Alexander Varvarenko, Varamar and the Unpaid Commission Dispute: Tsar? Mentor? Or, After All, “Mr. Nobody-in-Charge”?

The latest developments in the dispute — including Varvarenko’s appeal against the closure of the civil reputation case.

Preparations for the appeal in case No. 760/11449/26 have taken the dispute over the unpaid brokerage commission to a new level.

The parties’ positions can now be compared not only through correspondence, WhatsApp messages and LinkedIn publications, but also through formal procedural documents filed with the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

Those documents are now the most revealing part of the story.

Alexander Varvarenko’s representatives themselves now tell the court that commercial relations existed between the broker, acting as a sole proprietor, and Varamar. They acknowledge that Varamar’s claims bear the characteristics of a commercial dispute and explain that this dispute concerns the non-payment of a brokerage commission and the performance of the company’s commercial obligations.

The underlying commercial issue, however, remains unchanged: the broker performed professional work for Varamar, issued the invoice to the company, and the commission remains unpaid.

What Is Happening in the Appeal

On 14 July 2026, the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv closed the civil proceedings in case No. 760/11449/26.

Varamar and Alexander Varvarenko had asked the court to declare the broker’s publications false, require a retraction, and award approximately USD 100,000 for alleged moral and reputational harm.

But it is important to understand what happened before that claim appeared.

According to the broker’s position and the relevant commercial arrangement, the brokerage commission was payable within 24 hours after the agreed payment event.

Payment did not follow.

After several weeks of waiting, the broker circulated a deliberately short and dry market notice:

VARAMAR DOES NOT PAY

Approximately 20 minutes later, Alexander Varvarenko personally intervened.

He told the broker:

“Your commission will not be paid, as it will be applied toward partial compensation for reputational damage.”

At the same time, Varvarenko said that a lawyer had been engaged and that further claims concerning alleged reputational damage would follow.

The sequence was therefore straightforward:

first — several weeks of non-payment; then — the brief market circular “VARAMAR DOES NOT PAY”; approximately 20 minutes later — Varvarenko’s personal intervention; after that — a WhatsApp “penalty” equal to 100% of the unpaid commission and the subsequent legal escalation.

A detailed chronology of the original dispute was published in “Alexander Varvarenko and Varamar: Brokerage Commission Dispute” and “Thanks from the Team. A Fine from the Tsar”.

Only afterwards did Varamar and Alexander Varvarenko bring the Ukrainian civil claim seeking protection of business reputation, retraction of publications and approximately USD 100,000 in damages.

The court did not determine those allegations on their merits.

It did not find the broker’s publications false, did not award the requested compensation to Varamar or Alexander Varvarenko, and did not order the publications to be removed.

The proceedings were closed on jurisdictional grounds.

The first-instance decision was analysed in detail in “Alexander Varvarenko, Varamar Shipping DMCC: Court Case Closed, Unpaid Commission Remains”.

Alexander Varvarenko is now seeking to overturn that decision and return the case to the Solomianskyi District Court for continued civil proceedings.

At the same time, VARAMAR SHIPPING FZCO did not file a separate appeal in its own name.

The broker’s response states this directly:

“The appellant is Alexander Varvarenko personally. VARAMAR SHIPPING FZCO did not file a separate appeal on its own behalf.”

This is now the central procedural issue before the appellate court.

Varvarenko’s Side Itself Explains What Kind of Commercial Dispute This Is

On 29 September 2026, Alexander Varvarenko’s representatives filed a reply to the broker’s response.

It contains one of the most important formulations of the entire appeal stage:

“The claims of VARAMAR SHIPPING FZCO against Kalnyi K. E. have the characteristics of a commercial dispute.”

That legal wording becomes far more significant when read together with the explanation that follows.

Varvarenko’s representatives themselves state that the contested publications concern Varamar’s business activity, in particular allegations concerning the non-payment of a brokerage commission and the performance of commercial obligations.

In other words, the appellant’s own side links the corporate part of the case to two specific commercial questions:

the non-payment of the brokerage commission and Varamar’s performance of its commercial obligations.

For the appeal, that point is fundamental.

More Than That: Varvarenko’s Representatives Now Acknowledge the Commercial Relationship

In the same filing they state:

“Contractual (commercial) relations concerning payment for consulting services existed between Kalnyi K. E. as a sole proprietor and VARAMAR SHIPPING DMCC as a legal entity.”

They also state that the case file contains no document showing analogous commercial relations between Kalnyi and Varvarenko personally.

This effectively confirms one of the broker’s central positions.

The broker never claimed that Alexander Varvarenko personally was the contractual counterparty on the invoice.

The invoice was issued to Varamar.

It was issued by the person who actually performed the professional work for Varamar — the broker, Kostiantyn Kalnyi, acting as a sole proprietor.

Varvarenko became central to the dispute for another reason: he personally intervened in the question of whether Varamar would pay the broker.

What the First-Instance Court Found

The Solomianskyi District Court had already considered the nature of the relationship between the parties.

The case materials record that Kostiantyn Kalnyi acted in his dealings with Varamar as a sole proprietor and that the relevant legal relations arose in connection with business activity.

The sequence is therefore consistent.

First, the court of first instance identifies the commercial nature of the relationship.

Then, at the appeal stage, Varvarenko’s own representatives acknowledge the existence of commercial relations between the broker and Varamar and the commercial nature of Varamar’s claims.

If Varamar’s Claims Are Commercial, Why Return the Entire Case to a Civil Court?

This is one of the central questions in the appeal.

Varvarenko’s representatives simultaneously argue that his personal claims are civil in nature, while Varamar’s claims have the characteristics of a commercial dispute.

They then argue that everything should nevertheless be heard together in civil proceedings because the claims are factually and evidentially interconnected.

In other words, the commercial nature of Varamar’s claims is now acknowledged, while Varvarenko’s presence as an individual claimant is relied upon as the reason to return the whole case to the civil court.

From the broker’s perspective, that construction deserves particularly careful scrutiny by the appellate court.

Before the Commission Problem, There Was No Personal Dispute with Varvarenko

The broker makes this point expressly in his response:

“Before 23 March 2026, I had never communicated personally with Alexander Varvarenko.”

And:

“There were no private, domestic, family, friendly, contractual or other independent legal relations between us.”

There were therefore not two parallel disputes from the outset — one commercial dispute with Varamar and one personal dispute with Varvarenko.

There was first professional work performed for Varamar.

Then there was a payment problem.

Only after the broker publicly informed the market that “VARAMAR DOES NOT PAY” did Alexander Varvarenko personally appear.

The Most Important Phrase in This Story: “Your Commission”

On 23 March, Varvarenko first wrote:

“I do not know what exactly caused the delay in payment of your commission, nor do I know the overall details of this fixture, as I am not involved in the operational business of this company.”

Then he wrote:

“In the meantime, your commission will not be paid, as it will be applied toward partial compensation for reputational damage.”

The sequence matters.

Varvarenko first expressly says that he does not know the cause of the original payment delay.

He does not say that the broker failed to perform the work.

He does not say that the commission was not earned.

He does not say that the broker had no entitlement to professional remuneration.

He says:

“your commission.”

Only then does he introduce a new reason for continued non-payment — alleged reputational damage.

That episode is analysed in detail in “Thanks from the Team. A Fine from the Tsar”.

No Objections Were Raised During the Completed Work

According to the broker, while the maritime operation was being performed and while he was working with Varamar’s representatives, no objections were raised concerning his role, the work performed, or his right to professional remuneration.

The work was completed.

During performance, Varamar did not tell the broker that he was failing to carry out the agreed functions.

It did not say that his professional contribution was absent.

It did not say that somebody else was entitled to the remuneration.

After the work was completed, the invoice was issued to Varamar by the broker who had actually performed that work.

Only after the payment problem emerged did new explanations begin to appear.

Months of Formal Requests — but No Single Clear Contractual Basis for Non-Payment

For months, the broker has sent formal letters to Varamar, Alexander Varvarenko and lawyer Alisa Fomichova.

The central question has remained the same:

what specific contractual or legal basis allows Varamar to refuse payment of the brokerage commission for work that was already completed?

The broker repeatedly asked for the precise contractual provision that would permit the commission to be withheld.

Replies were received.

Later correspondence raised issues concerning the invoice, the broker’s publications, alleged reputational damage and the court proceedings.

But that is not the same as identifying one clear and consistent contractual basis for non-payment that existed when the work was completed and payment became due.

According to the broker, no such answer has yet been provided.

The Reasons for Non-Payment Changed as the Dispute Developed

If the events are placed in chronological order, another question emerges.

First, Varvarenko says that he does not know what caused the payment delay.

Then he says that the commission will not be paid because of alleged reputational damage.

Later, objections to the invoice appear.

Then objections to publications.

After that, a position appears that the commission will remain withheld until the court case is resolved.

Later still, the public position becomes broader: Varamar supposedly had no obligation to pay the broker at all.

Now, before the appeal is considered, Varvarenko’s representatives formally acknowledge the existence of contractual commercial relations concerning payment for services and the commercial nature of the dispute directly connected with the non-payment of the brokerage commission and the performance of Varamar’s commercial obligations.

That evolution is one of the reasons the appeal stage is particularly revealing.

Varvarenko’s Public Position Can Now Be Compared with His Court Position

On 21 August 2026, Alexander Varvarenko published his own statement on LinkedIn.

He described allegations concerning Varamar, SHIPNEXT and himself as false and without factual basis.

At the same time, he characterised the matter as a contractual/commercial disagreement.

Original LinkedIn statement

That public statement can now be placed alongside what his representatives tell the court: that contractual commercial relations existed between the broker and Varamar, and that Varamar’s claims bear the characteristics of a commercial dispute concerning non-payment of the brokerage commission and performance of commercial obligations.

This is not an admission of a specific debt.

But the court position is considerably more complex than the public impression that the broker’s commercial claims were entirely without factual basis.

A broader review is available in “Alexander Varvarenko, Varamar Shipping, SHIPNEXT: Tsar, Baron Munchausen and King of Liars”.

Repentance No. 1: First Change the Public Position, Then Discuss Payment

After the WhatsApp “penalty,” the story took another unusual turn.

The broker was presented with a prepared public statement.

Its substance required him to withdraw earlier statements, describe his public reaction as premature, effectively assume responsibility for the conflict, express regret and publicly affirm that there was no basis to question Varamar’s payment practices.

The broker refused.

Instead, he proposed a simple sequence: once the commission was actually paid, he would publicly inform the market that the issue had been resolved and that Varamar had fulfilled its obligations.

That proposal was not accepted.

An obvious question therefore arises:

if the broker was never entitled to the commission, why link receipt of that commission to the publication of a statement of repentance?

This episode is also described in “Thanks from the Team. A Fine from the Tsar”.

Repentance No. 2: Hanna Varvarenko and New Conditions Before Payment

Several months later, Hanna Varvarenko entered the story again — Alexander Varvarenko’s wife and, according to her own professional description, a specialist in marketing, PR and branding for projects including Varamar and SHIPNEXT.

This time, the negotiations appeared close to completion.

Varamar requested an updated invoice. Hanna Varvarenko told the broker:

“We will pay the full amount immediately. Put the full amount on the invoice.”

After receiving the corrected document, she wrote:

“Thank you. Excellent. Already sent. I will send you the payment confirmation.”

In other words, the amount had been agreed, the details corrected, the new invoice received, and the broker was told that payment had been sent for processing.

Approximately two hours later, however, the conditions changed.

The broker was now expected first to circulate a new market notice, publish a public statement, delete earlier materials and express regret concerning possible reputational damage to Varamar.

The correspondence stated in substance that the broker should send the circular, make the publication and remove earlier materials, after which Varamar would confirm closure and make payment.

The broker insisted on the reverse order: full payment first, followed by a neutral public statement that the matter had been resolved.

Hanna Varvarenko insisted that the broker should act first.

This episode was therefore published separately as “Letter of Repentance No. 2”.

70% of the Shares, No Authority — So Who Made and Communicated the Decision That the Commission Would Not Be Paid?

At the appeal stage, another substantial contradiction appears.

Varvarenko’s representatives confirm that he is Varamar’s majority shareholder.

At the same time, they state that he does not hold a managerial or executive position and has no authority to act on behalf of the company in the course of its business activity.

That leads to an obvious question.

If Alexander Varvarenko truly had no authority to act for Varamar in its business affairs, what was the legal status of his message to the broker:

“Your commission will not be paid”?

If this was Varamar’s decision, why was it communicated by a person who now says he lacked the relevant authority?

If it was merely the personal opinion of the majority shareholder, why did the commission in fact remain unpaid after that message?

This is not a question of personal assessment.

It is a question of whether the current court position is internally consistent with earlier documented conduct.

The Invoice Was Issued by the Person Who Actually Performed the Work

Varvarenko’s procedural documents separately discuss the invoice.

But there should be no artificial confusion here.

The invoice was not supposed to be issued to Alexander Varvarenko personally.

It was not.

It was issued to VARAMAR SHIPPING DMCC by the person who actually performed the professional work for Varamar — broker Kostiantyn Kalnyi, acting as a sole proprietor.

That structure is now effectively acknowledged by the opposing side itself.

The absence of Varvarenko’s name from the invoice therefore disproves nothing.

On the contrary, it is consistent with the broker’s position:

Varamar was the commercial counterparty, while Alexander Varvarenko personally intervened later in the payment issue.

Why the Broker Views the Appeal as a Continuation of Delay

It is important to separate an established fact from a party’s assessment.

Neither the first-instance court nor the Kyiv Court of Appeal has found that the purpose of the litigation was deliberately to delay payment of the commission.

That is the broker’s assessment.

But it is based on a documented sequence.

The work was completed.

The invoice was issued to Varamar.

No objection to the broker’s professional work was raised during performance.

The commission was not paid within the agreed period.

Several weeks passed.

The circular “VARAMAR DOES NOT PAY” appeared.

Approximately 20 minutes later came Alexander Varvarenko’s intervention and the WhatsApp “penalty.”

Then came Repentance No. 1.

Then the civil claim for approximately USD 100,000.

The court closed the proceedings.

Varvarenko appealed.

Later came Repentance No. 2, this time with Hanna Varvarenko involved.

Now Varvarenko’s own representatives acknowledge the commercial nature of Varamar’s claims and the existence of commercial relations between the broker and the company.

Yet instead of resolving the original commercial issue, the parties continue to litigate about publications, reputation and jurisdiction.

The practical result remains unchanged:

the brokerage commission is still unpaid.

The Appellant’s Legal Argument Is Changing Too

It is not only the explanation for non-payment that has changed.

The procedural argument has evolved as well.

In the original appeal, Varvarenko’s side relied, among other authorities, on Supreme Court case No. 359/2365/25.

After the broker’s response, the filing dated 29 September shifts the main emphasis to the Grand Chamber decision in case No. 641/5523/19.

The argument is now that claims of different jurisdictional nature are so closely linked that they should be heard together.

At the same time, Varvarenko’s representatives themselves acknowledge that the substantive legal relations in the present case are not similar to those in case No. 641/5523/19.

The centre of the legal argument has therefore shifted as the appeal has developed.

What Varvarenko Is Asking the Court of Appeal to Do

The objective of the appeal is specific.

Alexander Varvarenko asks the appellate court to overturn the Solomianskyi District Court’s ruling of 14 July 2026 and return the matter to that court for continued consideration under civil procedure.

The broker takes the opposite position and asks that the first-instance ruling remain unchanged.

That is the present procedural position.

Four Quotations That Best Show the Current Contradiction

Before the appeal, four formulations can simply be placed next to each other.

First:

“I do not know what exactly caused the delay in payment of your commission.”

Second:

“Your commission will not be paid.”

Third:

“Contractual (commercial) relations concerning payment for consulting services existed between Kalnyi K. E. as a sole proprietor and VARAMAR SHIPPING DMCC as a legal entity.”

Fourth:

“Varvarenko A.... has no authority to act on behalf of the company in the course of its business activity.”

That leaves two straightforward questions.

If Varvarenko was not authorised to act for Varamar, why was he the person who personally told the broker that the commission would not be paid?

And if Varvarenko’s own representatives acknowledge commercial relations between the broker and Varamar, and the commercial nature of the dispute concerning the unpaid commission and the company’s commercial obligations, why should Varvarenko’s presence as an individual claimant return the entire matter to civil proceedings?

The Appeal Does Not Change the Main Point: the Commission Obligation and Reputational Claims Are Different Matters

Whatever procedural route Alexander Varvarenko and Varamar choose, the appeal itself does not remove the underlying commercial issue and, in the broker’s view, does not change the continuing non-payment of the commission.

Two distinct legal concepts must be separated.

The first is Varamar’s obligation, as asserted by the broker, to pay the brokerage commission arising from the maritime commercial transaction and the relevant charter-party arrangements.

The second consists of much later claims by Alexander Varvarenko and Varamar concerning alleged moral and reputational damage of approximately USD 100,000.

They are different claims.

According to the broker, if Varamar or Alexander Varvarenko believed that publications had caused reputational damage, the legally coherent sequence was to perform the already accrued commission-payment obligation and then separately bring and prove any alleged damages claim through the contractually and legally applicable dispute-resolution mechanism.

An alleged reputational loss does not automatically create a right to impose a unilateral “penalty” equal to 100% of a broker’s professional remuneration.

The original withholding decision did not appear in an arbitral award or court judgment.

It appeared in WhatsApp.

Varvarenko first wrote:

“I do not know what exactly caused the delay in payment of your commission.”

Then, in the same message, he wrote:

“Your commission will not be paid, as it will be applied toward partial compensation for reputational damage.”

At that point, the amount of any alleged reputational damage had not even been established.

Later, Varamar and Varvarenko sought approximately USD 100,000 in the Ukrainian civil proceedings, but the first-instance court did not award that sum and did not establish that such damage had been caused.

This is where, in the broker’s view, the fundamental distinction lies.

The charter-party commission is one commercial issue.

Any alleged moral or reputational damage claimed by Varamar is another, separate issue.

If Varamar believed it had suffered loss, it could have paid the broker the remuneration due and then pursued any separate claim for damages through the appropriate contractual and legal process, including any issue arising from the charter party’s arbitration clause.

Instead, a different structure emerged: the already earned commission was effectively used as security against reputational claims that had not yet been proven.

From the broker’s perspective, the civil claim, the appeal, the demands for repentance and the subsequent steps therefore do not resolve the original commercial issue and do not cure the continuing non-payment.

In international shipping, an obligation to pay a brokerage commission and a separate allegation of reputational harm are distinct legal questions.

Yet in this case, Alexander Varvarenko appears to have decided to write his own additional chapter of English law:

first, do not pay the broker; then impose a 100% WhatsApp “penalty”; then twice demand public repentance; and finally use an alleged reputational loss as the basis for withholding already earned commercial remuneration.

The appeal may determine which Ukrainian court has jurisdiction over the reputational dispute.

But it does not itself answer a much simpler commercial question:

on what contractual basis did Varamar fail to pay the broker’s commission for work already performed?

For months, the broker has asked Varamar, Varvarenko and their representatives for that answer.

According to the broker, no single consistent contractual explanation has yet been provided.

What now exists, however, is a formal procedural document from Varvarenko’s side expressly stating that commercial relations existed between the broker and Varamar and that the corporate part of the dispute concerns the non-payment of the brokerage commission and the performance of Varamar’s commercial obligations.

That is why this appeal is more significant than an ordinary reputation case.

It shows how a straightforward commercial payment issue developed into a multi-layered legal and reputational construction.

First — weeks of non-payment.

Then — “VARAMAR DOES NOT PAY.”

Approximately 20 minutes later — “your commission will not be paid.”

Then — the WhatsApp “penalty,” two repentance demands, a civil claim and an appeal.

And the brokerage commission is still unpaid.

Language versions: Українська версія · Русская версия