Dmytro Sydorenko, bread and billion-dollar assets: how a company with an Odesa address acquired the Zhovtnevyi Palace and Stereo Plaza

Dmytro Sydorenko, bread and billion-dollar assets: how a company with an Odesa address acquired the Zhovtnevyi Palace and Stereo Plaza

Company “Kombinat Plus”, linked to Atlas organizer Dmytro Sydorenko, received two major concert venues in the capital under management one after another in 2025 — Zhovtnevyi Palace and Stereo Plaza. According to investigations and court materials, a struggle for premises and equipment unfolded around the second site after the change of manager.

“Kombinat Plus” took over Zhovtnevyi Palace in July 2025, and in the fall of the same year — the property complex on Lobanovskoho Street, where Stereo Plaza operated. In public sources, the company is linked to Dmytro Sydorenko, founder of Atlas Weekend and owner of several concert venues.

And this is where things get really interesting.

On paper, everything looked clean: a tender, Prozorro, a management contract, promises of investment, and millions in revenue for the budget. Regarding Zhovtnevyi Palace, ARMA announced a guaranteed payment of over 2 million hryvnias per month, as well as the transfer of 99.9% of revenues to the state budget once the venue became profitable.

But with Stereo Plaza, the story turned out much dirtier.

In September 2025, ARMA held a tender for managing the complex. The property was divided into three lots, and “Kombinat Plus” turned out to be the only bidder for all three. The company offered 200,000 hryvnias for each lot, and the contracts were signed for five years. The total guaranteed revenue to the budget over this period was estimated at no less than 44 million hryvnias.

The contract was signed on October 31. Already on November 11, about 30 people entered the building, presenting themselves as representatives of the new manager. Access to the premises was restricted for previous tenants. This episode became one of the central points in the conflict surrounding Stereo Plaza.

Then a legal war began.

One of the tenants — LLC “Stereo Bar” — demanded through the courts the return of its property valued at about 900,000 hryvnias. A separate lawsuit was filed by LLC “Stereo Invents”, which seeks to reclaim 376 pieces of equipment with a total value of 15.31 million hryvnias. This includes sound and acoustic systems, screens, generators, cables, and other concert equipment.

The problem for “Kombinat Plus” is that, according to case materials, this movable property was never transferred to the company under the ARMA management contract. Nevertheless, after the change of manager, the tenants reported being blocked from accessing their own equipment.

On Christmas, the conflict spilled into the streets. On December 25, clashes took place near Stereo Plaza. The sides effectively found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades, and the fight for the concert venue turned into an open conflict.

Another important point concerns Zhovtnevyi Palace.

In August 2026, the Kyiv Commercial Court, according to the data cited, granted the prosecutor’s claim to return the landmark to state ownership due to its illegal privatization. However, the transfer of the building to the state does not automatically resolve the management issues.

In the end, we have a rather telling picture: two of Kyiv’s best-known concert stages ended up in the hands of the same company one after another. And while in the case of Zhovtnevyi Palace ARMA publicly emphasized economic benefits for the state, around Stereo Plaza court disputes have already emerged over access to the premises and third-party equipment.

This is no longer just a story about concert venues. It is a story about how state assets, transferred through ARMA procedures, end up under the control of a private player who simultaneously operates in the same market. And that is why the issue here goes far beyond another conflict between two concert organizers.

When one company gets one stage, then a second, and conflicts with previous tenants and multimillion-hryvnia lawsuits arise around the second, society has every right to ask: who does the system of managing seized assets really serve — the state or those who receive these assets for management?

Especially when it comes to sites that for years shaped the cultural life of the capital.