OOO KS Logistika has sent a letter to Vladimir Putin requesting consideration of temporary external management at five Nestle structures in Russia — OOO Nestle Rossiya, Nestle Kuban, Cereal Partners Rus, TsPB Nestle and Atrium Innovations Rus — Kommersant reported, citing sources.

The request is motivated by the company's lack of plans to expand capacity and its halt of exports of goods produced in Russia. The letter is currently with the office of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Patrushev, where the feasibility of external management is to be assessed by the end of the year.

Temporary management does not formally mean a change of asset ownership, the newspaper notes, but in practice, of more than a dozen major companies where it was introduced — including Danone, Baltika and Rolf — only Ariston's owners retained control.

Nestle's Russian office said it had not received any requests from government bodies regarding the KS Logistika appeal. The company's offices and factories are operating as normal and all obligations are being met, it added.

OOO KS Logistika had not been widely known until now. According to the SPARK database, the company's beneficiary is Gerasim Bogomolov. The agency notes that he previously held managerial positions at Sovcombank, owned by businessmen Dmitry and Sergei Khotimsky, and at Expobank, whose owner is Igor Kim. Kommersant's market sources tend to believe the company represents the interests of third-party structures.

Before the war, Nestle's revenue in Russia approached 30 billion rubles a year. After the war began, the company remained in the country, kept six production sites, but scaled back promotion and focused on producing essential goods, including baby food. TV Rain estimates Nestle's Russian business at 160–170 billion rubles.

Natalia Popravko, managing partner of Popravka Biznesa, explained that under current regulations, introducing temporary management at foreign companies' structures is possible in the event of a security threat or as a mirror response to infringement of Russians' rights. In practice, she said, the trigger is more often a political assessment of the situation. Formally, such a regime does not provide for seizure of the asset, although often after this procedure the business passes to a Russian investor through confiscation (as with Rolf) or sale.