war-related disabilities. The funds will be disbursed in two tranches: Ukraine expects to receive the first 40 million euros as early as September 2026, with another 40 million euros to follow in 2027. Securing these funds will provide additional financing for approximately 2,000 housing vouchers to help people purchase their own homes.
“We have an existing mechanism to support people who have lost their homes in the temporarily occupied territories. The first phase of the program demonstrated high demand and tangible results—thousands of families have already purchased new homes using housing vouchers. Therefore, it is extremely important that Ukraine has received support for the program’s continued funding. “I am grateful to the Council of Europe Development Bank and personally to its President, Carlo Monticelli, for their support,” said Oleksiy Kuleba, Deputy Prime Minister for Ukraine’s Recovery and Minister of Community and Territorial Development of Ukraine.
An additional 60 million euros in loans from the Council of Europe Development Bank will be allocated to a program providing housing for war veterans. The funds will be used to finance long-term, preferential mortgage loans. The program will be implemented in cooperation with government agencies and administered by the State Fund for the Promotion of Youth Housing Construction.
It is expected that this will enable the issuance of approximately 1,500 loans, of which more than 1,100 will be financed directly from the loan proceeds, and another 450 or more through a revolving financing mechanism.
The decisions adopted were also the result of agreements reached during the Conference on the Reconstruction of Ukraine held in Rome in 2025. At that time, Oleksiy Kuleba, Deputy Prime Minister for Ukraine’s Recovery and Minister of Community and Territorial Development of Ukraine, approached Carlo Monticelli, President of the Council of Europe Development Bank, with a proposal to support the first phase of the housing program for internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the temporarily occupied territories, as well as to consider launching a separate housing support program for veterans.
U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer may resign as head of government following what he claims are failures on immigration policy and energy issues.
“Keir Starmer will resign as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He has suffered a major defeat on two very important issues—IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY (THE OPENING OF OIL FIELDS IN THE NORTH SEA!). I wish him all the best!” Trump said in a post published on the social media platform Truth Social.
As previously reported, Reuters noted that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer plans to announce his resignation on Monday and intends to present a clear timeline for his departure.
Visitors to the Acropolis of Athens can now see the west side of the Parthenon in its most complete form in around 220 years, following the completion of one of the key stages in the restoration of the ancient temple.
Restorers have installed two new marble blocks in the gaps in the western pediment. It is this side of the Parthenon that visitors see first upon entering the site.
The Greek Ministry of Culture stated that the completion of the work restores the architectural unity of the west pediment and allows the temple’s proportions and geometric precision to be seen once again. Culture Minister Lina Mendoni described the Parthenon’s renewed appearance as “truly impressive”.
The work was carried out by the Acropolis Restoration Service. According to Greek media reports, this was one of the most complex restoration operations in recent years: specialists had to join the surviving ancient fragments with new marble, precisely cut the blocks, hoist them into place and install them within the monument’s structure without disrupting the building’s historical fabric.
The project is funded through European programmes and forms part of the long-term restoration of the Acropolis, which began in 1975. Restorers are using marble from the Pentelicus area – the same source from which material was taken for the construction of the Parthenon in antiquity.
The Parthenon remains the main symbol of Athens and one of Europe’s most visited monuments. According to the AP, the Acropolis attracted around 4.6 million visitors last year. For Greece, it is not only a cultural asset but also a tourist attraction: restoring the temple’s appearance enhances Athens’ appeal as a destination for cultural tourism.
The Parthenon was built between 447 and 432 BC on the Acropolis of Athens and is dedicated to the goddess Athena. The temple is considered one of the principal monuments of classical ancient Greek architecture. In antiquity, it was adorned with sculptural compositions, friezes, metopes and pediments, many of which depicted mythological scenes and formed part of a unified artistic ensemble.
Throughout its history, the Parthenon has changed its function on numerous occasions: it was an ancient temple, a Christian church, a mosque, and during the period of Ottoman rule it was also used as a gunpowder store. In 1687, during the war between Venice and the Ottoman Empire, a shell struck the temple, causing an explosion that severely damaged the building.
Another severe blow to the monument’s integrity came in the early 19th century, when the British diplomat Lord Elgin removed a significant portion of the Parthenon’s sculptural decoration to the United Kingdom. These fragments, known as the Parthenon Marbles or the Elgin Marbles, have been housed in the British Museum since 1816.
For decades, Greece has been seeking the return of the sculptures, arguing that their removal compromised the integrity of the monument and deprived the Parthenon of part of its historical and artistic significance. The British Museum insists that the collection was acquired lawfully under the Ottoman administration of the time; however, Athens maintains that no genuine authorisation existed for the removal of key elements of the temple.
This is precisely why the current restoration of the west pediment has not only architectural but also symbolic significance. Greece is demonstrating that it continues to restore the Parthenon as a single monument of world culture, despite the fact that a significant part of its sculptural heritage still remains outside the country.
In 2024, a representative of the Turkish Ministry of Culture stated that there was no document bearing the sultan’s seal in the Ottoman archives that would confirm the lawful sale or authorisation for the removal of the Parthenon sculptures by Lord Elgin. This strengthened Greece’s position in the dispute with the British Museum.
When a company calculates personnel costs, English rarely appears in the budget as a separate line item. Salaries, taxes, recruiting, technology, CRM, office space, marketing, legal support—all of these are visible in the financial statements. But poor English skills often fall into a different category. They aren’t always considered an expense because they don’t show up as a separate bill at the end of the month.
However, the business still pays for them.
It pays in the form of longer negotiations, unnecessary clarifications, slower client onboarding, missed opportunities, and a team’s diminished confidence during international meetings. It pays by having a skilled specialist remain silent during a call, even though they could have strengthened the company’s position. It pays by having a manager fail to ask an important clarifying question because they’re afraid to phrase it in English.
At first glance, these seem like minor issues. In practice, it’s precisely these small details that make up the true cost of the language barrier.
Poor English within a team rarely seems like a disaster. Usually, everything works: emails are sent, calls are made, documents are translated, and tasks move forward. But they move more slowly, with greater difficulty, and with more friction.
The team’s problem isn’t writing an email; it’s understanding the context, responding appropriately, and not misinterpreting the meaning. A manager might end up handling all calls with foreign partners because other employees “aren’t ready yet.” A manager might avoid face-to-face communication and hide behind email, even though the issue could have been resolved long ago with a brief conversation.
This is how hidden operational costs arise. They aren’t always visible to the CFO, but they’re keenly felt by team leaders, HR, sales, account managers, project managers, and business owners.
Because poor English doesn’t just make it hard to speak. It changes people’s behavior.
People choose simpler tasks. They avoid complex conversations. They delegate tasks they could do themselves. They refuse to participate in international projects. They show less initiative. And gradually, the company begins to operate below its potential.
The most obvious risk of poor English for business: sales and negotiations.
Imagine a manager who knows the product well, understands the client’s needs, and can explain the benefits of a solution in Ukrainian, but who suddenly loses confidence during an English-language call. They start speaking in shorter sentences, avoid complex arguments, ask fewer questions, and agree when they should be clarifying the terms.
From the outside, this may not look like a language problem, but rather a weak negotiating position.
A foreign client doesn’t always realize that they’re dealing with a strong specialist who simply lacks practice in English. They see uncertainty, pauses, vague phrasing, and caution. In international business, this is easily interpreted as insufficient preparation or a lower level of expertise.
This is particularly costly in B2B sales, where decisions aren’t made after just one conversation. What matters there isn’t just the presentation, but also dozens of subtle moments: responding quickly to objections, explaining a technical detail, clarifying expectations, effectively justifying the price, and agreeing on the next step.
If the team cannot confidently conduct these conversations in English, the company loses more than just a single deal. It loses access to a portion of the market.
English doesn’t just affect sales. It directly impacts the speed of work.
An international client sends a technical specification. The team reads it, but some of the wording needs to be checked. Someone translates it. Someone clarifies it. Someone is afraid of misunderstanding and asks a colleague to look at it again. Then a call comes in that could quickly resolve the issue, but the team prepares for it as if it were an exam.
As a result, a simple task drags on.
The delay may be minor: an hour here, half a day there, another day for clarifications. But in business, speed is often a competitive advantage. Whoever responds faster appears more reliable. Whoever finalizes the requirements faster gets to work sooner. Whoever conducts a demo faster is closer to securing the contract.
Poor English creates communication bottlenecks. Not dramatic ones, but constant ones. Like fine sand in a machine: the car seems to be moving, but the engine is working harder.
In many companies, there is an informal role: the person who “knows English well”. Tasks that aren’t part of their job description are brought to them.
In the short term, this is convenient. In the long term, it creates a bottleneck.
One person becomes the in-house negotiator and safety net for the entire team. Their time is spent not on strategic tasks, but on providing language support for processes. If they’re on vacation, sick, or overloaded, part of the communication slows down.
The company seems to have English, but not as a systemic skill of the team, rather as a resource of just a few people. This is risky—especially for businesses that work with international clients, partners, contractors, or investors.
There are specialists who excel in their professional field but cannot advance to the next level because of their English. They do not give presentations to foreign clients, speak at international events, participate in complex negotiations, or lead teams on global projects.
Sometimes a business loses not the person, but the opportunity to fully utilize their potential.
A top-notch engineer may be unable to explain an architectural solution to a client. An experienced financier may avoid English-language meetings with investors. A department head may have to rely on translation in situations that require a quick managerial response.
As a result, the company either promotes less competent but more linguistically confident people, or confines strong specialists to internal tasks. Both options come at a cost.
English doesn’t automatically make someone a professional. But without English, it’s often harder for a professional to gain visibility on the international stage.
Language influences how a company is perceived externally.
A foreign partner may not know the inner workings of the business, may not see the team’s capabilities in detail, and may not understand all the processes. But they do see the communication: emails, phone calls, presentations, responses to questions, and behavior during meetings.
If communication in English is unclear, slow, or overly cautious, it can undermine the perception of professionalism—even when the product is strong, the service is high-quality, and the team is experienced.
Reputation isn’t built solely on major successes. It’s built on small signals: how quickly you responded, How clearly you explained things. Whether you were able to make small talk. Whether you conducted the meeting with confidence. Whether you were caught off guard by an unexpected question.
In international communication, English often serves as a facade for expertise. If that facade cracks, the client may never get around to evaluating the foundation.
When a company finally decides to invest in English training, the first impulse is often simple: “Let’s set up a course for everyone.”
On paper, this seems logical. There’s a group of employees, a teacher, and classes twice a week. But in reality, this approach often yields poor results.
The reason is simple: different people have different skill levels, roles, and tasks.
A Sales manager needs to negotiate, handle objections, present value, and follow up after meetings. A Project manager needs to conduct status calls, clarify deadlines, discuss risks, and use phrases to diplomatically resolve complex issues. A technical specialist needs documentation, demos, explanations of solutions, and participation in calls with the client’s team. A manager needs presentations, strategic discussions, reporting, persuasive arguments, and management vocabulary.
If you put everyone in the same program, some will get bored, some won’t keep up, and others won’t see the connection to their work. Motivation drops, attendance slumps, HR gets the nice-sounding fact that “the course took place,” but the business doesn’t see any tangible change.
English for the company should not be abstract learning, but a working tool.
Effective training doesn’t start with a textbook, but with an assessment.
You need to understand employees’ current proficiency levels, the situations where English is most frequently needed, where exactly the barriers lie, and which roles are critical for international communication. One team might need to improve their live calls. Another might need to focus on written communication. A third team needs to work on presentations. A fourth needs industry-specific vocabulary and confidence in spontaneous conversation.
After that, people should be grouped not simply “into one corporate group,” but according to their proficiency levels and goals. This makes training more targeted. Participants don’t waste time on things they don’t need and see the benefits in their work more quickly.
This is precisely the principle on which corporate English training should be based: level assessment, groups tailored to specific tasks, a curriculum designed for real-world work situations, regular progress monitoring, and clear reporting for HR or management.
Then English ceases to be just a “box-ticking course.” It becomes part of the business infrastructure.
You shouldn’t measure the return on investment for English training solely through direct financial metrics. Part of the impact is visible in the team’s behavior.
Employees start speaking more actively during calls. They rely less on a single “English-speaking” colleague. They respond to clients more quickly. They conduct demos with greater confidence. They articulate their thoughts more clearly in emails. They no longer avoid meetings where they used to remain silent.
For a business, this is already a result.
Of course, it’s ideal when these changes can be linked to specific metrics: response time to clients, the number of meetings conducted independently, the quality of follow-ups, increased participation by employees in international projects, and reduced workload for managers who previously served as a language “safety net.”
But the key indicator is simple: the team is beginning to use English not as a school subject, but as a work tool.
Poor English costs a business more than it seems. It doesn’t always cause immediate pain, doesn’t always have an obvious cost, and doesn’t always appear to be a top priority. But it affects sales, speed, reputation, talent development, and the company’s ability to operate on an international level.
A company with strong team English has more freedom. It can enter new markets faster, negotiate with greater confidence, attract foreign clients, present itself without intermediaries, and develop talent within the business.
English is not just a nice-to-have bonus on a resume. For a modern company, it is just as much a part of the infrastructure as CRM, financial accounting, or a project management system. Its value becomes especially apparent when the business stops missing out on opportunities due to the language barrier.
Sometimes the greatest cost to a company isn’t what it pays for training. The greatest cost is what it pays for years of not having it.
