Day 20

(1) Bank St Petersburg PJSC (2) Alexander Savelyev v (1) Vitaly Arkhangelsky (2) Julia Arkhangelskaya (3) Oslo Marine Group Ports
LLC

Day 20

March 2, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: http://www.opus2.com

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Wednesday, 2 March 2016

2 (10.00 am)

3 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good morning.

5 MR STROILOV: May I call Mr Bromley-Martin.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

7 MR STROILOV: Can the witness be sworn in, please.

8 MR ROBIN BROMLEY-MARTIN (Sworn)

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Bromley-Martin, yes, do sit down.

10 Have some water. You have a screen in front of you and

11 the files will be produced to you as and when necessary.

12 A. Thank you.

13 Examination-in-chief by MR STROILOV

14 MR STROILOV: Can you please be shown {C1/3/1}.

15 Mr Bromley-Martin, does this look like your witness

16 statement, prepared for this trial, what you see on the

17 screen? You have to answer for the transcript.

18 A. Sorry, I can hardly hear you.

19 Q. What you see on the screen, does this look like the

20 first page of the witness statement prepared for

21 this trial?

22 A. Indeed, yes, sorry. Yes.

23 Q. And if it could be scrolled down to {C1/3/13}.

24 Mr Bromley-Martin, is this your signature on the last

25 page?

1 A. It did, indeed, yes.

2 Q. Would you agree that the acquisition cost paid for the

3 Western Terminal by the party trying to raise that sort

4 of project finance would be a key piece of information

5 for any potential lender?

6 A. Not necessarily.

7 Q. Why do you say that, Mr Bromley-Martin?

8 A. Because some people might value it on the basis of its

9 acreage, and some people may value it in their

10 calculations on the basis of its proximity to the sea

11 and its use as a port.

12 Q. But, Mr Bromley-Martin, if a party approaches a bank to

13 borrow money to develop an asset, wouldn’t, certainly,

14 a relevant piece of information for the bank be how much

15 did that person pay for the asset? Would you agree with

16 that?

17 A. No, not necessarily.

18 Q. So your evidence to his Lordship on oath — in this

19 case, then. Is it your evidence in this case that the

20 amount paid by the OMG company to acquire Western

21 Terminal was irrelevant information as far as the Bank’s

22 considerations would be concerned?

23 A. No, they would definitely take it into consideration,

24 but let me give you an example. If the property had

25 been bought 20 years earlier and still sat on the

1 3

1 A. It is, indeed.

2 Q. And would you like this witness statement to stand as

3 your evidence for the purposes of this trial?

4 A. I do, indeed.

5 Q. And is this statement true to the best of your knowledge

6 and belief?

7 A. To the best of my knowledge and belief it is true.

8 MR STROILOV: Thank you, Mr Bromley-Martin, my learned

9 friend Mr Lord will now ask you some questions.

10 Cross-examination by MR LORD

11 MR LORD: Mr Bromley-Martin, your evidence in these

12 proceedings mainly concerns your involvement with

13 a project concerning the Western Terminal on behalf of

14 OMG, doesn’t it?

15 A. It does, indeed.

16 Q. And that work carried out by you, or by your company,

17 Oxus, involved the preparation of something called

18 an information memorandum, didn’t it?

19 A. It did indeed, yes.

20 Q. And the purpose of the information memorandum was to

21 interest potential lenders, namely banks, wasn’t it?

22 A. Banks and infrastructure funds, yes.

23 Q. And to encourage them to consider lending US

24 $300 million in relation to this Western Terminal

25 project?

1 balance sheet at X pounds and 20 years later it was

2 worth 20X when they decided to develop it, the banks

3 would clearly take into account 20X rather than X.

4 Q. Yes, but there would be a world of difference, wouldn’t

5 there, Mr Bromley-Martin, between a project aiming to

6 raise US $300 million to develop an asset that, let’s

7 say, had cost $220 million a year earlier, compared with

8 a project to raise $300 million in finance on an asset

9 that had only cost US $40 million one year earlier;

10 wouldn’t you agree?

11 A. It would clearly — I think we are arguing about shades

12 of grey here, and therefore, clearly the greater

13 security you have in the form of the basic freehold, the

14 easier it is going to be to raise the money.

15 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, in your long experience of project

16 finance, are you saying that a potential project

17 financier would not be extremely interested in

18 the amount paid by the borrower to acquire the asset

19 concerned? I mean, surely, doesn’t it —

20 A. It would merely be a factor in the equation.

21 Q. But it would be relevant, wouldn’t it?

22 A. It would be relevant, yes, but it wouldn’t be critical,

23 which is what I think you are trying to get me to say.

24 Q. Are you aware of the evidence that Dr Arkhangelsky has

25 given in these proceedings in relation to the matters

2 4
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 I am asking you about now, Mr Bromley-Martin?

2 A. No.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Bromley-Martin, I am so sorry,

4 I don’t mean to cause you discomfort, but it does help

5 me if I can see you and you are hiding behind

6 a computer.

7 A. I beg your pardon, sir.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you very much.

9 MR LORD: Can I ask you, Mr Bromley-Martin, to look at the

10 information memorandum that I think you prepared.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And there should be a bundle in front of you —

13 A. I have my own copy here.

14 Q. I think it would be better, if you don’t mind, if we use

15 the court documents. There is a file of Western

16 Terminal documents that we have had prepared for ease of

17 reference. If you would be kind enough, please, to go

18 behind divider 10, you should find {D52/889/1} a copy of

19 the information memorandum dated July 2008?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, I think that that is the version that

22 you refer to in paragraph 17 of your witness statement

23 at {C1/3/3}, if we could have that on screen so we all

24 know we are talking about the same document. You

25 exhibit {D52/889/1}, don’t you?

1 begins:

2 «Western was only acquired in 2007 …»?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. «The Western Terminal was acquired for US $220 million.»

5 Can you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Could you please go to {D52/889/15}. We can see

8 a heading «The project, its Development and Future

9 Plans». Can you see the second paragraph?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. «The freehold was acquired by OMG in 2007 for

12 $220 million.»

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Can you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And then if you could go to {D52/889/37}, you can see

17 paragraph 8.5 of this information memorandum. Its

18 heading is «Capital structure and potential site value».

19 Can you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So this paragraph, or this section, is telling

22 a potential bank about the potential value of the site,

23 isn’t it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And it’s right, isn’t it, that the first piece of

5 7

1 A. Yes, that’s indeed it.

2 Q. Can you confirm to his Lordship that this is in fact the

3 version of the information memorandum that you are

4 talking about in your evidence?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And it is right, isn’t it, that this was the final

7 version that was sent out to a number of banks around

8 about July 2008?

9 A. Not entirely correct. There was a further version

10 in October 2008 which updated it and went to some

11 different banks.

12 Q. Yes, but if you listen to the question, I think your

13 evidence is that you went out to banks in July

14 and August and September 2008.

15 A. We did.

16 Q. So presumably the document at {D52/889/1} would have

17 been the version of the information memorandum that

18 would have been sent out to those banks?

19 A. Exactly, yes.

20 Q. Can we look, please, at what this information memorandum

21 says about the acquisition cost. Can we go to

22 {D52/889/9}, please. Can you see that,

23 Mr Bromley-Martin?

24 A. I’m on page 9, yes?

25 Q. Yes. Can you see halfway down the page a paragraph that

1 information that was provided under this heading was as

2 follows:

3 «OMG acquired Western in 2007 for the sum of

4 US $220 million.»

5 Can you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Can I put it to you, Mr Bromley-Martin, that the fact

8 that OMG had allegedly acquired Western Terminal one

9 year earlier for $220 million was being put in this

10 section because it was thought to be relevant to

11 a bank’s assessment of the potential value of

12 the Western Terminal site?

13 A. Are you asking me a question?

14 Q. I am.

15 A. Yes, of course, because it gives an indication of

16 the market value of the freehold property in that part

17 of St Petersburg.

18 Q. Thank you. And it was being represented as having been

19 bought for US $220 million?

20 A. That was the information we received, yes.

21 Q. Did that information come from Dr Arkhangelsky?

22 A. I don’t believe it came from him personally, it came

23 from some of his staff.

24 Q. Are you aware of the actual acquisition cost for Western

25 Terminal?

6 8
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. If it’s different to this, no, I’m not.

2 Q. So as far as you are concerned you think the acquisition

3 cost in 2007 was US $220 million?

4 A. It struck me as being rather a lot, I must admit, but

5 that was the information we received from our clients.

6 Q. If you could be shown, please, {D48/829/2}, you ought to

7 find, Mr Bromley-Martin, I think a set of questions and

8 answers. If you just turn the pages, if you would be

9 kind enough to turn the pages, you will see, I think,

10 your initials and the date of 13 June 2008 on page 3;

11 can you see that?

12 A. Mm hmm.

13 Q. And it is headed «OMG — Western Terminal. Questions for

14 Information Memorandum», and I think this document was

15 a series of questions which you, on behalf of Oxus, were

16 posing to your clients in order to elicit answers for

17 the purposes of, amongst other things, preparing the

18 information memorandum; would that be fair?

19 A. Exactly, yes.

20 Q. It’s a sort of Q & A document, really, isn’t it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And if you would be kind enough to go to {D48/829/2},

23 please, you will see under the number 12 the following

24 question:

25 «How much did Western cost?»

1 handy. Mr Bromley-Martin you will see on screen

2 an extract from Dr Arkhangelsky’s witness statement

3 which he has given in support of the defendants’ claims

4 and counterclaims for this trial. Could you see the

5 heading at the foot of this page, «Western Terminal»;

6 can you see that, Mr Bromley-Martin?

7 A. Yes, I can. Yes, I’ve got it, yes.

8 Q. It says:

9 «At around the same time that the Group acquired

10 Vyborg Port, in May 2007, OMGP purchased the shares in

11 Western Terminal, which owned a 8.1 hectare site at the

12 port of St Petersburg (also known as Western Terminal).

13 Western Terminal was also acquired partly with the aid

14 of loans from Vozrozhdenie Bank that were secured on

15 Vyborg Port. The purchase price for Western Terminal

16 was just over RUB 1 billion, which I considered to be

17 very low considering its location and commercial

18 potential.»

19 Can you see that, Mr Bromley-Martin?

20 A. I can, indeed.

21 Q. Now, the exchange rate for Russian roubles to US dollars

22 back in 2007 was approximately 24 or 25; in other words,

23 roughly 24 or 25 Russian roubles to the dollar; does

24 that sound about right to you?

25 A. It does, indeed.

9 11
1 And it says: 1 Q. So you can see that Dr Arkhangelsky has given evidence
2 «Western Terminal was purchased for $220 million.» 2 that the Western Terminal was acquired in May 2007 for
3 Can you see that? 3 approximately US $40 million; can you see that?
4 A. Yes. 4 A. That would mathematically stand up, yes.
5 Q. And if you want to just read on, because I have some 5 Q. And you can see that that is the right conversion rate,
6 questions later on about the way in which this was 6 more or less?
7 financed, so if you wouldn’t mind just familiarising 7 A. Yes.
8 yourself with what was said there in answer to your 8 Q. Can you be shown, please, {D20/407/1}, which is
9 question, that would assist. 9 a translation of the purchase contract by which Western
10 So it appears, doesn’t it, as if you were told by 10 Terminal was acquired. Can you see it is dated May 15,
11 OMG, somebody at OMG, at least, that Western Terminal 11 2007?
12 had been purchased for US $220 million? 12 A. Yes.
13 A. This was the source of that information that was fed 13 Q. And if you look down that page, Mr Bromley-Martin,
14 into the information memorandum, you are right, yes. 14 I will summarise and be corrected if I say anything
15 Q. I understand that, Mr Bromley-Martin. I understand 15 misleading, it is an agreement to buy shares in
16 that. 16 the company Western Terminal, that’s Zapadny Terminal,
17 Then I wonder if you could be shown 17 and the seller was Premina Limited, which was a Cypriot
18 Dr Arkhangelsky’s witness statement in this case. 18 company, and the buyer was OMG Ports, all right?
19 I just want to check, have you read Dr Arkhangelsky’s 19 A. Yes.
20 witness statement that he has given in these 20 Q. So OMG Ports was buying the share capital of Western
21 proceedings? 21 Terminal, that company. I think you can see
22 A. No. 22 100 per cent of the shares are going to be sold. You
23 Q. You haven’t been sent it? No, I understand. 23 can see what’s then sold. There’s reference to the land
24 Would you be kind enough, please, to be shown 24 plots which are being sold.
25 {C1/1/11}, so if you could keep the Western Terminal 25 If you would be kind enough, please, to go to
10 12
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 the second page, {D20/407/2}, in paragraph 1.3 you can 1 paragraph 32 on {C1/3/6}. Can you see that you refer
2 see a clause which seems to prescribe the consideration 2 there to the:
3 for this share sale; can you see that, towards the foot 3 «… IFRS accounts of ‘Stevedoring company
4 of the page? 4 Scandinavia’ … for the year ended 31 December 2007»?
5 A. Yes. 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you have that, Mr Bromley-Martin? 6 Q. And you exhibit them, {D15/363/1}; can you see that?
7 A. I’ve got 1 billion — 7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That’s it, yes? 8 Q. And you were using these accounts, weren’t you,
9 A. — 69,350,000; is that what you are referring to? 9 Mr Bromley-Martin, not just for civil engineering
10 Q. That’s exactly right, Mr Bromley-Martin. And you can 10 purposes but for financial analysis purposes, surely;
11 see that it looks as if from this purchase contract that 11 that’s what you are saying here, isn’t it, in
12 it was about 1 billion roubles which would accord with 12 paragraph 32?
13 Dr Arkhangelsky’s witness statement to which I have just 13 A. I believe these accounts only became available after
14 taken you. So it looks, doesn’t it, as if the purchase 14 I had prepared the IM.
15 contract stipulated $40 million, or its equivalent, by 15 Q. So at the beginning of that paragraph you said:
16 way of the acquisition cost for Western Terminal; would 16 «In order to produce the IM I needed underlying
17 you agree? 17 financial data …»
18 A. If this is in — I haven’t had — it’s the first time 18 And then you go on to say:
19 I’ve seen this document, but reading it through quickly, 19 «There were no ‘Generally Accepted Accounting
20 I would say the address is in Russian, it doesn’t mean 20 Practice» or … (‘IFRS’) equivalent accounts for us to
21 anything to me, but if you are telling me that this is 21 work from at the time. The most useful figures
22 a valid purchase agreement for that particular plot of 22 eventually became incorporated into the IFRS
23 land, because I don’t recognise any of the references to 23 accounts…»
24 it, except the CB-15 and CB-16, except they were SV-15 24 And that is a reference to {D15/363/1}. So is it
25 and SV-16 rather than CB, so there are one or two 25 your evidence that you had some of the underlying
13 15

1 inconsistencies here with what my understanding is.

2 Q. Right. Are you saying that as part of your checking of

3 the information that would underlay the information

4 memorandum, you never asked or saw the relevant purchase

5 contract?

6 A. We asked for it and it wasn’t forthcoming. I mean,

7 I think it’s fair to say we were struggling to get

8 up-to-date information. OMG was growing so fast and had

9 so many things going, it was very difficult indeed to

10 get meaningful information, hence why I put those

11 questions down so that we actually had definitive

12 responses in writing from the client.

13 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, assuming that that is an authentic

14 document — and no one has suggested otherwise until you

15 raised some queries just now — it looks, doesn’t it, as

16 if the purchase price or the acquisition cost was just

17 over 1 billion Russian roubles?

18 A. On the basis of what you have shown me now, that would

19 appear to be the case.

20 Q. And I think that you did look at the combined financial

21 statements, didn’t you, for the OMG group as part of

22 your work preparing the information memorandum?

23 A. As a civil engineer, not as an accountant.

24 Q. I see. But I think you refer to them in your witness

25 statement. If you just give me a moment. Yes,

1 information but not the actual finalised accounts,

2 because the information memorandum was drawn up before

3 the latter were ready; is that your evidence?

4 A. From memory — I would need to go back and look at

5 e-mails and things, but from memory, the IFRS accounts

6 appeared September time. So we were well into the

7 discussions with the banks when they appeared.

8 Q. And did you check through those accounts once they were

9 available to make sure that what you had put in

10 the information memorandum based on other financial data

11 was actually accurate in the light of these IFRS

12 accounts?

13 A. Yes, to the extent that, as a civil engineer, I am able

14 to understand some of the complexities of IFRS accounts.

15 Q. And did you —

16 A. And my colleagues who are more financially literate than

17 I am also checked through them.

18 Q. I see. Did you make any changes to the October version

19 of the information memorandum which postdated your

20 receipt of the accounts I am about to take you to?

21 A. No, because I think by that time we had received

22 a valuation which stated that the property was worth

23 220 million.

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. And so we relied on that.

14 16
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Q. Just for his Lordship’s note, perhaps you should see 1 A. With the greatest respect, the accounts don’t show what
2 this, Mr Bromley-Martin, behind divider 11 in that 2 the purchase price of the property would be. They may
3 Western Terminal bundle of yours, you will find 3 have been revalued or anything else, so IFRS accounts
4 a version of the October 2008 information memorandum, 4 would not normally show you the purchase cost of
5 {D51/887/1}. Can you see that? 5 a property.
6 A. Which page are you on? 6 Q. Just take it in stages. I will ask the question again.
7 Q. It’s the front page, really, so you can orientate 7 Did you, or anybody on your behalf at Oxus check the
8 yourself? 8 financial information set out in the information
9 A. Yes, exactly. 9 memorandum by reference to these IFRS accounts which
10 Q. That looks like it’s an October version of this 10 were available to you, you think, round
11 document? 11 about September 2008; yes or no?
12 A. Yes. 12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And can you confirm to his Lordship that this document 13 Q. Did you check through the accounts?
14 was sent out, at least to some banks? 14 A. I did.
15 A. It was, indeed. 15 Q. And do you remember reading through them?
16 Q. Can you remember how many banks received this? 16 A. I did, indeed.
17 A. Oh, off the top of my head, five or six. 17 Q. With a view to seeing whether or not the information in
18 Q. This version I am now showing you? 18 the information memorandum was accurate?
19 A. Yes. 19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. Could you be kind enough, please, to go to {D51/887/9}. 20 Q. Could we go to {D15/363/1}, please. Can you see that,
21 You can see that this version of the IM seems to 21 Mr Bromley-Martin?
22 replicate the same acquisition cost information as 22 A. Yes.
23 the July one that I have taken you to previously; can 23 Q. I think these are the combined financial statements for
24 you see halfway down the page? 24 the OMG group for the year ended 31 December 2007 to
25 A. Yes. 25 which you are referring, aren’t you?
17 19

1 Q. Acquisition cost 220 million. Can you see that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. If you just give me a moment, I will get the other

4 references because I think they are all the same.

5 I think it’s probably page {D51/887/15}, yes. Can you

6 see that? It looks very similar, doesn’t it,

7 Mr Bromley-Martin, to the July version? Can you see at

8 the top:

9 «The freehold was acquired by OMG in 2007 for

10 $220 million …»?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And could we go to {D51/887/38} of this document,

13 please, can you see «Capital structure and potential

14 site value», paragraph 8.5?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Again, it says:

17 «OMG acquired Western in 2007 for the sum of

18 US $220 million.»

19 Can you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So when you got these IFRS accounts round

22 about September 2008, did you or somebody on your behalf

23 not check through them to verify the financial

24 information that was being sent out to banks in this

25 information memorandum?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And if you would be kind enough, please, to go to

3 {D15/363/52}, you will see a section referable to a note

4 in the accounts, note 6.19; can you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And can his Lordship take it, Mr Bromley-Martin, that

7 given that the information memorandum was designed to

8 raise project finance for Western Terminal, you would

9 have been particularly concerned to identify information

10 in these accounts that related to Western Terminal?

11 A. To the extent they applied to the Western Terminal, yes.

12 Q. Can you see what is set out on that page? «Acquisition

13 of business»; can you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And it says:

16 «In 2007 Scandinavia Stevedoring Company LLC…»

17 That’s the company that became OMG Ports and we can,

18 I think, put OMGP in there:

19 «…has acquired shares of the following companies.»

20 Can you see there is a list of companies there?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And the second one is Western Terminal, isn’t it? «West

23 terminal», can you see?

24 A. That’s not the company — not mentioned on that sale

25 thing you showed me earlier on.

18 20
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Q. Can you go on down, please, to the —

2 A. Sorry, could we just cross-reference, because the name

3 here is not the one on the sale of contract that you

4 showed me five minutes ago.

5 Q. Sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin, are you querying the

6 Scandinavia Stevedoring Company or the West Terminal

7 entry?

8 A. The West Terminal. That wasn’t the name on the sale of

9 contract you just showed me five minutes ago.

10 Q. Well, that contract was in Russian and what you were

11 shown was a translation.

12 A. That name, I don’t believe — you only showed it to me

13 briefly, but I don’t believe that name was on the sale

14 contract for the shares.

15 Q. Are you saying that when you read these accounts, if you

16 go back, please, to {D15/363/9}, «Notes to combined

17 financial statements», you can see that the auditors

18 have set out some information about these accounts and

19 they are explaining which companies’ accounts are set

20 out here; can you see?

21 A. Sorry, which page? 9?

22 Q. Can you see that one of the companies is West Terminal;

23 can you see that?

24 A. Yes, but I’m asking a question: could we go back and

25 look at the sale contract?

1 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, you seem to be trying to find ways of

2 marginalising entries in these combined accounts to West

3 or Western Terminal; why are you doing that?

4 A. Because you tried to connect Zapadny with West Terminal.

5 I was querying that because I didn’t recognise

6 West Terminal from this document on {D20/407/1}. That

7 was my point.

8 Q. If we go back, please, to the combined accounts, why

9 would you have been given these financial accounts

10 unless they were relevant to the project finance for the

11 company called West or Western Terminal?

12 A. Basically, clearly any potential funder would want to

13 understand the underlying performance of the parent

14 company, and to that extent it would be relevant to our

15 fundraising.

16 Q. So when you turned up page {D15/363/9} and you saw the

17 information about the financial statements and you saw

18 the reference to a subsidiary company of Scandinavia

19 Stevedoring Company, namely West Terminal LLC —

20 A. Mm hmm.

21 Q. — is it your evidence to his Lordship on oath today

22 that you didn’t appreciate that the entry, the reference

23 to West Terminal LLC was a reference to the Western

24 Terminal Company in relation to which you were raising

25 project finance; is that your evidence?

21 23

1 Q. We can, yes.

2 A. Because I don’t recall — I only saw that for two

3 minutes, but I don’t recall that the name on that

4 contract is the same as the names on this.

5 Q. If I just go back and get it for you. {D20/407/1} is the

6 English, and then if we have the Russian, because the

7 Russian is here as well, I think.

8 A. You see you have Premina Limited —

9 Q. Sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin, if you have {D20/407/29}, you

10 have the Russian version. Can you see at the top of

11 the page? Can we go to {D20/407/28}, perhaps? I think

12 it has perhaps got chopped off. Can we focus on the

13 top, please, because the translation in English is:

14 «Contract of purchase of a share in the nominal

15 capital of OOO Zapadny Terminal».

16 And I am told that the Russian says «West Terminal»,

17 that «Zapadny» is Russian for west. I’m sure

18 Mr Stroilov will correct me if I am wrong about that.

19 It sounds like I am right about that. So the Russian

20 version seems to have said this was a contract of

21 purchase of a share in the nominal capital of

22 West Terminal; can you see that? So nothing turns,

23 Mr Bromley-Martin, on the fact that it is «Western», not

24 «West», does it?

25 A. No, no, I don’t speak a word of Russian.

1 A. No, we did check it through and we went through,

2 clearly, a check internally that we had everything

3 squared, and it looks as though we may have missed

4 something, then.

5 Q. We are coming to that, but could you just agree that

6 when you read these accounts you would have known that

7 the reference to West Terminal was to the Western

8 Terminal in which you were drawing up the information

9 memorandum?

10 A. One would have made that supposition, yes.

11 Q. So it’s yes, is it?

12 Yes, and if you go, please, to {D15/363/10}, under D

13 you can see «West Terminal LLC». It gives the company

14 details, doesn’t it?

15 A. Mm hmm.

16 Q. So for a project financer like you, you wouldn’t have

17 been under any doubt, would you Mr Bromley-Martin, that

18 this was a reference to the Western Terminal LLC

19 company, would you?

20 A. That was, as I say, our supposition. We assumed that

21 was the case.

22 Q. And if you go, please, back to {D15/363/52}, which I was

23 asking you about, I think about five minutes ago, can

24 you see that there are some references to West Terminal

25 LLC?

22 24
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. Indeed.

2 Q. And I put to you that if you had read this page you

3 would have appreciated that that was a reference to

4 the company that has been known in these proceedings as

5 Western Terminal; that’s right, isn’t it?

6 A. Mm hmm.

7 Q. Is that a yes?

8 A. I believe so.

9 Q. Thank you. You can see that there is reference to

10 OMG Ports — I explained to you that Scandinavia

11 Stevedoring Company became OMG Ports:

12 «… has acquired shares in the following

13 companies.»

14 And one of those is Western Terminal. You can see,

15 there is Western Terminal, Vyborg Port, and there are

16 some other companies that OMGP had bought.

17 You can see that in the first table are some values

18 set out under the line:

19 «The fair value of these companies at the date of

20 receipt of the control is …»

21 And can you see that on the left-hand side there

22 is a thousands of roubles column. Can you see

23 «Acquisition expenses», about fourth entry down?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And if you go along to «West Terminal», to that column,

1 doesn’t it, as if the true acquisition cost of

2 Western Terminal when it was first acquired was around

3 US $40 million?

4 A. On the evidence you have given me today, yes.

5 Q. And do you further agree that there is a serious

6 discrepancy between an acquisition cost of

7 US $40 million and an acquisition cost of $220 million

8 when that is represented in the information memorandum?

9 A. There’s a considerable difference, yes.

10 Q. And are you a bit surprised by that?

11 A. Well, yes, because I took the trouble of actually

12 putting the questions in writing and getting an answer,

13 as you have seen.

14 Q. I know, Mr Bromley-Martin. I am not suggesting for one

15 moment that you —

16 A. I mean, I suspect one possible explanation was lost in

17 translation, if I can coin the phrase.

18 Q. What do you mean by that?

19 A. Because we were given that one-page valuation which had

20 the 220, so whether when they were replying to that they

21 were referring to the valuation rather than

22 the acquisition cost.

23 Q. I’m going to take you to the explanation which

24 Dr Arkhangelsky has given for this discrepancy in these

25 proceedings. I wonder if you could have the transcript,

25 27

1 can you see there is a figure of 069,600, in other

2 words, 1.069 billion Russian roubles?

3 A. Mm hmm. I do.

4 Q. That figure, Mr Bromley-Martin, accords, doesn’t it,

5 with the evidence in Mr Arkhangelsky’s witness statement

6 I’ve shown you today, with the purchase contract I’ve

7 shown you today, doesn’t it?

8 A. It does, indeed.

9 Q. Do you think that you read this page when you were

10 checking through these accounts for the purposes of

11 the information memorandum or not?

12 A. I would certainly have read through them.

13 Q. And do you think that you saw that entry or not?

14 A. I think you are asking an impossible question because

15 certainly one checked it, but I think you have to

16 remember that this was seven and a half years ago and we

17 probably had two or three projects on the go at the

18 time, so …

19 Q. Right. Do you agree, Mr Bromley-Martin, that it looks

20 likely that the acquisition cost was $40 million and not

21 US $220 million?

22 A. From the evidence you’ve put in front of me today, yes.

23 I didn’t have that at the time.

24 Q. I’m not suggesting that you knew the cost was different,

25 but I’m just asking you first to agree that it looks,

1 please, for Day 11, and I wonder if you could please be

2 shown first {Day11/52:17}; do you have the hard copy

3 there?

4 A. I have it on the screen here.

5 Q. Yes. You can see on Day 11 of the proceedings

6 Dr Arkhangelsky was giving some evidence and being

7 cross-examined and he was being asked some questions

8 about the information memorandum that we have looked at

9 this morning. Can you see, at line 17 on page 52,

10 Mr Justice Hildyard asked this, or said this:

11 «I think the question which you are being pressed on

12 is why you have stated in the witness statement that it

13 cost 40 million, and in the information memorandum that

14 it cost 220 million.»

15 Can you see?

16 A. Yes, I can.

17 Q. So there was a line of questioning of Dr Arkhangelsky

18 when he gave evidence a couple of weeks ago about the

19 explanation for this seeming discrepancy between the

20 40 million acquisition cost in the documents I have

21 shown you and the 220 million figure that appears in

22 your information memorandum; do you see the context?

23 A. Yes, I can see the context, yes.

24 Q. If you would be kind enough, please, to go to page 57,

25 Dr Arkhangelsky gave some evidence, and I would like you

26 28
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 just to read to yourself, please, not out loud. Could

2 you start at {Day11/57:3} and just to give you further

3 explanation, Dr Arkhangelsky had given some evidence

4 that there had been some further payments made for

5 various rights of about US $20 million, so

6 Dr Arkhangelsky had given evidence that the 40 million

7 should perhaps be raised to $60 million; do you follow

8 me so far? Then that still left a discrepancy of

9 US $160 million; do you follow, Mr Bromley-Martin?

10 A. Yes, yes, mathematically I am with you.

11 Q. So when you look at line 5 or 6, you can see that

12 Dr Arkhangelsky was being asked to explain what appeared

13 to be a deficit or shortfall still of US $160 million.

14 Would you be kind enough to read, please, from line 6 on

15 page 57 down to line 3 on page 58.

16 A. Down to line which one?

17 Q. If you could read to the bottom of the page and then if

18 we could have the next page, please. {Day11/57:6} to

19 {Day11/58:3}. Can we have both pages up, please. Can

20 we have 57 and 58 on screen?

21 So if you read down from, it’s about line 3 or 4 on

22 page 57, down to line 3 on page 58. It is important,

23 I think, for you to focus on the answer at line 24 on

24 page 57 down to line 3 on page 58.

25 A. Right.

1 on page 194, I am afraid, down to line 21 on page 197.

2 I am sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin, to be imposing like this,

3 but I hope it won’t take too long. If we could have

4 {Day13/194:9} and {Day13/195:1} on screen, that’s very

5 kind, and if we could have {Day13/196:1} and

6 {Day13/197:1} on the other screen, that would be very

7 helpful as well, thank you. Sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin,

8 would you mind just reading …

9 A. Sorry, which line on page 197?

10 Q. Down to line 21, please, Mr Bromley-Martin.

11 A. All right. (Pause).

12 Right.

13 Q. So you can see what Dr Arkhangelsky told this court, you

14 can see the payments that he described, and you can see

15 his evidence to the effect that none of these banks were

16 ever going to be told about those payments.

17 Now, he emphasised that no one else knew about it,

18 and therefore that you didn’t know about it. Now that

19 you do know about it, this evidence, do you want to

20 revise any of the evidence you have given about the

21 project finance and the viability of Western Terminal?

22 I’m going to ask you some questions about that, but

23 I just want to give you a chance now to absorb that

24 evidence and just see if there is anything you want to

25 revise or modify or say, in fairness to you?

29 31

1 Q. Have you read that?

2 A. I have, indeed.

3 Q. Then could you please be shown page 60 of the transcript

4 for that day {Day11/60:2} and I would like you to read

5 from line 2 down to line 4.

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Now I would like you, please, to be shown page 65 of

8 the transcript, and I would like to have page 66 up on

9 screen, please, if we may at the same time {Day11/65:1},

10 and {Day11/66:1}, and I wonder, Mr Bromley-Martin, would

11 you be kind enough to read from line 21 on page 65 down

12 to line 5 on page 66. Obviously the «Q» is the question

13 and the «A» is Dr Arkhangelsky’s answers.

14 A. I have read that, yes.

15 Q. I wonder, please, if you could be shown the transcript

16 for {Day13/194:1}, because Dr Arkhangelsky gave some

17 evidence, because I asked him about what the banks were

18 told about various matters and whether the banks that

19 were being asked to lend money to finance

20 Western Terminal had been told about some of the matters

21 that he had given evidence of to which I have just taken

22 you. If you go, please, in Day 13 to page 194, you will

23 see what Dr Arkhangelsky said to his Lordship about

24 these questions. I wonder, could we have page 194, and

25 I am going to, I am afraid, want you to read from line 9

1 A. I think if you read all the paperwork which I understand

2 was shown to you that was on my system, you will see

3 that we were continually pressing for information, and

4 I think I even mentioned in my witness statement that

5 before we go into a due diligence phase, we literally go

6 through every account on the balance sheet to reconcile

7 that. I do that whether it is Russia, Africa, India or

8 whenever, and in emerging markets it is a nightmare, to

9 say the least.

10 If you look at some of the documentation, you will

11 see that I told Vitaly that the Russian valuation of

12 the property would not stand muster, and therefore —

13 Q. Why was that?

14 A. It wasn’t …

15 Q. It wasn’t reliable?

16 A. Well, 220 million for 8 hectares is top-dollar, let’s be

17 honest with you, so we had a feeling that something

18 wasn’t quite right.

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. But we had this in writing from the client, and …

21 Q. So would it be fair, from those last answers, what you

22 are really saying is you think that not very much

23 further down the line these sorts of issues and

24 discrepancies would come to light?

25 A. I think it would have enabled us to change some numbers,

30 32
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 yes.

2 Q. And is that all? Would that be your only change? You

3 would just change some numbers and you would carry on

4 with the same —

5 A. If you are saying —

6 Q. Let me finish the question —

7 A. If you are saying to me: Mr Bromley-Martin, are you

8 happy to be party to what I see here is loosely

9 described as a bribe, of course I am not, and I don’t

10 think the Bribery Act was in operation at the time, but

11 it certainly is now.

12 So if you are asking me about what I would do in

13 2015, I would probably look a lot sharper at some of

14 the facts and figures before sending them out.

15 Q. Yes. I don’t want you to comment on whether this

16 evidence is true or not, or accurate or not, because

17 that will be for his Lordship to decide, but I want to

18 ask you some questions based on a number of assumptions.

19 Do you agree, Mr Bromley-Martin, that the payments that

20 Dr Arkhangelsky claims to have made to this Russian

21 official were seriously improper payments?

22 A. They don’t smell right, put it that way.

23 Q. And he claims to have made them in the sum of

24 US $160 million, doesn’t he?

25 A. That’s what I deduce from this transcript you have shown

1 Q. I want to suggest —

2 A. We would have certainly considered our position, yes.

3 Q. And what would have been the likely result of that

4 consideration, do you think?

5 A. Well —

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How can he tell that without having

7 had the advice?

8 Mr Bromley-Martin, my understanding of the evidence

9 that you are giving, but correct me if I am wrong,

10 because it is not what you said, the effect of

11 the evidence that you are giving is that this would have

12 raised a red flag such as you would have felt obliged to

13 seek legal advice?

14 A. Exactly.

15 MR LORD: And, Mr Bromley-Martin, would you not expect that

16 upon any due diligence process by a lender considering

17 the Western Terminal project finance, that lender would

18 identify this discrepancy? In other words, the

19 difference between 40 million on the face of

20 the purchase document and the 220 million in

21 the information memorandum?

22 A. It should have — if the due diligence had been done

23 effectively, certainly it would have come to light,

24 indeed.

25 Q. And it is likely, isn’t it, at that point that any

33 35

1 me today, yes.

2 Q. And he claims to have made them in order to secure

3 various goodwill from a relevant Russian ministry,

4 doesn’t he?

5 A. Well, if you watched that Panorama programme about

6 Mr Putin a few weeks back, it seems as though this was

7 common currency, as you might say.

8 Q. Now, Mr Bromley-Martin, if you had become aware of the

9 payments that Dr Arkhangelsky claims to have made, and

10 the nature of them, as he has explained, can I take it

11 that you would have ceased to have anything more to do

12 with him, or any associated company?

13 A. It would have certainly given us a reason to consider

14 our position, exactly, and I think —

15 Q. So might you have gone ahead —

16 A. Just to finish answering your question, clearly I would

17 have gone and talked to Clyde & Co as they were working

18 in parallel with us, and sought their advice and

19 agreement.

20 Q. Right. So if his Lordship finds that that evidence of

21 Dr Arkhangelsky is true, he can take it that you,

22 Mr Bromley-Martin, would have considered continuing to

23 work on the Western Terminal project finance?

24 A. No, you are putting words into my mouth, I didn’t say

25 that.

1 lender is going to want to know the explanation for that

2 discrepancy, aren’t they?

3 A. Indeed.

4 Q. And they are either going to be told, aren’t they —

5 well, they are likely to discover, aren’t they, that the

6 purchase price seemed to be $40 million, not 220?

7 A. On the basis of what you have shown me today, yes.

8 Q. And the options would be either the potential lender was

9 given the explanation that Dr Arkhangelsky has set out,

10 or they were given no or some other explanation; do you

11 agree?

12 A. Sorry, I didn’t quite understand the question.

13 Q. If the lender wants to know why there is this

14 discrepancy between the 40 and the 220, they are going

15 to ask for an explanation, aren’t they? They are going

16 to say: Mr Bromley-Martin, or Mr OMG, what’s going on

17 here, aren’t they?

18 A. Exactly.

19 Q. And it appears —

20 A. If I could interrupt you there, I would sincerely hope

21 it didn’t get to that point in the sense that, clearly,

22 before we would allow any of the banks to come and do

23 any DD, we would have gone through with the IFRS

24 accounts and checked every single account on the balance

25 sheet, which is what we always do, because we have

34 36
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 learned through our 30 years in project finance that

2 unless you have checked every last line in a balance

3 sheet, there are always discrepancies which come out in

4 the due diligence, and it is better to discover them

5 up front.

6 Q. Are you saying that it would have been acceptable for

7 a bank to lend money in relation to Western Terminal,

8 not knowing about these payments; are you saying that

9 would have been all right; that these payments could

10 have been made in relation to the potential development

11 of the project —

12 A. I have not suggested for a second that they are all

13 right.

14 Q. I am not suggesting you are, but you appear to be

15 suggesting that you could adjust the information

16 memorandum to —

17 A. I didn’t say that. You are putting words into my mouth.

18 Q. It is likely, isn’t it, Mr Bromley-Martin —

19 A. Let’s just go through the process. Once we got a bank

20 interested, okay, and we were probably negotiating

21 a term sheet, an exclusivity agreement, okay, that would

22 give us time to go through and prepare everything for

23 due diligence; yes? In that phase before the Bank

24 arrived with its cohorts of lawyers and accounts, we

25 would have gone through the balance sheet line by line

1 muster, the one Dr Arkhangelsky has given?

2 A. It would have been difficult to justify it, certainly,

3 very difficult.

4 Q. Because I suggest to you that any lender who was

5 potentially interested would have wanted to know why

6 there was that discrepancy; you agree with that, don’t

7 you?

8 A. Yes, but I can’t see where you are taking this, because

9 at the end of the day, the project would stand on its

10 future potential rather than a number which may or may

11 not have been paid for the real estate.

12 Q. No, but Mr Bromley-Martin —

13 A. As I said right at the beginning, we are arguing about

14 a shade of grey. It helps the equation to have a higher

15 valuation of the property, but it is not crucial or

16 critical to raising project finance.

17 Q. No, but it is going to be highly relevant, isn’t it, to

18 a reputable lender that payments of this type and this

19 magnitude seem to have been paid in order to develop or

20 to assist with the development of the said asset; that’s

21 going to be relevant, isn’t it?

22 A. Yes, but hindsight is an exact science.

23 Q. But if you are being asked to lend $300 million to

24 develop an asset, it would be highly relevant to your

25 consideration that these sorts of payments had been made

37 39

1 and hopefully discovered the discrepancy ourselves.

2 Then we would have had, clearly, a very interesting

3 conversation, which clearly would have included Clyde —

4 clearly — because they were in a similar position

5 because Clyde were reviewing the information memorandum

6 and approving it from a legal perspective.

7 Q. But by this stage the banks that you have approached,

8 that you have given evidence about potentially being

9 interested in financing, they’ve had the information

10 memorandum, haven’t they? They’ve had that?

11 A. Indeed, yes.

12 Q. So the Bank and its lawyers and its men would be sitting

13 down saying: right, 220 million, and then suddenly you

14 come along and say: actually, it is 40 million and the

15 difference is made up of these payments; is that what

16 you are positing, that you would have had that

17 conversation with, I don’t know, Goldman Sachs or

18 BNP Paribas, or one of the other banks you approached?

19 Is that the sort of conversation you imagine happening?

20 A. No.

21 Q. What sort of conversation, what sort of exchange —

22 A. There are two possible outcomes of our own due

23 diligence: one is to stop work and one is to continue

24 and find an explanation for it that would pass muster.

25 Q. And do you agree that that explanation would not pass

1 in these sorts of sums, wouldn’t it? You would want to

2 know, because you would want to know what it’s worth?

3 Can the man develop it? Will it work? Is it lawful?

4 They are bound to ask all those questions, aren’t they,

5 all these banks?

6 A. Without wishing to condone anything that you have told

7 me this morning so far, very few infrastructure projects

8 would be built in emerging markets if every time there

9 was a hint of bribery that the bankers went away. I am

10 afraid it is a fact of life of doing business in

11 emerging markets that these things do happen and you

12 trip over them and you have to work around it.

13 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, this is rather more than a hint of

14 bribery? It’s a bit more serious than that, isn’t it?

15 A. You are telling me this in 2015; we weren’t given that

16 information in 2008.

17 Q. Can I suggest, Mr Bromley-Martin, that the fact of these

18 alleged payments, that that would have — that any

19 lender who discovered them would have been very

20 concerned about any project in relation to which these

21 payments had been made?

22 A. Yes. Definitely, if the facts had come to light at the

23 time, then there would have been a problem, yes.

24 Q. And by that you mean the lender would, in all

25 likelihood, not have gone ahead and lent, would it?

38 40
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. Yes, I suppose, probably not.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m so sorry, Mr Lord, I just want to

3 ask a couple of questions, if I may? Would you mind?

4 Suppose the discrepancy between the purchase price

5 and the total amount of 220 million had emerged at that

6 time, and it had been queried, but you had been told

7 upon enquiry that the discrepancy was explained by

8 a mixture of consultancy agreements, other innominate

9 costs associated with procuring the agreement of

10 the relevant authorities and so on and so forth. Doing

11 the best you can at that time, would that have lowered

12 the red flag or maintained it?

13 A. I think if it came out, I think Clyde and ourselves

14 would have probably withdrawn.

15 MR LORD: It is right, isn’t it, Mr Bromley-Martin, the fact

16 of these payments, if these payments became known by

17 anybody trying to value the Western Terminal asset, that

18 would tend to undermine the value of that asset; in

19 other words, the fact of these payments having gone into

20 effectively to the development, would tend to undermine

21 its value in the eyes of most valuers, do you agree?

22 A. Not necessarily, because I go back to it, as I presume

23 we may be discussing later, the Bank would be looking at

24 the cash flow from the project itself.

25 Q. I understand that, but if an asset that is up for

1 Q. Yes. And it is right, isn’t it, if, in fact, anybody

2 developing the Western Terminal along the lines that OMG

3 were suggesting when you were involved, that if in fact

4 that needed to be assisted by the payment of

5 US $160 million to a Russian official, that is going to

6 destroy the viability, the economic viability of all

7 your modelling of the project, isn’t it?

8 A. No. Not necessarily.

9 Q. Did you factor in to your modelling payments in order to

10 secure the development of the asset of these sort? Do

11 we see somewhere in the model that you factored in the

12 need to oil the wheels, as it were?

13 A. No, because we were uncomfortable with the valuation at

14 the time. If you look at my model, you will see that we

15 didn’t put anything in the balance sheet for the value

16 of the property.

17 Q. It’s right, isn’t it, Mr Bromley-Martin, that really in

18 the light of this information, which I suggest that any

19 lender would have discovered upon due diligence, there

20 was no real prospect of the Western Terminal project

21 finance being raised at that or any time?

22 A. On the basis of 160 million going somewhere it shouldn’t

23 have gone, probably not.

24 Q. I’m going to ask you now — I am moving onto a different

25 topic.

41 43
1 development seems to require these sorts of payments in 1 I am going to ask you now, Mr Bromley-Martin, about
2 these sorts of sums to be paid to advance the process, 2 other aspects of the Western Terminal project and the
3 doesn’t that inject an uncertainty and a potential 3 proposed financing. Can I ask you first, please, about
4 illegality into the whole development process of that 4 the physical condition of Western Terminal itself, the
5 asset? 5 actual physical condition of the land?
6 A. That wasn’t your question. 6 A. A lot of mud. There was some hard standing, but
7 Q. Well, could you answer the last question, and then 7 I think — I mean, it was physically being used, it was
8 I will try and frame my question — 8 physically generating revenue from round timber and
9 A. Your question was does the value of the freehold have 9 various other cargoes. The fact that 8 of the
10 much effect on the project. The answer is no, because 10 8 hectares out of the overall amount was already there,
11 it is the cash flow from the facilities on that freehold 11 it was relatively cheap to bring the port — the two
12 against which they are lending. 12 terminals, I beg your pardon, up to scratch.
13 Q. No, I see that, but if you are valuing an asset which is 13 Q. Yes, but you said «a lot of mud». It was in a very
14 said to be a developable asset and you become aware of 14 rundown condition, wasn’t it?
15 these sorts of payments that seem to be paid in order to 15 A. I can’t see the relevance of that to this, because if
16 assist that development, isn’t that going to inject 16 you have started a greenfield site, you haven’t even got
17 a very serious risk factor into any development of that 17 the mud there.
18 asset? 18 Q. Sorry, can you just listen to the questions. Did you go
19 A. Well, I think I’ve already answered that question once, 19 and visit the site?
20 if not twice. 20 A. Yes, several times.
21 Q. Is that a yes? 21 Q. Did you take any photographs?
22 A. Yes. It … 22 A. Yes, I did, indeed, yes.
23 Q. All right. And it’s right, isn’t it — 23 Q. Have they been disclosed? Do you still have them?
24 A. That’s why we go through the due diligence ourselves: to 24 A. I don’t have them any more, I don’t think. I did look
25 avoid precisely that sort of situation. 25 for them.
42 44
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Q. Did you give them to somebody else? 1 Q. Because I must say, I focused on the July version and
2 A. No, they were on an old laptop which I couldn’t fire up, 2 I was trying to find a section that described any sort
3 if you really want to know the question. 3 of development of the Western Terminal, and I couldn’t
4 Q. All right. 4 really find it.
5 A. But I know I took photographs at the time. 5 A. If you look at page 37, this is the October one, because
6 Q. All right. Did you make any notes of any site visits 6 I just have it in front of me. {D53/889/37}.
7 that you made in relation to the condition of 7 Q. Yes.
8 the premises? 8 A. You will see that work was — the concrete and hard
9 A. I don’t recall. What I do is I carry around a black 9 standing and everything which was going to be done
10 notebook everywhere, so perhaps if I went back to my 10 during 2008 —
11 2008 one, I would find it. 11 Q. Yes, but isn’t that future work, not past work?
12 Q. All right. 12 A. No, part of it was future, part of it was underway. The
13 A. But I did disclose, and I know you have them, four 13 concreting of the hard standing was underway.
14 photographs of a big metal tank being delivered to 14 Q. I see, and when do you think that had started, then?
15 Western Terminal. I know that was in the material 15 A. Mid-2008, from memory. I couldn’t give you a precise
16 I sent through. So if you look there, you will see the 16 date.
17 hard standing was in quite a good condition at that 17 Q. All right. But apart from the concreting works, there
18 point. 18 were no other significant improvement works that you
19 Q. When you say «a lot of mud», it sounds as if a lot of 19 understood to have been done to Western Terminal
20 the 8 hectares was not hard standing? 20 by October 2008?
21 A. No, I think roughly, from memory, about 60 per cent of 21 A. No.
22 it was hard standing. 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m so sorry, I am being half-witted;
23 Q. Right, and if you go to {D52/889/35}, you can see it 23 where was that reference?
24 says — this is the information memorandum: 24 MR LORD: It is at page 37 — are you in the October one,
25 «The Western Terminal was acquired in 2007, and was 25 Mr Bromley-Martin?
45 47

1 in a very run down condition.»

2 Can you see that?

3 A. Sorry, which —

4 Q. Top paragraph.

5 A. Yes, got you. Right.

6 Q. And presumably you thought there was a basis for that

7 comment?

8 A. Yes, which I stand by.

9 Q. Again, I stand to be corrected, but I can’t see in your

10 information memorandum reference to any improvement or

11 significant improvement works that had been done to

12 the terminal since it had been acquired in that

13 condition; do you agree that your information memorandum

14 doesn’t chronicle any improvement works?

15 A. I believe that it does chronicle some, actually.

16 Q. Does it?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. It is probably my fault, I was trying to see where —

19 A. Definitely in the October version.

20 Q. Oh right.

21 A. Because they were doing work on it by that stage.

22 Q. Okay, so by October there was work being done?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And that work wasn’t being done in July, was it?

25 A. To be honest with you, I can’t remember when it started.

1 A. Yes, I am, {D52/889/37}.

2 Q. That is the July one.

3 A. I beg your pardon. I think they are probably the same,

4 I beg your pardon.

5 MR LORD: So {D52/889/37}, my Lord. Sorry, it is my fault.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I beg your pardon, I was in

7 the October.

8 MR LORD: That’s where I think we all thought we were.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sorry, I am being silly still.

10 MR LORD: {D52/889/37}, I think it is the concreting of hard

11 standing at the top.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, I’m sorry.

13 MR LORD: I think Mr Bromley-Martin is suggesting that that

14 is works that had actually begun; is that right,

15 Mr Bromley-Martin?

16 A. My understanding and my recollection, and if you look at

17 the photographs of that steel tank being delivered, you

18 will see that there is good quality concrete there in

19 that area, which I think was part of SV-16, if

20 I remember rightly.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It says «Summary of proposed capital

22 expenditure»?

23 MR LORD: Yes.

24 So Mr Bromley-Martin, this is the July information

25 memorandum and it does say, as his Lordship points out

46 48
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 rightly «Summary of proposed capital expenditure». So

2 it does look from this document as if the concreting of

3 the hard standing is going to be part of the proposed

4 development once the finance has been raised, doesn’t

5 it?

6 A. You might surmise that, but that’s incorrect.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In October, the page number is

8 {D51/887/38}.

9 A. I probably hadn’t changed it in the October version,

10 I am afraid.

11 MR LORD: And it is still the same in October, I think.

12 Mr Birt, what is the reference?

13 A. Yes, it’s word for word the same.

14 Q. {D51/887/38}. I asked you originally,

15 Mr Bromley-Martin, I think, whether your information

16 memorandum recorded any material improvement works that

17 had actually been carried out to Western Terminal since

18 it had been bought. I think the answer is, you agree,

19 that that document doesn’t record any, does it?

20 A. No, I think that’s an omission on my part.

21 Q. And from your answers, I think it is right, isn’t it,

22 that — it would be fair to say that no development work

23 that you had seen when you were at Western Terminal

24 would have materially increased its value from its

25 acquisition value. No works you saw could really add

1 offices, I should think, probably total footprint

2 3,000 square feet, at a guess. So they put some nice

3 brand new offices in there, they put a new gate in

4 there, so clearly things were beginning to happen.

5 Q. And that would have reduced the space for any containers

6 presumably, would it?

7 A. Marginally.

8 Q. Did you see any railway lines on the site?

9 A. Yes, they ran down the side of the property.

10 Q. And they weren’t connected to the sea, were they? They

11 didn’t run to the sea?

12 A. They ran within 50 metres of the sea.

13 Q. Could we go to some aerial photographs, do you think?

14 Could you go in your bundle behind divider 13.

15 {D196/2931/1}, please, there is an aerial photograph

16 taken by Google Earth of the Western Terminal site?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you recognise that, Mr Bromley-Martin?

19 A. I do, indeed.

20 Q. Can you help, where is the railway that you are talking

21 about?

22 A. Well, you can see it. You can see the trucks coming

23 down the road, sort of bottom centre to the left of that

24 blueish roofed building, and you can see the railway

25 tracks. They branch and form a U-loop down the side of

49 51

1 value to the site that you saw?

2 A. I disagree with that, because clearly they were

3 generating extra revenue for such things as this metal

4 tank that was delivered through Western Terminal.

5 So it was taking on new forms of cargo, and thus

6 generating additional revenue.

7 Q. Yes, but taking a step back, that wouldn’t really be

8 a very material — putting some hard standing down

9 wouldn’t really be a big change in the nature of

10 the asset, would it?

11 A. Well, if you think of it in terms of additional revenue

12 it is generating, yes.

13 Q. It’s right, isn’t it, that the terminal when you looked

14 at it was still not in a fit condition for containers?

15 A. No, it would not have been suitable for containers.

16 Q. And it was only suitable for bulk cargoes like timber?

17 A. Yes, because everything was — if I recall correctly,

18 everything was unloaded from a floating crane, so …

19 Q. Yes. Would it be fair to say that it was a fairly

20 scruffy site; would that be fair?

21 A. I’m not quite sure why you are running Western Terminal

22 down so much. I mean, I said there was a lot of mud.

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. Sorry, you have just reminded me of something else.

25 They had built new offices there. There were two storey

1 SV-16. There is some Russian writing along it, if you

2 see it, along the boundary, and you can see the new

3 offices there too.

4 Q. Could you hold up the hard copy so we can see what you

5 are pointing at. Sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin, it is my

6 fault. Sorry about that.

7 A. So here you have the railway here (indicates).

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. There is the offices here — excuse my dirty fingers.

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. And there is the boundary of Western Terminal, that

12 black line across there.

13 Q. But the railway line is outside the boundary, isn’t it,

14 of the OMG plot?

15 A. What’s that got to do with the price of butter? You

16 just stick it in through the boundary.

17 Q. Yes, but can you just confirm that the railway line you

18 are pointing to is actually outside the perimeter of

19 the Western Terminal plot, the 8-hectare plot?

20 A. By 10 or 15 metres, maximum.

21 Q. That’s right. And there was no railway tracks actually

22 within the curtilage of the Western Terminal plot itself

23 that you saw?

24 A. But it wouldn’t be rocket science just to lead a spur

25 into the terminal.

50 52
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Q. That wasn’t the question, Mr Bromley-Martin. 1 A. I wasn’t referring to the white lines, I was referring
2 A. The answer to your question is it wasn’t, but it would 2 to the extension of the white line with the Russian
3 be extremely easy to put it there. 3 writing on it looks like — my recollection is that the
4 MR LORD: Thank you. 4 railway track ran down the side of the property.
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Just for my understanding, and I do 5 But, I mean, I think, again, we are arguing about
6 apologise, where the Russian writing is, which is 6 shades of grey. To get the railway line onto the
7 Russian writing, but might be a train, as it were, 7 container terminal would have been very easy. The fact
8 that’s outside the boundary of the Western Terminal 8 that it is 30 metres rather than 5 metres is, to my
9 site, is it? 9 mind, rather irrelevant.
10 A. Yes. 10 Q. But do you agree that the loop that you described
11 MR LORD: My Lord, very roughly, that’s what I’ve understood 11 doesn’t look as if it is a railway; it looks as if it is
12 to be the Western Terminal site: that block there and 12 a road?
13 that block there (indicates). 13 A. My recollection is that there was a railway loop there,
14 A. Exactly. Plus the 3 hectares to be acquired to 14 down the side of the boundary, from my recollection.
15 the north west. 15 Q. Do you agree that looking at that photograph —
16 MR LORD: But the 8-hectare site is as I have drawn, those 16 A. Looking at that photograph what I thought was at that
17 two rectangles, really. 17 point was a railway line is probably a road, but I think
18 A. Yes, that’s a pretty good representation. 18 that there’s still — but round at the top, closer to
19 Q. Thank you, Mr Bromley-Martin. 19 the boundary fence at the top there, I think that that
20 A. No, but it would be very easy to put a railway line in, 20 loop — do you have a red mark on the picture?
21 very simple. 21 Q. Yes.
22 Q. I wasn’t suggesting it wasn’t, it is just there had been 22 A. Just immediately along the top of that red mark, from
23 a bit of debate about what was and wasn’t on the site, 23 memory that’s where the railway line was.
24 that’s all? 24 Q. Right.
25 A. I mean, it’s a one-month job. The proximity of that 25 A. But, as I say, the fact that the railway line is 30 or
53 55

1 railway line was a real bonus to the site. I think

2 that’s the critical issue.

3 MR LORD: My Lord, would that be a convenient time for

4 a short break?

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Certainly.

6 MR LORD: Thank you.

7 (11.18 am)

8 (A short break)

9 (11.29 am)

10 MR LORD: Mr Bromley-Martin, I would just like to go back to

11 the photographs and your evidence about the railway,

12 because there are some later photographs behind that

13 divider and I think they might be slightly clearer.

14 Could you go, please, to the next page, which is

15 {D196/2931/2}, because I think you pointed to that loop

16 and you suggested that that was a railway.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Can I suggest to you from this 2007 photograph that that

19 is actually a road, isn’t it? It is not a railway?

20 A. My recollection is that railway ran down the side there

21 by that Russian writing.

22 Q. If you could look at that photograph —

23 A. Yes, the top bit just to the right of the red, I think

24 that a railway track there, isn’t it?

25 Q. No, those white lines I think are the Google Earth.

1 40 metres away rather than 5 metres is pretty

2 irrelevant.

3 Q. Because if you go onto the photographs, if you think —

4 I’m not sure that’s right, Mr Bromley-Martin. If you

5 just turn the photographs over, and I accept that they

6 are a different quality, but it is hard to — is it that

7 dark line you are looking at there, above the red

8 square; is that what you are saying is the railway?

9 A. No, that looks like a fence, but there is a pale sort of

10 concave thing there. Do you see the big white building

11 that looks as though it is partially built further down.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The semicircular?

13 A. Yes. Well, just to the left of that, that definitely is

14 the railway line there.

15 MR LORD: Because if you go to the — right. And who owns

16 the plot between that line and the Western Terminal; do

17 you know?

18 A. I have no idea, no.

19 Q. But that wasn’t part of the development project plot,

20 was it?

21 A. To bring the spur into the …

22 Q. No, sorry —

23 A. No, it wasn’t part of the Western Terminal, no.

24 Q. Because I think the extra 3 hectares is somewhere else,

25 isn’t it, on the site?

54 56
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. Do you see where you have the time, 2002, 2015 sort of

2 scale on the top left-hand corner?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. That rectangular going north westwards was the

5 3 hectares which was going to be reclaimed.

6 Q. Yes. So, if you like, where the white semicircular

7 building is, there is a plot of land, isn’t there,

8 between the railway you identify and the

9 Western Terminal boundary, isn’t there?

10 A. Yes. From memory, because that road stops there, hence

11 why you’ve the U, I am pretty sure that the railway line

12 goes very close to what would have been SV-17.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did the railway line sort of end —

14 A. Further right up the isthmus, if I can call it that,

15 sir.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So it didn’t cross the road that we

17 can definitely see?

18 A. No, it didn’t cross the road, but because that red —

19 I don’t know if that’s a roof, that red thing, is it —

20 that road didn’t go any further, so from memory there is

21 a direct link between the railway line and SV-17.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So the railway came in at the bottom,

23 as it were, looped round and then came to a juddering

24 halt, did it?

25 A. Yes, it goes right on up, it’s a very thin —

1 extremely easy to have put a rail link into the

2 container tunnel.

3 Q. And that would assume the reclamation of land, wouldn’t

4 it, and the building —

5 A. No, not necessarily.

6 Q. But when you were there, there was no railway line on

7 the Western Terminal plot itself?

8 A. No, there was no railway line at the Western Terminal.

9 That was part of the project, to do that.

10 Q. Could you look at {C1/3/4}, please. You see in

11 paragraph 24 you say:

12 «We had been instructed that various state

13 organisations would need to — and would — approve the

14 development plans at Western.»

15 Do you see that, paragraph 24 of your witness

16 statement?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you identify some of the various approvals that

19 would be necessary.

20 A. Exactly, yes, that’s my understanding.

21 Q. And it’s right, isn’t it, that the Western Terminal

22 development project that you worked on, that it would be

23 necessary to obtain most of those permits to carry out

24 the development project?

25 A. My understanding, unfortunately all the rules were in

57 59
1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And then comes to a buffer? 1 Russian, so we couldn’t read them, but it’s our
2 A. It comes to a buffer about half a mile further north 2 understanding that that was the case, yes.
3 west from this picture here. So those trucks that are 3 Q. And you were instructed by Dr Arkhangelsky that he
4 parked on the left and the semicircular building, you 4 thought that the group would be able to get those
5 can just see the twin railway lines going up there. 5 permissions?
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are they adjacent to the railway? 6 A. Yes, he seemed very confident of being able to do that.
7 A. Yes. 7 Q. Yes. But you didn’t carry out any independent
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But they are just a wee bit to 8 verification of that approval process?
9 the north of the railway, if you like? 9 A. No, it’s specifically excluded from our mandate.
10 A. Yes, north-east, exactly, sir. 10 The client had to secure those permits.
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. (Pause). 11 Q. I understand. Can I ask you, please, about the
12 Thank you. 12 Western Terminal project and the projected turnover if
13 MR LORD: Shall I … 13 the development had gone ahead?
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sorry, yes. 14 A. Yes.
15 MR LORD: No, I didn’t want to move on if that was 15 Q. Do you agree that the projected turnover of
16 inappropriate. 16 the Western Terminal, in other words, the revenue it
17 Mr Bromley-Martin, could you be shown — 17 generated, after it had been developed would be a key
18 A. Could I just clarify what I have just said? I’m sorry, 18 consideration when assessing the commercial viability of
19 this is my Google map. 19 the Western Terminal project?
20 Q. Right. Show his Lordship as well, that’s right. Yes. 20 A. Indeed.
21 A. If you look here (indicates), this bit here was going to 21 Q. And it’s right, isn’t it, that the project envisaged the
22 be SV-17. As you see, that road stops there, pretty 22 creation of a container terminal?
23 well, and the railway line comes very close to SV-17. 23 A. Indeed.
24 So the yellow line is the boundary of the extra 24 Q. And it’s right, isn’t it, that the Western Terminal
25 3 hectares, so it’s very close. It would have been 25 consisted, as all land does, of a finite space?
58 60
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. Indeed. 1 MR LORD: I think I would like to ask the question. By all
2 Q. And any space at the Western Terminal port that was used 2 means give your paper out. It seems to me supplemental
3 for bulk cargo would have to be at the expense of 3 evidence, but anyway.
4 container revenue, wouldn’t it? 4 A. That’s why I brought a hard copy. (Handed).
5 A. I think you are being over simplistic there. 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is better than him explaining
6 Q. It wouldn’t be the first time. 6 something rather inaccurately, in all deference to him,
7 A. Sorry? 7 where he has this prepared here.
8 Q. Yes, you might be right, you might be right. But I had 8 By all means ask your question first, if that’s what
9 really assumed, because I think your evidence is that 9 you would like to do, and if you would like time to look
10 you wanted to exclude the bulk cargoes because you 10 at this, Mr Lord, of course you can have it.
11 wanted to focus on the container model, and I think 11 MR LORD: I am not going to be able to follow this. I will
12 I had understood you to be saying you can’t really have 12 have to look at this over the short adjournment.
13 double-counting. You can’t be bringing in bulk cargo 13 Can we go to your witness statement,
14 turnover if, really, you are using space that you have 14 Mr Bromley-Martin, because I must say, I had understood
15 plugged into your container turnover analysis; do you 15 that you agreed with my propositions. I hadn’t
16 see the point? 16 understood that you would be resistant to the
17 A. Right. I think you need to understand the dynamics of 17 suggestion, but if you go to your witness statement at
18 a container terminal in as much as winning business from 18 {C1/3/7} —
19 shipping companies, and that is it clearly takes time to 19 MR STROILOV: I’m sorry to interrupt, I think the videolink
20 build up your business as containers, and therefore the 20 has gone dead, so I hope someone will investigate what’s
21 lively discussion that Vitaly and I had on more than one 21 happening and whether it is possible to restore it. I’m
22 occasion was quite how one ran down the round timber 22 sorry to interrupt, but obviously the idea was that
23 business and built up the container business, because, 23 Mr Arkhangelsky does participate by videolink. So
24 as you will see in the IM, the Russian Government were 24 I hope someone will look into it and see if it can be…
25 putting all sorts of export tariffs on round timber in 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It has been rather sporadic this

61

1 an effort to decrease the amount of round timber exports

2 going out of Russia without any added value. So —

3 Q. But in answer to my question, it’s right, isn’t it — it

4 must be right that if you are modelling the turnover of

5 a port business, you are going to be — you are working

6 with a finite plot of land, aren’t you, at the end of

7 the day?

8 A. That’s not unusual.

9 Q. No, but part of this analysis, part of the turnover

10 analysis, involves working out if, in effect, how many

11 containers are likely to throughput the port in a year,

12 and working out a sensible handling charge per

13 container, isn’t that a —

14 A. Your Lordship, if I may, I had prepared myself for this

15 question and I have a few sheets of paper which I think

16 might be easy to hand out —

17 Q. Well, I’m not sure that’s really…

18 A. — so I can answer the question.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Have you copies?

20 A. I have got four copies here, yes.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you objecting to that?

22 MR LORD: I don’t mind getting the copies but I think I

23 should be —

24 A. It’s very simple, it’s just tabular form just to explain

25 the calculation, that’s it.

63

1 morning, I have noticed it. I haven’t commented on it,

2 because everyone can see the same as I can see. It does

3 seem as if the internet connection with Nice is by no

4 means entirely reliable.

5 MR LORD: Someone has gone to check, my Lord. Certainly,

6 Mr Stroilov, we will check and see what’s going on and

7 what can be done.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I take it that the LiveNote feed

9 is still operational? So he doesn’t know what’s going

10 on? (Pause).

11 There we are. Welcome back, Dr Arkhangelsky.

12 MR STROILOV: I do apologise for interrupting.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

14 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Thank you. Thank you. Sorry.

15 MR LORD: Mr Bromley-Martin, could you look at paragraph 37,

16 please, of your witness statement {C1/3/7}, and you say

17 this:

18 «Ultimately Vitaly —»

19 If you go back to 36. 36 and 37. 36:

20 «We had quite a lot of discussion with Vitaly about

21 the inclusion of timber in the IM. We saw timber

22 transhipment as a transient business line and one that

23 could not be relied on in the medium to long term …

24 also, from our own experience of port operations, we

25 were concerned that a container terminal, which was not

62 64
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 dedicated as such, would find it difficult to compete

2 with the other container-dedicated terminals in

3 St Petersburg.

4 «However, at the time Vitaly had acquired

5 Western Terminal … the terminal was in a poor state.

6 It had cost him very little and relative to its

7 acquisition price I recall it was generating quite a lot

8 of turnover from timber. I understood that is why

9 Vitaly wanted to keep timber transhipment going

10 alongside the new container business.

11 «37. Ultimately Vitaly instructed us to include

12 timber and bulk cargoes in the model for the final IM.

13 I think it is unlikely that there would have been

14 sufficient space on the approximately 8 hectares that

15 Western Terminal … owned at the terminal to perform

16 bulk cargoes at the volumes Vitaly was projecting

17 (400,000 tonnes per year by 2011), together with timber

18 transhipment and a container business, but Vitaly

19 maintained it was possible — he would have had to

20 explain his reasons to funders.»

21 Can you see that?

22 A. Mm hmm.

23 Q. You go on to say:

24 «However, given the size of the plot, number and

25 length of berths, planned construction and investment in

1 an 18 July model, and that led to the final IM, then

2 there was a later model in September; can you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. I’m going to take you to both those models in the course

5 of today, but it is right, isn’t it, for his Lordship to

6 note that in the later model you stripped out all bulk

7 cargoes from the turnover calculations?

8 A. Let us be absolutely clear with this, at my own volition

9 I amended the assumptions in my model, because the model

10 has something — we are talking about

11 a multi-dimensional calculation here, yes.

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. And therefore I merely changed the assumptions, which is

14 very easy to do in my model, to do the sensitivity

15 analysis as any normal person doing DD would have done

16 to check on that, indeed.

17 Q. But it looked as if, from your evidence, you say this:

18 «which removed all the bulk cargoes». So my

19 understanding was, from your September model you had

20 removed bulk cargoes from the turnover; is that fair?

21 A. Yes, but the terminal was still very valuable.

22 Q. That’s a different point, Mr Bromley-Martin, I don’t ask

23 you to argue a cause here.

24 A. All right. I said yes already.

25 Q. I’m going to ask you now about — and that change was

65

1 kit, I was confident that after development a capacity

2 of TEU [that’s 20-foot equivalent units] 500,000 per

3 year for containers alone would have been achievable.

4 The 8 hectares was equivalent to an average of 4 days’

5 storage at 500,000 TEU per annum.»

6 So, Mr Bromley-Martin, I had understood that the

7 burden of your evidence was you had not really thought

8 it appropriate to include timber or bulk cargoes in

9 a modelling of a business that was designed to be

10 a container transhipment business; is that right or not?

11 Was I right?

12 A. Broadly — broadly right, yes.

13 Q. And Dr Arkhangelsky prevailed upon you to include the

14 timber, and you thought: well, let him justify it to

15 lenders at the due diligence time; would that be a fair

16 summary?

17 A. I think I was hoping that my persuasive powers might

18 prevail in the fullness of time.

19 Q. But you were disappointed in that hope, it looks,

20 certainly in the short term?

21 A. On the basis that things came to a grinding halt, as we

22 are aware, that opportunity never availed itself.

23 Q. And I think it’s right, if we look at paragraph 39 of

24 your witness statement, I think you explain that you did

25 two models for this Western Terminal project: there was

67

1 done in part at the suggestion or insistence of one of

2 the potential lenders, wasn’t it?

3 A. They asked me to look at what we believed the effect

4 would be.

5 Q. Because it is right, isn’t it, that if you kept some

6 space at the port for bulk cargoes, like timber, that

7 would be space that couldn’t be used for some

8 containers, at least while the timber was there?

9 A. Yes, but there is actually a middle ground in the sense

10 that there is a transitional phase. So it would have

11 been perfectly possible to continue unloading, or

12 loading, should I say, round timber at SV-15 whilst you

13 upgrade SV-16 and start an embryonic container business

14 there, because the capacity would be sufficient to last

15 you a year or so.

16 Q. That wasn’t the question, Mr Bromley-Martin. It wasn’t

17 really whether you could run those two income streams at

18 the same time: plainly you could. The point, really, is

19 this, isn’t it: when you are looking at modelling the

20 viability of a 8-hectare port plot, space that you use

21 for bulk cargo is necessarily — necessarily — going to

22 be at the expense of at least some container throughput;

23 yes or no?

24 A. No. Because if you do the calculation —

25 Q. Yes?

66 68
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. — once you get up to capacity, near capacity, then you

2 would need the full amount of space.

3 If you look at the model you will see that it took

4 three or four years in our projections for the

5 throughput to come close to the capacity. So for at

6 least two years you could have continued exporting round

7 timber from SV-15 whilst you were (a) constructing and

8 (b) operating a container terminal from SV-16.

9 Q. So when should his Lordship take it — how many years

10 into your model would the port be operating in its

11 developed state at full container transhipment capacity?

12 How many years into the projected new business?

13 A. Five.

14 Q. It was going to take five years, was it, to get up to —

15 and five years to get up to 500,000 TEUs per annum?

16 A. Mm hmm. Look at Gdansk.

17 Q. I am not challenging, I just want to get your answer.

18 A. You can see it in reality, Gdansk terminal was built, it

19 came operational in 2007 and they are up to capacity now

20 after five or six years. So that is a fairly common

21 feature of container terminals.

22 Q. And what was the capacity you were predicting one year

23 into the project?

24 A. I will have to go back into the — there’s 500 variables

25 and you happen to be asking me about one, but I suspect

1 life, that it was better to dedicate the terminal to

2 container only?

3 A. Exactly. I mean, round timber tends to be quite dirty,

4 by common sense.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Had he persisted in his then

6 preference, it could have taken longer to get optimum —

7 A. It could have taken longer, but he would have had the

8 money, yes.

9 MR LORD: Mr Bromley-Martin, I want to ask you now about the

10 container throughput which you modelled for the

11 Western Terminal project.

12 A. Mm hmm.

13 Q. I am sure his Lordship knows this, but the language is

14 of TEUs, isn’t it, which I think is 20-foot equivalent

15 units, isn’t it?

16 A. Exactly, yes.

17 Q. And that is meant to reflect the average size for

18 a container, isn’t it?

19 A. It’s the original American size that started it.

20 Q. So TEU is really shorthand for a container. So

21 500,000 TEUs per annum is really 500,000 containers per

22 annum?

23 A. Crudely speaking, yes.

24 Q. Thank you very much.

25 A. In your calculation, just to spilt hairs, if I may, for

69 71

1 it will probably be around — built into the model is

2 what we call an S curve and that S curve is very easily

3 changeable, and I suspect, off the top of my head, it

4 would be around 15 or 20 per cent, in that particular

5 scenario.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: This may be a silly question,

7 I apologise if it is, but is that five years predicated

8 on you convincing or others convincing Dr Arkhangelsky

9 eventually to have a dedicated container operation, or

10 would it be affected if Dr Arkhangelsky continued in his

11 preference for running the two together?

12 A. If I could liken it to retail revenue per square foot,

13 sort of attitude, it would have been far more profitable

14 to have run a container terminal than a round timber

15 export terminal, and on the basis of the projections

16 that we were seeing for container traffic growth through

17 St Petersburg in 2008, I suspect that he would have been

18 quickly convinced that containers were a more profitable

19 cargo than timber, notwithstanding the likelihood that

20 the Russian Government were going to increase export

21 tariffs, which would have killed the export business

22 anyway.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So your figures were predicated on it

24 becoming obvious to Dr Arkhangelsky, whether through

25 your persuasion or through the simple facts of economic

1 two seconds, a 40-foot container is counted as 1.6 TEU.

2 Q. I see, so there would be a slight adjustment depending

3 on the size of the container?

4 A. A slight adjustment.

5 Q. I understand.

6 Now, in paragraphs 33 and 37 of your witness

7 statement, so {C1/3/6}, paragraph 33, you refer to these

8 TEUs, you explained what they were at the end of that

9 paragraph.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So you were looking at the 20-foot equivalent unit which

12 was:

13 «… a standard unit of cargo capacity based on the

14 volume of a 20-foot-long intermodal metal box

15 container.»

16 Is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And if you go to paragraph 37 over the page, at

19 {C1/3/7}, you set out your evidence there about the

20 potential TEUs per annum turnover, and you are

21 suggesting, aren’t you, I think, that you were confident

22 that after development a capacity of 500,000 per year

23 for containers alone would have been achievable?

24 A. Exactly.

25 Q. And you are basing that on the 8-hectare space, aren’t

70 72
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 you?

2 A. Exactly. If you look at that paper I just gave you,

3 which you didn’t like, on the bottom of the second page

4 I run you through my mathematical logic for saying that.

5 It’s about two-thirds of the way down the page entitled

6 «Terminal storage».

7 Q. Yes, perhaps if I could run at it my way and then I will

8 look at your extra evidence over the short adjournment.

9 Could you be shown {D43/750/4}, please. In that

10 bundle in front of you, Mr Bromley-Martin, you will find

11 an earlier version of the information memorandum. If

12 your Lordship has the Western Terminal bundle, it is

13 actually behind divider 1.

14 I think, Mr Bromley-Martin, this looks like it was

15 the first draft of this document.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And it contains some of the later material, but it also

18 contains some more general material relevant to

19 the development, and I deduce that this first draft was

20 based in large measure upon your general market

21 understanding; would that be fair?

22 A. Well, it takes a lot of — as you can imagine, the

23 amount of data in the public domain was very thin indeed

24 at that stage, because a lot of the data that —

25 throughput and everything else coming through, the

1 memorandum, you were predicating after development

2 a port facility that had three berths of those lengths;

3 is that right?

4 A. Mm hmm, yes.

5 Q. And you were positing a turnover of TEUs per annum of

6 300,000?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And if we go, please — if you have that in mind, now if

9 you could keep that page open, if that could be up on

10 screen, please. If we could go, please, to

11 the equivalent version in the final, by which I mean

12 the July 2008 version, at {D52/889/6}.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Which tab?

14 MR LORD: It is behind divider 10.

15 Do you have that, Mr Bromley-Martin?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You can see that this is what I think you describe as

18 the final version. I know that there was an October

19 version but I am not sure that this changed. You can

20 see under the heading «OMG Western Terminal Limited», if

21 we could have it on screen, {D52/889/6}, second

22 paragraph:

23 «Western owns 8.1 hectares…»

24 Then you can see:

25 «The facility will be developed in three phases over

73 75

1 individual container terminals in St Petersburg was

2 clearly commercially sensitive and we couldn’t get hold

3 of it, and therefore we relied upon the local management

4 of Western, people who worked for other companies, and

5 from what was the scant amount of information in

6 the public domain.

7 Q. If you go, please, to {D43/750/4} you can see in

8 the bottom half of the page you set out in, I think,

9 summary terms, what the Western Terminal development

10 project is likely to comprise, don’t you?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And can you see the third paragraph from the foot of

13 the page:

14 «Upon completion of the development, Western will

15 have three berths, 170 metres, 210 metres, and

16 200 metres…»

17 Can you see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And so it runs on. Then you say later on in

20 the paragraph:

21 «The terminal will be capable of handling 300,000

22 TEUs per annum.»

23 Can you see that?

24 A. Mm hmm.

25 Q. So in your very first version of this information

1 30 months and comprise …»

2 You see what it there says.

3 Then if you go to {D52/889/7}, you can see you say

4 this:

5 «Upon completion of the development, Western will

6 have three berths, 170 metres, 210 metres, and

7 200 metres … capable of taking ships with up to

8 9-10 metres in draft which corresponds to roughly

9 7,000 tonnes dead weight.»

10 Can you see that?

11 A. Mm hmm.

12 Q. «The storage areas will be made over to hard standing,

13 served by a rail spur from the Russian … network.»

14 Those proportions, those dimensions for the

15 developed site are the same, aren’t they, in the July

16 version, as in the May version that I took you to

17 a moment ago?

18 A. Mm hmm.

19 Q. So the premise for the containers per annum output, or

20 throughput, in terms of the available space, hasn’t

21 changed, has it? It’s the same three berths with the

22 same dimensions, isn’t it?

23 A. Just because I corrected something, I’m not sure why you

24 are — what you are driving at.

25 Q. Well, your original assessment of the potential TEUs per

74 76
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 annum was 300,000, wasn’t it?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And in the final version —

4 A. Well, in a draft form, yes.

5 Q. And in your final version, it was 500,000?

6 A. Yes, because we had done more research.

7 Q. I am wanting you to confirm to his Lordship that, if you

8 like, the premise in the sense of the physical capacity

9 of the land, of the port itself, hadn’t changed between

10 those two figures.

11 A. It had, in the sense that new — because container

12 traffic is a really embryonic business in Europe at that

13 stage, or relatively recent, and significant strides

14 have been working — in terms of methodology and

15 everything else. So if you talk to the experts, Drewry,

16 who are probably the leading consultants on container

17 traffic, work on the basis of 1,200 to 1,600 TEU per

18 metre of quay, which would take us well into the realms

19 of 500,000 with only two quays, 400 metres.

20 Other ones, like Scott Wilson, are talking about

21 1,600 to 2,500, because of improved technology and

22 methodology, so I feel entirely comfortable with being

23 able to upgrade the capacity to 500,000, and you will

24 see I’ve got references to that, to the bit of paper you

25 hate.

1 draft it was.

2 Q. Behind tab 2.

3 A. Behind tab 2.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It does help, Mr Lord, if you give the

5 tab number. Occasionally, I think, you are assuming

6 a familiarity with this Western Terminal bundle, at

7 least in my case, which I do not have.

8 MR LORD: Sorry.

9 If you go behind divider 2. If you have divider 1

10 open, this bundle has the various iterations of

11 the information memorandum. Behind divider 1 is what we

12 think is the first draft, which I have taken you to. If

13 you turn to the second page you will see the front

14 sheet. Behind divider 1, that.

15 MR STROILOV: I’m terribly sorry to interrupt again on

16 a technical point. I was never given a hard copy of

17 the Western Terminal bundle, so if someone could do that

18 so I can follow.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Ah yes, you are quite right. This was

20 handed over in Paris.

21 MR LORD: Sorry Mr Stroilov. Sorry.

22 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful.

23 MR LORD: That’s all right. I apologise.

24 Mr Bromley-Martin, do you see that there are

25 different drafts of this information memorandum. We

77 79
1 Q. No, Mr Bromley-Martin, I rather suggest that you are 1 have tried to set them out in sequence; all right?
2 defensive about — the reason you prepared this table is 2 A. Yes.
3 because you know that it is not possible to justify half 3 Q. And behind divider 1 at {D43/750/1} seems to be the
4 a million TEUs per annum and that is why you have taken 4 first draft. Can you see it says May 2008; do you have
5 so much trouble to try to rework some analysis, that’s 5 that? Oxus?
6 what I suggest has happened here? 6 A. Yes, just give me two seconds.
7 A. That’s absolute nonsense. 7 Q. Do you have just the very front page? It looks like
8 Q. All right, well let’s go through the way you approached 8 this (indicates). This will help you.
9 it in your drafts, if we may, and we will ask about 9 A. I am comparing the two versions, draft 1 and draft 2.
10 Mr Sutcliffe’s views and a number of other things, all 10 Q. I was going to ask you to do that. If you just look at
11 right. 11 that page.
12 If we go to {D43/751/6}, Mr Bromley-Martin, we will 12 A. Well, it’s clearly a typo. There’s no other explanation
13 see a second version, draft 2 of the information 13 for it, because, I mean, 7,000 TEU per annum is clearly
14 memorandum. If you look at the top two paragraphs, 14 completely wrong, so that is clearly a typo and, with
15 please. Could you focus on the figure of 7,000 15 the greatest respect, irrelevant to the discussion
16 containers, TEUs per annum; can you see that? 16 today, I would submit.
17 A. Which document is this? 17 Q. Can we just follow the questions, if you don’t mind.
18 Q. It is one of your drafts, Mr Bromley-Martin. 18 Can you orientate yourself so you have the first draft?
19 A. It has no provenance given on this screen. So what 19 A. Yes, I have it under my left hand.
20 am I looking at? D/43. 20 Q. And if you have the second. Behind divider 2, if you go
21 Q. {D43/751/1}. If you have a hard copy in front of you, 21 to the equivalent frontispiece for that document, you
22 behind divider 2, it will be easier in the hard copy, if 22 can see that it looks very similar, except it had a bit
23 someone can help you, we go behind divider 2 and we can 23 more text inserted on the front page, including in
24 be a bit more efficient — 24 square brackets — well, it has US $100 million, hasn’t
25 A. You suddenly give me a page and expect me to know which 25 it? If you compare those two pages. Can you see?
78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. Mm hmm.

2 Q. So it looks like some more information has been added to

3 the document behind divider 2, {D43/751/1}. And that

4 was why I took you to {D43/751/6} to ask about the

5 figure of 7,000 containers per annum, and I was going to

6 ask you what your explanation was for that figure

7 appearing in what seems to be the second draft of this

8 IM?

9 A. Can I repeat what I just said? It’s clearly a typo.

10 A typographical error. 7,000 TEU is something you would

11 expect to do in two weeks.

12 Q. Okay, if you go to the third draft, please. Go behind

13 divider 4, please, and if you go to, again, the front

14 page, {D44/753/1}, if you go to {D44/753/6}. So it’s

15 the sixth page, the same page; can you see the first two

16 paragraphs, and can you see that the TEU per annum

17 figure has now gone up to 35,000 per annum; can you see?

18 A. Again, that has to be a typo —

19 Q. Another typo?

20 A. — because that’s what you would expect to do in

21 a month.

22 Q. I see, you have gone from 300,000, and then you are

23 saying the 7,000 is a typo and the 35,000 is a typo?

24 A. Clearly.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m so sorry, I can’t find it. 753?

1 A. Clearly.

2 Q. So you would have taken out — you would have deleted

3 whatever it is, a 3 and two noughts, and you would have

4 put a 7 in; is that right?

5 A. Clearly.

6 Q. And you are saying — how would that be a typo? Do you

7 mean you meant to press another key? I am not quite

8 following that. Why would that be a typographical

9 error?

10 A. I’m not quite sure where this question is going. I’ve

11 just said, the only explanation for it is that it was

12 a typographical error on my part which was later

13 corrected.

14 7,000 TEU you can do in two weeks, so clearly

15 I wouldn’t bother to put that in if it was two weeks’

16 worth of business into an IM.

17 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, we are going to come to your

18 expertise or otherwise in this regard quite soon, so

19 I am going to suggest to you that you weren’t really

20 expert in this sort —

21 A. At typing, probably not.

22 Q. And you weren’t really expert in questions of

23 the realistic turnover of containers per annum and that

24 is why we see this figure bobbing around in these ways

25 in your drafts?

81 83

1 MR LORD: 753/6, my Lord, sorry. It’s the equivalent page

2 and it is the second paragraph.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I’ve got you.

4 MR LORD: I was just asking the witness if he wouldn’t mind

5 just explaining why the TEU per annum figure is changing

6 in this way.

7 So when you say a typo, do you mean somebody wrote

8 down, what, 35,000 just by mistake, or missed a digit

9 out, or what?

10 A. Probably, because I was typing it.

11 Q. And is that your honest answer —

12 A. Yes, it’s the only explanation I can give you. These

13 were internal documents which actually Dr Vitaly and the

14 rest of the OMG team never saw, so it was an internal

15 document to Oxus and Neutralis, so it never saw the

16 light of day.

17 Q. So his Lordship can take it that you typed out this

18 change that we have seen?

19 A. Mm hmm.

20 Q. Yes?

21 A. Mm hmm.

22 Q. And that therefore you must have gone to this paragraph

23 and you must have looked at the 300,000, and you must

24 have made a change and changed it in one draft to 7,000;

25 is that right?

1 A. No, I totally and utterly reject that.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Could it be a false reference to annum

3 rather than month?

4 A. It could easily be so, maybe that’s one explanation, but

5 I mean, this is something that I was doing eight years

6 ago and there was clearly internal discussion we were

7 going on, and why I changed it backward and forwards or

8 didn’t put annum or typed in the wrong number, I really

9 don’t know. On the basis this document didn’t see the

10 light of day, apart from our offices, I can’t see the

11 relevance of it.

12 MR LORD: Sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin —

13 A. The fact is you have 8 hectares, you can run 500,000

14 TEUs through 8 hectares period, end of discussion. In

15 fact, some people would say you could run more through

16 that container terminal.

17 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, if we go back to {D43/751/6}, behind

18 divider 2, that was the figure I took you to of 7,000;

19 do you remember?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you are telling his Lordship on oath that you typed

22 it up and you think it was a typographical error on your

23 part?

24 A. Exactly.

25 Q. Then could you go in the same document, please, to

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 {D43/751/20}, and to the paragraph above the heading

2 «Timber».

3 A. Am I in still the same tab?

4 Q. Yes, you are in the same tab. It is page 20 of the same

5 draft. I am going to read out the paragraph for the

6 record:

7 «It should be noted that Western are only projecting

8 a capacity of 7,000 TEUs per annum upon completion of

9 their development of the facility, representing of

10 0.1 per cent of the St Petersburg market.»

11 Now, Mr Bromley-Martin, it’s obviously not

12 a truthful explanation that it is a typographical error

13 because the figure of 7,000 TEUs has clearly been

14 analysed by you in relation to the market share that it

15 represents; that’s right, isn’t it? Do you want to

16 reconsider your last answer?

17 A. No, because I repeat, that is a nonsensical number to

18 have in a document like this.

19 Q. No, Mr Bromley-Martin, can you consider the answer you

20 gave to his Lordship that it was a typographical error

21 in the light — it may be a wrong figure, it may be

22 an incorrect or an unreliable figure, that’s a different

23 point. The point I am on is your evidence about three

24 minutes ago this was a typographical error, and I’m

25 showing you another section of a report that you claim

1 annum?

2 A. Just — 80,000.

3 Q. And 35,000 per month would be how much?

4 A. It would be nearer 400,000.

5 Q. And if we go to {D44/753/22}.

6 A. Sorry, which tab is that?

7 Q. Still behind divider 4. It’s the equivalent paragraph,

8 above «Timber».

9 A. Sorry, what page again?

10 Q. Page 22, {D44/753/22}. It’s the equivalent paragraph

11 where you seem to convert the projected capacity of TEUs

12 per annum into a percentage share of the St Petersburg

13 market; can you see that?

14 A. Mm hmm. Mm hmm.

15 Q. So it does look on the face of it, Mr Bromley-Martin, as

16 if you have given it a bit of thought, because you have

17 carried out some analysis based on market share, haven’t

18 you?

19 A. I knew what the throughput was and just did it in my

20 head, probably, at the time.

21 Q. Is that your explanation for why this figure is changing

22 so significantly between the drafts?

23 A. I see no relevance to the fact that I changed a draft in

24 an internal document to the fundamental point, and that

25 is that 8 hectares is capable of handling at least

85

1 to have drafted or typed where it looks like you have

2 taken the 7,000 TEUs per annum and you have actually

3 analysed that figure in terms of its percentage market

4 share, and I am asking you in the light of that, in

5 other words, it wasn’t just a slip on the keyboard, it

6 is more than that. So do you want to revisit the answer

7 or do you want to stay with your answer on oath that it

8 was a typographical error?

9 A. I believe that the most likely explanation for this

10 absurdly low number is a typographical error. I mean,

11 you wouldn’t have a discussion about a container

12 terminal doing 7,000 TEU per year. You could do that in

13 your back garden.

14 Q. Then if we go to the 35,000, that’s behind divider 3,

15 {D44/753/6}, that’s the 35,000 — sorry, no, my wrong

16 reference. It is divider 4, I think.

17 Yes, behind divider 4, {D44/753/6} where you say it

18 is up to 35,000 TEUs per annum. Again, I think you told

19 his Lordship a few moments ago that, again, that was

20 probably another typographical error on your part. Is

21 that your explanation for that figure?

22 A. It may be that 35,000 per month would be a realistic

23 number and it may be that we were batting it backwards

24 and forwards between TEU per month and TEU per annum.

25 Q. All right. But 7,000 per month would be how many per

87

1 500,000 TEU per year.

2 Q. If we go back, please, to the original draft behind

3 divider 1, and if we go to {D43/750/13}, you can see

4 that you included some statistics on that page.

5 A. Mm hmm.

6 Q. Which I don’t think feature later, in later drafts; can

7 you see halfway down the page there is a sentence:

8 «Other statistics. 30,000 TEUs per hectare and

9 1 metre of quay equals 1,000 TEUs.»

10 A. That was just an aide-memoire to me.

11 Q. Yes, but Mr Bromley-Martin, weren’t you there setting

12 out what would be the orthodox or conventional figure

13 for TEUs per hectare?

14 A. That was the historical information that I found on the

15 internet which was later disproved by updated practice

16 in the industry.

17 Q. As you were led to believe by Dr Arkhangelsky in this

18 information —

19 A. Vitaly had nothing to do with us finding the information

20 at all.

21 Q. But when you started out, your first draft information

22 memorandum —

23 A. The person I was relying upon at this stage was actually

24 James Sutcliffe, based on his experience at Gdansk;

25 he was a major input. There was also another gentleman

86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 who was helping us as well, who was in Singapore, who

2 was also a long-standing container manager operator, so

3 we were getting the bulk of information from those two

4 gentlemen.

5 Q. I’m going to suggest, Mr Bromley-Martin, that a figure

6 of 30,000 TEUs per hectare, in other words, 240,000 TEUs

7 per annum, is a more realistic estimate for the

8 potential container capacity or turnover of this

9 developed site?

10 A. I’ve already told you a few minutes ago, with modern

11 methodology, modern software that you can stack — if

12 you look at my sheet here, I’ve used two and a half

13 containers’ height. Most container terminals are using

14 between four and five, so with modern systems, you can

15 greatly increase the volume of container throughput.

16 If you did need extra space, as a lot of city ports

17 do around the world, the techniques are now moving

18 towards what they call ICDs, inland container depots, in

19 which you put — either by road or by rail you move the

20 containers as quickly as you can, as the terminal

21 operator, out of the terminal, the seaside terminal and

22 into the inland terminal and therefore you can increase

23 the capacity of your container terminal quite

24 significantly.

25 So with a very small investment of land 3 or 4 miles

1 memoranda?

2 A. But mathematically I was perfectly capable of doing the

3 mathematics.

4 Q. But you were deferring to Mr Sutcliffe for the more,

5 sort of, if you like, expert port turnover analysis

6 really?

7 A. To a certain extent, yes.

8 Q. Well, completely, from that last answer, I think a few

9 seconds ago?

10 A. Well, no, his experience at Gdansk was an input, but we

11 were also taking data from Mundra, Port Klang and

12 Singapore.

13 Q. Had you ever raised money for the development of a port

14 before you were involved with the Western Terminal?

15 A. Not a —

16 Q. Container port?

17 A. Not a container port, no, but a bulk materials import

18 terminal, yes.

19 Q. So you had no experience of any development of

20 a container port by the time you came to produce these

21 draft information memoranda?

22 A. What would you consider to be different from any other

23 port apart from the craneage that sits on top of it?

24 Q. Just answer the question: you hadn’t developed any

25 container port? Because we are now talking —

89

1 away you could have increased the capacity of this

2 terminal considerably, and hence the figures that Drewry

3 are promulgating, together with Scott Wilson.

4 Q. But on an 8-hectare site, that last justification

5 wouldn’t apply, would it? You couldn’t rely on the

6 explanation you have just given if you were confined to

7 this 8-hectare site?

8 A. It would give you a week’s storage at 2.5 metres high,

9 so by definition, if you are stacking five high, you

10 have two weeks’ storage which is far, far more than the

11 industry average.

12 Q. And you are saying that you were relying at this point

13 in time on Mr Sutcliffe’s opinion, were you?

14 A. He was putting in figures based on his experience at

15 Gdansk, yes, and the basis on which they had designed

16 Gdansk.

17 Q. All right.

18 A. I should add, at this stage, my port experience was

19 largely in bulk materials rather than containers, so

20 therefore I was relying upon other peoples’ information.

21 Q. I understand.

22 A. But since then, in the last five years, I’ve done

23 nothing but container terminals, hence, I’m rather more

24 fluent on the subject myself.

25 Q. But you weren’t at the time you did these information

91

1 A. No, no.

2 Q. We are now talking about container turnover, aren’t we?

3 A. Mm hmm.

4 Q. Not timber or something else, so I just want to

5 establish what your experience was of a container

6 terminal, any kind of development or project finance,

7 experience in relation to a container terminal before

8 you were involved with the Western Terminal project.

9 I think you have said that you had none; is that right?

10 A. A port dedicated to containers, no, I had not had

11 experience.

12 Q. And if you go, please —

13 A. But I have raised about $3 billion of project finance in

14 my 30-year career.

15 Q. If you go to {E5/17/22}.

16 A. Sorry, which tab is this?

17 Q. It’s going to come on screen. Sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin,

18 it is my fault. There are some extracts from an expert

19 report in this case from a Mr Popov from Deloittes in

20 Russia, and he sets out some statistics, also there are

21 figures, on container ports; all right?

22 A. Mm hmm. Yes, so which paragraph are you pointing me to?

23 Q. It’s really the next page, really, because it is

24 {E5/17/23} for his Lordship’s note, because Mr Popov,

25 I think, sets out in that table at the top some figures

90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 which he has come across for the capacity by reference

2 to certain other terminals; can you see?

3 A. Mm hmm.

4 Q. And he sets out Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp, Bremen,

5 Valencia and Felixstowe. Can you see that?

6 A. Mm hmm.

7 Q. And those look as though they are container terminals.

8 A. Yes, most of them seem to be, yes.

9 Q. And can you see he has a figure on the right-hand side,

10 it is productivity and he has a figure of thousand kTEU

11 per year per hectare; can you see that?

12 A. Mm hmm.

13 Q. And he has set out the various figures down there and he

14 has worked out a maximum and an average, can you see at

15 the bottom of the page?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And the average is 27,000 TEUs per hectare, per year,

18 isn’t it?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you have any reason to challenge or to doubt that

21 that would be a sensible average figure for container

22 turnover? 27,000 TEUs per year, per hectare?

23 A. That seems particularly low. Based on other data that

24 I have not only come across personally, but that I’ve

25 been able to collect off the internet.

1 Q. Which follows on from your capacity evidence, your

2 turnover evidence, you say this. You then refer to

3 the debt and you say:

4 «The key to this is the huge cash generation

5 capacity of the business, allowing the business to

6 service considerable debt. But still backed by

7 significant assets.»

8 So my understanding of your evidence was: well,

9 there’s going to be very significant debt with this

10 project, but the nature of the business is going to be

11 a cash-generative business and that’s going to provide

12 the means to service the debt; would that be a fair

13 reading of your evidence?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And I’m only asking you to tell his Lordship, please, on

16 oath, what you think the effect would have been on the

17 model, on the viability of this model, if his Lordship

18 decides that the right turnover figure is not 500,000

19 units per year, but let’s say, for argument’s sake,

20 250,000 per annum.

21 A. Because I have worked this all out for you because

22 I suspected this might be a question. I would expect

23 that the profitability in year five would go down from

24 $150 million to around $80 million.

25 Q. But Mr Bromley-Martin, if the container turnover halved,

93

1 But I think you need — I think part of the problem

2 here is that you are talking about two very different

3 types of terminal: one is a transhipment facility, the

4 bulk of these seem to be transhipment facilities, some

5 are intermodal, and transhipment tend to be less

6 productive per hectare because they need more storage,

7 waiting for ships rather than an individual lorry, so

8 therefore you would expect a transhipment terminal,

9 which the bulk of these are, would be lower than an

10 intermodal because ships don’t come as regularly as

11 trains do, so therefore there is a longer waiting time

12 in the transhipment facilities.

13 Q. Just assume for one moment that his Lordship decides

14 that a more realistic figure for TEUs per annum for the

15 Western Terminal once developed, let’s say a more

16 realistic figure is 30,000 per hectare, which is roughly

17 250,000 per annum, so half your 500,000 figure, what

18 effect would that have on the model?

19 A. I have worked that out. It would reduce — it would

20 reduce the NPV down to between 150 million and 200

21 million from about 300 million.

22 Q. What would it do in terms of the income, because one of

23 the points you make, I think, in your witness statement,

24 at paragraph 38 on {C1/3/7}.

25 A. Mm hmm.

95

1 it may not have an effect, exactly, of a half, but it is

2 going to have a very dramatic effect, isn’t it, on

3 reducing the income, because the revenue comes from the

4 handling of units, doesn’t it?

5 A. Mm hmm.

6 Q. So if you halve the number of units, all things being

7 equal, you are going to be halving the turnover, aren’t

8 you?

9 A. Isn’t that what I’ve just said?

10 Q. Do you agree?

11 A. Yes, I’ve just said 150 to 80 million, that’s roughly

12 half, isn’t it?

13 Q. But the project still has the same level of debt to

14 service, doesn’t it?

15 A. Mm hmm.

16 Q. And therefore you are not going to have the cash you had

17 hoped to have to service the debt that you still have;

18 that’s right, isn’t it?

19 A. No, you are being rather over simplistic.

20 Q. Why?

21 A. Because you are doing this in two dimensions. There are

22 multi-dimensions.

23 The development of this port was going to be done in

24 two or three phases, was it not?

25 Q. Yes, three phases, I think.

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. Right. So each of those phases would have a no-go 1 A. Mm hmm.
2 decision based on the throughput; yes or no? 2 Q. — following the borrowing of US$300 million —
3 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, if — 3 A. Yes.
4 A. So, therefore, you would reduce your capex and 4 Q. — you are positing an annual turnover of 500,000 TEUs
5 everything else, so you wouldn’t draw down the full 5 per year, aren’t you?
6 300 million. 6 A. A fraction under, yes, but yes. That’s the nominal
7 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, the — 7 capacity. A terminal probably does 80 or 85 per cent in
8 A. So, therefore, your debt service would be considerable 8 reality.
9 less and something you could easily handle even with 9 Q. And I am asking you to tell his Lordship, as the project
10 half the revenue. 10 finance expert who studied this model for the purpose of
11 Q. Yes, but you are suggesting, aren’t you, I think, that 11 today, what in rough terms the effect would be on this
12 you don’t develop the project to the same extent. 12 model, on your model, if you have developed everything
13 You can’t have it both ways, you can’t reduce the 13 as you are suggesting, but the income — the turnover
14 capital expenditure to reduce the debt for the purpose 14 turns out to be quarter of a million, not half a million
15 of this answer and not accept that that is going to have 15 TEUs per year. Just tell his Lordship what sort of
16 a depressing effect on the potential capacity. You 16 financial effect that is going to have.
17 can’t have it both ways, Mr Bromley-Martin. I am 17 A. It would reduce, your Lordship, the NPV, the net present
18 dealing with the development project and I am putting to 18 value of your revenue stream, okay, down, and the figure
19 you that once developed you are suggesting half 19 I gave you just now is 350 million down to about
20 a million units per year, and I am asking you to deal 20 170 million or 180 million.
21 with the point that it might be half that, and your 21 Q. And you are not going to have —
22 answer seems to be: well, you could have less capital 22 A. So —
23 expenditure, so less interest burden. 23 Q. On that hypothesis you still have all the same expenses,
24 But if there is less capital expenditure, how will 24 all the same costs.
25 you have developed the project, Mr Bromley-Martin? How 25 A. No, you haven’t. No, you haven’t. Forgive me, but if
97 99

1 will that have happened, and what bits of

2 the development are you suggesting would not take place?

3 A. I didn’t think we were at this simplistic level.

4 The project was to start with SV-15, was it not, and

5 to largely develop that in 2008. So that was going to

6 be the first phase. You then have a go or no-go

7 decision depending on the state of the market in order

8 to convert SV-16, yes, and therefore you would build

9 that into your agreement with the banks, that if the

10 business didn’t accrue to that terminal as you expected,

11 you would defer or cancel further drawdowns of your

12 debt.

13 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, I wasn’t being simplistic. What bits

14 of the development are you suggesting would not have

15 been undertaken if various capital expenditure savings

16 had to be made. What are you positing? No third berth,

17 no second berth?

18 A. You would postpone the second berth. That’s a perfectly

19 normal, common sense aspect to do, is it not, and the

20 third phase, if I can just finish there, would be to

21 reclaim the material from the torpedo barrier and use

22 that to reclaim the third berth. So you would have

23 deferred that or cancelled it.

24 Q. But if we look for one moment at your model of

25 the as-developed Western Terminal —

1 you only have two cranes rather than six, you are going

2 to have less drivers, aren’t you, so you are going to

3 keep your costs down? You don’t have to have so many

4 customs men. So you reduce your overheads as well as

5 your direct costs and the amount of equipment and the

6 amount of hardware and everything else that goes with

7 it. So you could amend your business model to suit the

8 prevailing conditions.

9 Q. Is it your evidence that a borrowing of US$300 million

10 by way of this project was going to be viable once

11 developed if the turnover was only 250,000 units per

12 year, not 500,000? And when I say «viable», I mean

13 independently profitable and sustaining, so you are

14 clear about that, because we are going to come to

15 the ringfencing of it in a minute. So I am looking at

16 the business proposition: is this a viable business

17 proposition?

18 A. Right, when you are running a business you have two

19 important aspects to look at: one is the profit and one

20 is the cash flow; yes?

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. Now, because you have a lot of capital equivalent here,

23 you would have a very high level of depreciation. So

24 whilst you are cash-generative, hugely, in a project

25 like this, you have a seriously large depreciation

98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 charge every year going into the accounts, which

2 sometimes puts you into a retained profit/loss

3 situation.

4 Now, my argument is to you that you would still have

5 enough money, enough cash coming in to be able to

6 service the reduced level of debt because you hadn’t

7 done, or deferred phase 2 and phase 3. So you would cut

8 your cloth to suit your — well, in that sense.

9 Q. If we go to your spreadsheet, if we go to your July

10 model, {D55/944.1/1}.

11 A. Mm.

12 Q. Which is a spreadsheet. If we could open the summary

13 page, please, on screen.

14 A. Is this inside the IM?

15 Q. No, it’s a spreadsheet, I am afraid. {D55/944.1/1}.

16 A. Sorry, D50?

17 Q. Could you open the summary tab, please, at the bottom.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. This is your July 2008 model, Mr Bromley-Martin.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Where I think you suggest various — well, you project

22 various financial figures.

23 A. Mm hmm.

24 Q. Over time. You were assuming here, weren’t you, that

25 the project started in the year 2008, weren’t you?

1 Q. So you lose?

2 A. So it’s roughly half the revenue, as you would expect.

3 Q. Yes, that must be right, mustn’t it? So 154, you have

4 a turnover of 154 million, haven’t you, there?

5 A. Yes. That’s promulgated on an actual throughput of,

6 I think 434,000 containers a year, from memory.

7 Q. And you are halving it to 75 million, roughly?

8 A. 75 or 80, yes.

9 Q. And so where are you saying these other savings are

10 going to come, then? Where will they come?

11 A. Well, your major savings are going to be in the interest

12 charge of 36 million, isn’t it?

13 Q. Well, no, because by this stage you have still borrowed

14 the 300 million. On this hypothesis you have still

15 borrowed US$300 million?

16 A. Can we go back? Can we go back? If you don’t see your

17 throughput increasing at the level you expected it to

18 increase, you don’t magically put in an investment for

19 500 million containers and hope that the containers

20 arrive. That is a ludicrous way of doing business.

21 Sorry.

22 So you start — you start a business with one

23 terminal, yes, build that up and when you are ready,

24 when you have the market demand, you then start

25 the second aspect, and so on and so forth. So you do

101 103
1 A. Yes. 1 not draw down the full 300 million until you are certain
2 Q. That’s when you were assuming. 2 that you have got the 500,000 TEU throughput, or
3 A. Because as we discussed earlier on this morning, work 3 thereabouts.
4 was already starting on the hard standing in SV-15. 4 Q. We are testing, Mr Bromley-Martin, the viability of this
5 Q. So «Turnover», that’s at the top, is it, under «Total»; 5 project in the as-projected state. I take your point
6 is that right? 6 that if the business doesn’t go as well, it won’t be
7 A. Mm hmm. 7 developed, but we are into a different world then, and
8 Q. I’m asking you to explain to his Lordship, if the 8 we can debate that later on this afternoon.
9 throughput of containers is half what you were 9 But I am assuming in your favour, for the purposes
10 suggesting — 10 of this question, that everything else goes to plan, and
11 A. Mm hmm. 11 I am asking you to consider just the effect upon the
12 Q. — what effect would it have, year-on-year, to those 12 model of this different TEU per annum figure. I take
13 topline figures. Work it through, if you like: 2008, 13 your point that we may never get to this point; the
14 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. 14 project may be abandoned or go bust earlier, I’m sure
15 A. I have the numbers right here. It would have reduced 15 that’s very likely.
16 the year 2012 figure to 101 million from 154 million. 16 But let’s just focus on your best case, which is
17 Q. And so it would make a loss, then? 17 that everything gets developed, as you suggest, but
18 A. No, it would have made a small profit. 18 there is a problem: in the end the capacity is half what
19 Q. What — 19 you are suggesting. What effect would that have on your
20 A. But, again, profit — can we just take time out here for 20 model? It’s not whether it would happen in fact, but on
21 a second? 21 the model. On the hypothetical model. That’s what I’m
22 Q. No, sorry. No, you can’t say that, because you said 22 asking you to address; do you understand?
23 down to — what was the figure you just said, down to 23 A. Right. I think I have addressed it by telling you that
24 what, 100-and-what-million? 24 the revenue would halve.
25 A. To below 100 million. To below 100 million. 25 Q. Right.
102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. But you would still generate a significant amount of 1 $300 million developing and you have all this fixed
2 cash. 2 equipment depreciating there, and it turns out the TEUs
3 Q. And if it halves in the year 2012 to 75 million — 3 are half what you thought and the revenue is halved from
4 A. Mm hmm. 4 $150 million to $75 million per year, that that is going
5 Q. — you are going to make a loss, aren’t you? You have 5 to completely destroy the viability of that business,
6 said the main cost is going to be capital depreciation. 6 because it is only making —
7 Well there will be no saving there, will there, if, in 7 A. I totally and utterly disagree with you, I am sorry,
8 fact, the capacity is lower, because that depreciation 8 because you are still going to have free cash flow of
9 will happen whatever the actual throughput, won’t it? 9 around 45 million, okay, and your debt service, as we
10 So you are saying that there will be — 10 see there, is 33 million. So you still would be able to
11 A. Right, so let’s assume, then, that we are paying 11 cover your debt service; yes?
12 $33 million a year in interest; is that what you are 12 Q. Yes, but sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin, what you are really
13 saying? 13 saying is you don’t make an allowance for the capital
14 Q. I think I’ve put enough to you, Mr Bromley-Martin. I’m 14 depreciation in that year; is that what you are saying?
15 going to submit that you are not — 15 A. As I explained right at the beginning of the answer to
16 A. No, no, I’m just answering the question. Okay, I have 16 this question, so then with a depreciation you make
17 the answer in front of me, I do not understand what you 17 a profit — a loss before tax, okay? But you still have
18 are driving at but let me try and answer what I think is 18 cash in the bank. The project is still viable in
19 your question. There’s $33 million of debt, interest in 19 the cash sense.
20 2012. 20 Q. No, but it’s not viable, is it, in a profitable sense,
21 Q. That’s right. 21 because all you are doing there, what you have really
22 A. If we have drawn down the full 500 million, okay? 22 done, you have taken out of this analysis the capital
23 Q. 300 million. 23 depreciation from the analysis, haven’t you?
24 A. If we cut the throughput in half, the company still 24 A. Well, if …
25 makes a profit of around 46 million; okay? 25 Q. Is that right or not, that that’s what you have done?

105

1 Q. How do you work that out?

2 A. Because I have altered the —

3 Q. On this model, on these figures here.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. 75 million —

6 A. I am not sure who is controlling this. Whoever is

7 controlling it, if they could go along the tabs to

8 the very right-hand end. Keep going to the right. Keep

9 going to the right. That is it. Can you click on the

10 «Curves», that red one that’s come up. That’s it.

11 Click on the «Curves». Right, this is what I mean by

12 the S-curve, yes. Do you see the numbers in column C?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. Okay, if you change those down so your S-curve changes

15 so that in month 36, in row 39, you chose that to

16 50 per cent, you could see immediately — you would have

17 to clearly do all the intervening numbers, those five or

18 six intervening numbers, but you would be able to alter

19 your throughput to do any sensitivity analysis you would

20 like to, and that’s what I’ve done here and that’s why

21 I’m giving you these numbers.

22 Q. I want to go back to the page I was on, please. You can

23 be re-examined on this, but if you go back to

24 the summary page, please, because it looks in a very

25 simple way that if you have a port which you have spent

107

1 A. Because that’s how you value a project.

2 Q. I understand that.

3 A. You value a project on a multiple of EBITDA, which is

4 before amortisation and depreciation.

5 Q. I know, but, Mr Bromley-Martin, the reason you have to

6 make an allowance for depreciation is because any

7 sustainable business is going to have to replace

8 depreciating assets, isn’t it, in the end; isn’t that

9 right?

10 A. Yes, but the project is still viable, there is still

11 an enterprise value to the business because it is

12 generating an EBITDA.

13 Q. You are effectively standing over making allowance for

14 the depreciation that the capital has suffered in that

15 relevant year, aren’t you?

16 A. Yes, but you are also making another gross supposition

17 that you can’t move the cranes away and convert the port

18 for some other use.

19 Q. Do you agree that if the income halved, the business

20 would not be profitable?

21 A. At EBITDA level it would still be very profitable.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There is a problem of apples and pears

23 here, Mr Lord.

24 MR LORD: Maybe.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There is money and there is

106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 accounting.

2 A. Exactly, sir.

3 MR LORD: I have put to Mr Bromley-Martin —

4 Mr Bromley-Martin, I take your point that there may

5 be enough cash still coming in to pay the banks. I take

6 that, but the point I am putting to you is, in terms of

7 the viability of a business it is fire-fighting. You

8 are storing up problems because you are not making

9 enough to pay for the capital depreciation. So in the

10 end, another year, two, three —

11 A. There is no cash movement. There is no cash movement.

12 75 per cent of all companies that go bust are profitable

13 but they run out of cash. The situation here is

14 completely the reverse. You may not make a profit, but

15 you still generate a huge amount of cash, okay?

16 Q. So is your evidence that with a halving of the income,

17 turnover, this would still be a profitable business? If

18 you put 75 —

19 A. The enterprise value, using an enterprise value of five

20 or six times EBITDA, yes, this project would be hugely

21 profitable.

22 Q. No, on that year’s accounts, if you change the figure

23 for turnover to 75 million, what effect would it have —

24 A. With the greatest of respect, accountants play all sorts

25 of silly games with depreciation rates, yes? It is

1 the EBITDA seems to maintain itself.

2 MR LORD: It does, my Lord, but all that begs the question

3 whether the businessman who is running it has to borrow

4 the 300 million. Of course one could value a business

5 on the first few lines of this, but I am looking at

6 whether or not this was a sustainable business in

7 the hands of OMG, and you have to take into account, in

8 my respectful submission, the leverage you built in. We

9 will come to the documents later, but you can’t ignore

10 the $33 million interest. True enough, the business

11 may, in isolation, be generating those returns, but you

12 have to factor in, or you may have to factor in for

13 your Lordship’s consideration, whether OMG was going to

14 be able to run this business, because it had to borrow

15 all the money.

16 A. But practically every single port in this world is done

17 on a leverage basis. So if you have an offshore supply

18 base where you have long term contracts, which you do in

19 this, you can leverage to 70 or 80 per cent. So on some

20 pretty mild leverage in this instance, it is common

21 practice in the industry because it is such

22 a cash-generative operation.

23 Q. Can I ask you about the handling charge, please?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Paragraph 34 of your statement, {C1/3/6}. Do you agree

109 111

1 arguable whether a crane lasts for five years or ten

2 years, but it is obviously tax efficient to decrease

3 your period of amortisation on a bit of equipment as

4 much as possible. That’s what capital allowances are

5 all about in tax legislation here in this country, for

6 example.

7 So, therefore, by increasing the depreciation, you

8 in fact decrease your tax bill but without using any

9 cash up, because the cash still comes in. So that is

10 why —

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think what Mr Bromley-Martin is

12 reminding us of, Mr Lord, is that people valuing

13 a company will do so of a multiple of EBITDA, which is

14 the earnings before interest, tax and appreciation.

15 That’s what they do.

16 A. Thank you, sir.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And I think Mr Bromley-Martin is

18 reminding us of that.

19 MR LORD: Yes, and I am asking about whether this business

20 was a viable business.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, the EBITDA figure, which itself

22 may move, because you don’t quite know whether all the

23 money is going to be drawn down and you don’t quite know

24 how much investment is going to take place on the

25 lowered expectations, so it’s all a bit approximate, but

1 that another major component for turnover was the

2 handling charge per TEU?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you have said in paragraphs 34 to 35 that

5 Dr Arkhangelsky suggested US $250 per unit, Mr Sutcliffe

6 suggested US $120 per unit, and you went for US $210.

7 A. Which actually, in the fullness of time, has proved to

8 be absolutely correct.

9 Q. If you listen to the question; that is what you are

10 saying, isn’t it?

11 A. Yes, because Mr Sutcliffe — can I take you back to the

12 point, that a transhipment facility is very different to

13 an intermodal facility. I’m trying to explain to you

14 the difference.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you mind if we see {E5/17/22} and

16 {E5/17/23} because I wanted to understand this

17 difference between the transhipment and the intermodal,

18 and it may be that we will have a chance with Mr Popov

19 as well, but I didn’t know which ones, in the view of

20 Mr Bromley-Martin, are transhipment and which are

21 intermodal facilities, and it makes a huge spread.

22 There is a huge spread in these figures from about 1,000

23 to 6,000, I noticed, and I didn’t know which ones were

24 which. Maybe 23 is the better page.

25 A. Well, all that list on 23, by and large, are all,

110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 I would say about 70 per cent of those are transhipment

2 facilities.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, take, for example, MSC PSA

4 European Terminal, and take, again, Bremerhaven

5 Container Terminal; do you know what they are?

6 A. Yes, sir. They are trans — by and large, they will

7 have a mixture — actually the Belgian ones will have

8 a mixture, but if we can take a pure transhipment

9 facility like Gdansk, okay, with a draught of 16 metres,

10 so they can bring ships in from the Far East or America,

11 coming in at probably around 12,000 or 13,000 TEU per

12 vessel, and they would drop the bulk of those off at

13 Gdansk and then lots of little ships, feeder services,

14 would then take them through to St Petersburg,

15 Stockholm, Helsinki, or whatever, yes.

16 Now, that sort of business, there’s nothing to do

17 except pick the container out of a ship, stack it, wait

18 for the next ship to come and put it back again.

19 There’s no customs clearing, there is no stuffing or

20 de-stuffing of containers and you are not waiting for

21 railway lines or anything like that.

22 Whereas St Petersburg is completely the opposite and

23 it is intermodal. There is no transshipping to speak of

24 in St Petersburg, because it is effectively the end of

25 the sea route, if I can put it that way, and therefore

1 ones, they would probably be transshipped into barges

2 going up the Rhine or something like that.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And when you say the bulk, do you mean

4 most of the ports or most of the business within the

5 ports?

6 A. Most of the business within the ports.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

8 A. So to go back to answer your question, sorry —

9 MR LORD: Sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin, are you saying that

10 Gdansk is intermodal or a transhipment?

11 A. It has — they are extending it into being intermodal at

12 the moment, but it started life as a pure transhipment

13 facility.

14 Q. So in paragraph 34 of your witness statement, {C1/3/6},

15 you are looking at Rotterdam and Gdansk, and you are

16 saying that those are transhipment terminals in this

17 statement, aren’t you?

18 A. That’s what I’ve just said to his Lordship.

19 Q. I see, yes.

20 A. And just finally, on volume, minimal service and are

21 highly competitive, ie that’s why your average TEU —

22 sorry, your average dollar per TEU you get is about

23 $120, whereas on an intermodal, if you look at some

24 reports produced by the EU, who did a report into it,

25 they are saying that some of the terminals at

113 115

1 you either have to put it on a road transport or

2 a railway container wagon. So that is intermodal. So

3 it’s a different means of transport and that’s the

4 difference.

5 Now, when you are doing that there are all sorts of

6 things come in, because you are waiting for a lorry

7 driver to come and pick it up, so you get extra

8 demurrage because he is five days late because he was on

9 another job or the railway broke down and there’s

10 customs clearance to be done. Some people might want

11 their containers unloaded in the port so they don’t have

12 to take their containers away and bring them back clean,

13 so they pay to de-stuff them, so therefore you would

14 find an intermodal facility has lots of hidden charges,

15 and I have examples here that I can show the court, if

16 required, that I have taken off the web. They run to

17 21 pages of different charges for some of these

18 intermodal things.

19 So, therefore, comparing Gdansk and St Petersburg

20 rates is, to use your expression, sir, apples and pears.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But on page 23, just for my

22 understanding, you reckon these are all transhipment?

23 A. The bulk of — just quickly glancing down it, the bulk

24 of these terminals would be transhipment, yes. The bulk

25 of the Dutch ones and, to a certain extent, the Belgian

1 St Petersburg are going up to $370 per container.

2 Q. Going back to your paragraph 35, I was asking you,

3 I think, just to confirm that Mr Sutcliffe thought that

4 US $120 per unit was the appropriate handling charge to

5 take —

6 A. Because of his experience at Gdansk.

7 Q. In answer to my question, it is yes, isn’t it: he

8 thought that that was the right figure?

9 A. He gave me that number on the basis of his experience at

10 Gdansk.

11 Q. And at the time, you confirmed that you did not have

12 much experience in ports and you were reliant upon

13 Mr Sutcliffe; is that right?

14 A. In the very early stages, yes.

15 Q. Well, throughout the period, presumably —

16 A. He appeared to be somebody who knew the industry very

17 well.

18 Q. And it is right, isn’t it, that you still — do you not

19 still defer to Mr Sutcliffe in relation to expert port

20 matters?

21 A. I hope not.

22 Q. I will take you to your website.

23 A. I hope not.

24 Q. Right. If we go to {D197/2945/1}. This is your

25 LinkedIn profile. If you scroll down, please, to

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 {D197/2945/4}, you can see «Associated industry

2 specialists», and then over the page, {D197/2945/5}, you

3 have «Port Evolution and Development (Africa)» and then

4 Port-Evo. Can you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Is there some sort of association or tie-up with

7 Port-Evo?

8 A. I own Port-Evo. Port Evolution and Development (Africa)

9 Limited.

10 Q. Right, and if we go to {D197/2944/1}, this is

11 Mr Sutcliffe’s summary, and he says «CEO/Owner Port

12 Evo».

13 A. That’s Port Evolution Management Limited.

14 Q. And what’s the connection between those companies?

15 A. None at all. Mr Sutcliffe proved a very unreliable

16 partner and I bought him out of Port Evolution (Africa).

17 Q. Right, so there are different companies with a

18 Port Evo —

19 A. With a common provenance, perhaps, you could argue.

20 Q. If we go back to your handling charges.

21 A. Mm hmm.

22 Q. If you go to {D52/889/29}, please, which is in

23 the Western Terminal bundle, behind divider 10, you set

24 out some competitor handling rates there, don’t you?

25 A. Mm hmm.

1 please.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that in the Western Terminal?

3 MR LORD: No, it’s not, my Lord. We can have these pages

4 photocopied.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you, yes.

6 MR LORD: And if we could have, also, please, {D74/1070.1/1}

7 because that is the September model, so we have the July

8 model and the September model.

9 If you could get D55/944 — if you scroll up, that’s

10 it. That’s perfect. If you do the same on the other

11 sheet, assumptions, that’s helpful, then scroll up.

12 Assumptions tab, and then scroll up.

13 So his Lordship can just see the way you did the

14 modelling, Mr Bromley-Martin?

15 A. Mm hmm.

16 Q. It’s right, isn’t it, that in the July model you had

17 a straight handling charge of 210?

18 A. THC, yes.

19 Q. And isn’t that the one that Mr Sutcliffe said should be

20 120?

21 A. I thought we had already addressed this point.

22 Q. Is it yes or no?

23 A. This is intermodal, not transhipment.

24 Q. But I thought he was suggesting a figure for use in this

25 modelling?

117 119
1 Q. I have worked out the figures, and the average handling 1 A. Incorrectly, I’ve just told you five minutes ago that he
2 charge per unit is US $165, if you look at the first 2 was incorrect in that because this is not a transhipment
3 category «Handling operation». 3 facility, it is an intermodal facility.
4 A. How did you work that average out? 4 Q. He may have been wrong to suggest it, but did he suggest
5 Q. I took the figures there, 165, 173, 161 and 161, and 5 it as being the figure that he would have put in for the
6 I averaged them out. I averaged out the first four 6 basic handling charge for Western Terminal?
7 categories. 7 A. I believe him to be incorrect. Is that clear? He
8 A. Forgive me, but that’s nonsensical. 8 proved to be incorrect.
9 Q. Why is that nonsensical? 9 Q. Did he suggest that an appropriate figure for the
10 A. Because I have just explained to you that you get 21 10 handling charge, the basic handling charge for the
11 pages of charges, so the 165 is what is known as a THC, 11 Western Terminal model should be US $120 per unit? Yes
12 a terminal handling charge, and that purely is the cost 12 or no?
13 of getting the container out of a ship and into a stack. 13 A. He did suggest that, yes.
14 Q. Right. 14 Q. Thank you. In your July model you have taken 2010,
15 A. If it has to be picked up and put on the back of 15 haven’t you?
16 a railway wagon or on the back of a lorry or de-stuffed, 16 A. Yes.
17 or customs-cleared or it stays too long, you can earn up 17 Q. And that’s the straight handling charge, isn’t it?
18 to $500 for that, or $450, you see, in addition. 18 A. Yes.
19 If you look at — the EU did a report in 2009 and if 19 Q. So that charge can be compared with the transhipment
20 you look at that they will show you that the average for 20 charge, can’t it? There’s no intermodal uplift that
21 St Petersburg is $257 per TEU handled in St Petersburg 21 goes into a straight handling charge, is there?
22 port. It was a report that the European Union did into 22 A. Okay, let’s introduce a different dimension to it. It’s
23 the competition amongst container terminals in Europe. 23 called market demand, yes.
24 Q. It’s right, isn’t it, that in your July model, if we 24 Q. Yes.
25 have {D55/944.1/1}, if we go to the assumptions page, 25 A. There’s an acute shortage of capacity within
118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 St Petersburg, yes, and so, as I’ve said to you, the

2 independent reports would agree that the THC were 220 on

3 average in St Petersburg at this time. So, therefore,

4 I feel totally and utterly vindicated on the basis of

5 the EU report for using 210 for the THC in this model at

6 this time.

7 Q. Do you agree, Mr Bromley-Martin, as I am putting to you,

8 what you have tried to say, I think, is that

9 an intermodal handling operation involves some

10 additional value which means you can add further charges

11 in to your per unit revenue. I understand that point.

12 I understand that. But I am focusing first on what I am

13 going to call the basic, or straight handling charge,

14 and I think you have agreed —

15 A. Okay —

16 Q. — that that — so it is right, isn’t it, that the four

17 competitors that you looked at, they had a basic or

18 straight handling charge of between $160 and $170 per

19 unit, didn’t they?

20 A. What has transpired from the EU report is that the

21 information we had out of date, if I can use hindsight.

22 Q. Can you answer the question first?

23 A. Yes, I’m answering it.

24 Q. You are saying that recent, later events, vindicate your

25 approach? I wasn’t asking —

1 $161 to $173 per unit, wasn’t it?

2 A. Mm hmm.

3 Q. And in your July 2008 model, you have taken a figure of

4 $210 for that particular charge, haven’t you?

5 A. Because there was —

6 Q. No, just —

7 A. We ascertained that those figures we were given were

8 an undercut of the real, true rates that we found out

9 from shipping companies, that the true rate was nearer

10 210.

11 Q. I will ask it again. It’s right, isn’t it, you can

12 confirm that the rate you took in your July model for

13 this straight handling charge was $210?

14 A. I said yes five minutes ago.

15 Q. And, therefore, that that was appreciably higher than

16 the first category handling charge from the competitors

17 that you identified in your information memorandum?

18 A. 20 per cent higher.

19 Q. And so his Lordship can be clear, Mr Sutcliffe was

20 suggesting that this figure that we are now discussing

21 should have been US $120 million, right?

22 A. Which I have told you was nonsensical and a wrong

23 number.

24 Q. And if we look at what you did in your September model,

25 which we can have on screen, you reduced this straight

121 123

1 A. As I explained to you about half an hour ago, it was

2 extremely difficult to get hold of what is

3 commercially-sensitive data, and that was the best

4 information we could get at the time. We then

5 subsequently discovered that, actually, for purposes of

6 a tariff regulatory requirement that existed in Russia

7 at the time, they were secretly charging extra to their

8 clients, yes, which is borne out by the EU report, yes?

9 And, therefore, we understood that, in fact,

10 reality, that the rates were somewhat higher than we had

11 been led to believe.

12 Q. Can we have, please — if you turn up, please — not on

13 the screen, but if you turn up in your hard copy

14 {D52/889/29} which was the competitors container

15 handling rates which I took you to a minute ago.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. I just want to confirm, if it’s the case, that where we

18 see in your table, first category, handling operation,

19 you are there talking about what you describe in your

20 assumptions as a straight handling charge; yes or no?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. That’s why I put to you, Mr Bromley-Martin, that the

23 range of competitor handling rates for the first

24 category handling or straight handling charge, which you

25 put into the information memorandum, the range was about

1 handling charge, didn’t you, in the September 2008

2 model, from US $210 per unit to $110 or $120, isn’t that

3 right?

4 A. Yes, absolutely.

5 Q. So you came down in the September 2008 version of this

6 model —

7 A. Hold on, this was an internal document where I did

8 a what-if scenario, okay? Has it been mentioned in any

9 document that has gone to third parties?

10 Q. That wasn’t my question, Mr Bromley-Martin.

11 A. I’m telling you that this was me playing with my model

12 just to do a what-if scenario as an internal exercise.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think you must try and answer the

14 questions put to you by counsel, Mr Bromley-Martin,

15 without sort of explaining your view as to its relevance

16 or not. He simply was pointing out that the figure

17 reduced from 210 to 110 and that is a fact. Now, he is

18 probably asking you why that is.

19 MR LORD: Well, on the modelling, again, in your evidence

20 you say that you produced a later model in September,

21 and you believe you did it at the request of one of

22 the banks you were talking to, which you believe was

23 Fortis.

24 A. Yes, I think that’s correct, they said: could you just

25 do a what-if scenario. So beg your pardon, yes, you’ve

122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 tripped me up on that one.

2 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, you are becoming rather

3 argumentative, if I may say. Just listen to

4 the question. I asked you simply to look at the

5 figures. You may have an explanation for the

6 discrepancy and we will come to it in a moment.

7 A. I had forgotten, to be honest with you, that Fortis had

8 asked the question, I just thought it was me just

9 doodling one day to do it. I stand corrected, I beg

10 your pardon.

11 Q. You accept now that the September 2008 model was run at

12 the request of one of the banks?

13 A. Yes, because they would do — they would do — the whole

14 model is promulgated — your Lordship, if I could just

15 explain, all the numbers in red here are assumptions,

16 and so it’s easy to do the sensitivity analysis and

17 therefore they asked me to do it as a result of it being

18 relatively easy. As you can see, you just change five

19 or six numbers.

20 Q. And the reason they asked you to rework the handling

21 charge is because at least one bank thought that your

22 $210 per unit was unrealistically high; that’s right,

23 isn’t it?

24 A. No.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can we finish this line shortly or is

1 I just have a couple of things, Mr Bromley-Martin.

2 Educating lawyers and judges as to business can be

3 an exasperating experience, but nevertheless you must

4 try and keep your calm and answer the questions asked.

5 If, at the end of the day, you feel you need to qualify

6 your answer, well, do so, but otherwise, I lose the

7 track between your argument and the question and that’s

8 not going to assist me in trying to adjudicate the

9 matter at the end of the day.

10 The second thing, and this may demonstrate to you

11 quite how difficult it is to get through the points you

12 want, at least to a judge, is it seems to me the figure

13 we have been looking at, variously 210 or 110, is

14 a figure which will not vary as between intermodal and

15 transhipment, the reason is because that’s the basic

16 cost without the flash-on, add-ons you may achieve by

17 reference to the fact of how long the container is stuck

18 and the difficulties of their moving it. If I have that

19 wrong, don’t answer me now, think of a measured way in

20 which you explain why I am incorrect.

21 A. With your Lordship’s permission I would like to address

22 that when we reconvene.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, exactly. I’m just explaining to

24 you where I have got stuck so you can assist me.

25 The third is that Mr Lord may come back to your

125 127
1 this a good time to break? 1 figures, according to whether his investigation of them,
2 MR LORD: We are going to finish it quite shortly, my Lord. 2 because they are rather lately produced, and I see even
3 Two minutes, maybe. 3 you had finished this by 27 February, so it might have
4 If you go to {C1/3/7}, which is paragraph 39 of your 4 been helpful to provide them in advance. I will let him
5 witness statement. I must say, I understood from that 5 guide me as to what his attitude to that is going to be.
6 paragraph, Mr Bromley-Martin, that this September model 6 Then the fourth and last point is, I know you
7 in which you removed the bulk cargoes and reduced the 7 wouldn’t, and probably will use the break much better
8 tariffs, that you had done that at the request of one of 8 than this, but you mustn’t discuss your evidence with
9 the banks, namely Fortis; that’s right, isn’t it? 9 anyone at all over the short adjournment.
10 A. Yes, sorry, that’s why I’ve just apologised as I was 10 A. I understand, sir.
11 mis — (inaudible) my memory. 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 2.05 pm.
12 Q. I am going to suggest to you, Mr Bromley-Martin, that 12 (1.08 pm)
13 Mr Sutcliffe was right and that $120 per TEU was the 13 (The Luncheon Adjournment)
14 more realistic assumption to take for this project? 14 (2.05 pm)
15 A. I wholeheartedly disagree with you there. 15 MR LORD: May it please your Lordship. Could I just pick up
16 Q. What effect would it have on the model if you took the 16 one of the points your Lordship raised before the short
17 TEU down to $120 or $110? We can see in the September 17 adjournment, which is the status of the document which
18 model, presumably, the effect that that would have? 18 the witness produced earlier today.
19 A. Yes, if you go to the summary, you will see it. 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
20 MR LORD: My Lord, I can pick that up, because that’s my 20 MR LORD: My Lord, I think my position is that I do object
21 next topic, the various other modelling aspects of 21 to its being admitted in evidence at all. I do so for
22 the — 22 the following reasons. It appears to be some sort of
23 A. But I would like to put it on record that my evidence is 23 ex post facto rationalisation by this witness. It is
24 supported by the EU competition report. 24 not in a form that allows the reader to understand it on
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, we will reconvene at 2.05 pm. 25 its own terms. It refers to a number of different
126 128
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 sources that are not either identified, or adequately 1 whereby to test it, I quite understand that. I cannot,
2 identified. Those sources are not disclosed. It has 2 I think, and would not, prevent Mr Stroilov re-examining
3 not been verified or confirmed to be true. It’s not 3 in a way which may be by reference to this document
4 been served before cross-examination began and there is 4 under the usual rules of re-examination.
5 no way, really, that I can fairly understand or test 5 I suspect, if I can put it this way, that in all the
6 this material either as it stands at any stage or, 6 events, it may be that this will be used as
7 certainly, having been given the notice that we have 7 an aide-memoire, or deployed as an aide-memoire, and it
8 been given. 8 will carry the less weight because of its lack of
9 My Lord, I submit that it would be of 9 underpinning.
10 questionable — so it shouldn’t be admitted at all, but 10 MR LORD: Very well, my Lord.
11 in any event, if one looks through it, it is really just 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We will see how it goes, in other
12 a series of typed-up jottings. It is not really 12 words.
13 possible to follow the thread. It appears to be an 13 MR LORD: Yes.
14 attempt to provide some sort of quasi expert, after the 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You can ask any questions which you
15 event, rationalisation for some points that were going 15 think are inspired by it. Mr Stroilov can ask any
16 to be the subject of cross-examination, and that isn’t 16 questions which are apparently justified by it. Given
17 really the right approach to the rules of evidence, so 17 its lack of footing in terms of source or otherwise,
18 whilst the witness can obviously give whatever answer 18 I may or may not attach any importance to it at all.
19 they want to under cross-examination, and they can 19 MR LORD: My Lord, my alternative submission would be that
20 obviously be re-examined properly without leading 20 it’s of no real probative value. If one goes through
21 questions in relation to cross-examination matters, 21 it, it is hard, with respect, to make sense of it. It
22 I would object to this particular piece of paper or 22 is a series of jottings, really, that have been typed
23 document being allowed into this trial in evidence at 23 up. It’s very hard to follow the thread to say: what’s
24 all. 24 actually being said here and on what basis. Is it after
25 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, I am afraid I disagree with 25 the event in question or at the time. I can’t really
129 131

1 that. It’s not a document which is relied on as proof

2 of anything; that is something the witness, as he

3 explained, has prepared in the course of preparing for

4 cross-examination in anticipation of being asked

5 a certain question, and then he produces this document,

6 saying: well, I anticipated this question, that will

7 help you to understand the answer.

8 So perhaps it is — obviously, I think it is open to

9 Mr Lord to stop him there but, in my submission, it

10 should be open to me in re-examination to ask

11 Mr Bromley-Martin simply to take you through this

12 document and explain what his answer was when Mr Lord

13 cut him short. It’s simply an aid to understanding,

14 rather than a document, so it shouldn’t be treated as

15 a document.

16 So in a way, perhaps on a formal view the evidence

17 will be Mr Bromley-Martin’s answers, but it’s perfectly

18 appropriate for him, really, to read it, and to explain

19 each heading, and then what is really the benefit of

20 excluding the actual piece of paper, except that it will

21 be more confusing and more difficult to unravel what he

22 says.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Mr Lord, I quite take your point

24 that, if viewed as supplementary evidence, it may — and

25 I have not looked at it myself — lack the underpinnings

1 deal with it, so I will leave it on that basis, but I

2 take your Lordship’s point.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In any event, it will go to weight.

4 MR LORD: I understand that, my Lord. I am happy on that

5 basis.

6 Thank you, my Lord, sorry to take some time.

7 Sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin, sorry for that diversion,

8 sorry about that, I apologise.

9 Mr Bromley-Martin, I wanted to ask you, please,

10 about your projection of profitability for the project.

11 In paragraph 18 of your witness statement on {C1/3/3} —

12 A. Mm hmm.

13 Q. — you make the point that this, in the event, was

14 intended to be a ringfenced project; can you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And you say that originally it was thought that the

17 project would be funded at group level; can you see

18 that?

19 A. Mm hmm.

20 Q. Would it be fair to say that because of the leverage or

21 the borrowing, or the debt burden of the OMG group, it

22 was acknowledged that there was a better chance of

23 raising money on this non-recourse ringfenced approach

24 looking only at the Western Terminal asset and its

25 development?

130 132
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. Yes, if you look at the sheet, the status of lenders 1 aware of that, and they build that into their equations
2 discussions — 2 and it is built into the cash flow of the business and
3 Q. Yes. 3 part of the funding requirement.
4 A. — you will see that we were talking to one or two 4 Q. If we go to the September 2008 model, could we have
5 equity suppliers, including IFC, for that very reason. 5 {D74/1070.1/1}, please. Again, if we have the summary,
6 Q. Yes. So when you have a ringfenced, non-recourse 6 please. That’s it. Again, same figures, really, if we
7 project like this, the idea, isn’t it, is that it will 7 look at the interest charges and take those into
8 be a sort of self-financing business; that’s the idea, 8 account, it’s right, isn’t it, that on
9 isn’t it? 9 the September 2008 model, this business was going to
10 A. Well, I think more than that, actually. It means 10 make a loss in 2008, wasn’t it, minus 12 million; can
11 there’s no other assets pledged against that. 11 you see that?
12 Q. So you are looking at it as a sort of standalone 12 A. Yes.
13 business proposition, aren’t you? 13 Q. And you agree?
14 A. Absolutely. 14 A. Yes.
15 Q. If we could look at your modelling, please, sorry to go 15 Q. And it was going to make a loss, wasn’t it, in 2009 of
16 back to that. If you could have a look at the July 16 minus 9 million?
17 model — sorry, my Lord, I will arrange to have the 17 A. Yes.
18 summary and the assumptions copied because it is 18 Q. And 2010 was minus 11 million?
19 easier — from the spreadsheet, but {D55/944.1/1}, 19 A. Yes. I’m not sure what your …
20 please. That’s very kind, thank you. Could we have the 20 Q. And then if you could slide along the page, please —
21 summary, please, pressed? 21 could you slide along? There was a loss, wasn’t there,
22 Mr Bromley-Martin, I think this is the July 2008 22 in 2011 as well once interest was taken into account?
23 model. 23 A. Mm hmm.
24 A. Mm hmm. 24 Q. So this ringfenced business only became profitable once
25 Q. And it is right, isn’t it, that the first year of 25 the interest was taken into account in the fifth year on
133 135
1 the project was going to be 2008, originally? 1 this September 2008 model?
2 A. Mm hmm. Yes. 2 A. That is not unusual for an infrastructure project of
3 Q. And you predicted a trading profit of $1.8 million, but 3 this kind.
4 if one were to factor in the interest charge, so the 4 Q. But it is yes, isn’t it, Mr Bromley-Martin, in answer to
5 cost of servicing the debt that was going to be taken on 5 the question?
6 to finance the project — 6 A. Sorry, the question was is it making a loss in those
7 A. Yes. 7 four years: Yes.
8 Q. — there was going to be a loss of US $11.849 million? 8 Q. And if we go in your witness statement, please — sorry,
9 A. Yes. 9 I want to deal with the borrowing first. Can I ask you
10 Q. And it’s right, isn’t it, for 2009, the same analysis, 10 this: would you agree that a crucial factor in
11 that the trading profit was 21 million on this 11 the viability of a business is the level of borrowing or
12 prediction, but interest charges were US $26.25 million, 12 gearing in it?
13 and once you had taken into account the interest cost, 13 A. Yes.
14 that would leave a profit, or rather a loss, of 14 Q. And whether that level of debt is serviceable by that
15 US $5 million? 15 business?
16 A. Correct. 16 A. Correct.
17 Q. So in those first two years, how would this business 17 Q. And if we look in your witness statement at {C1/3/3},
18 have survived, and would it only have survived by not 18 please.
19 accounting for depreciation? How would this business, 19 A. Mm hmm.
20 if you like, this ringfenced business, be able to keep 20 Q. In paragraph 18.
21 afloat given that it was premised on borrowing money 21 A. Yes.
22 that would generate the interest charges that we see 22 Q. You are, really, there — I think you have accepted this
23 there? 23 already — referring to the fact, aren’t you, that it
24 A. Basically, there is a concept referred to as IDC, 24 became appreciated by you during the course of this work
25 interest during construction, and the banks are fully 25 for OMG, that OMG was already heavily over borrowed,
134 136
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 wasn’t it, as a group?

2 A. Yes. But remember that 80 million of the debt was the

3 offer to repay that debt.

4 Q. But you would agree that it was already a heavily over

5 borrowed group, wasn’t it, at this time, mid-2008?

6 A. There was, I think, practically every asset had been

7 pledged, yes.

8 Q. And that’s why there was a move to this non-recourse

9 project financing model, wasn’t it?

10 A. It was an option, yes.

11 Q. To try to isolate the — if you like, to isolate the

12 viability of the Western Terminal project from

13 a lender’s concern about the leverage in other group

14 companies?

15 A. Yes, but the leverage, as I just said, 80 million of

16 that 300 million was destined to repay that debt off.

17 Q. We will come to that, Mr Bromley-Martin.

18 A. There was RUB 4 billion.

19 Q. Just wait for the question, because we will come to

20 that.

21 A. I’m just saying, you asked me a question and I’m just

22 saying that 80 million would have paid off the

23 outstanding debt, to my understanding.

24 Q. Do you agree that at the time you were involved in

25 the Western Terminal project, the banks that you were

1 my suggestion that around the time of

2 the Western Terminal project in September 2008 you were

3 aware of concerns by banks as to the level of gearing of

4 the OMG group; do you want to reconsider that answer in

5 the light of this e-mail which may have refreshed your

6 memory?

7 A. I have said it was clearly an issue for them, but this

8 250 million is not the same loan as we are talking

9 about.

10 Q. No, I see that, Mr Bromley-Martin, but that wasn’t the

11 point, was it. There’s a reference here to the existing

12 gearing concerns?

13 A. Of EBRD.

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. EBRD was Vyborg, not Western.

16 Q. Yes, but they are talking about the OMG group of

17 companies, aren’t they?

18 A. Yes, but you are talking about a completely different

19 project here.

20 Q. And other banks, Mr —

21 A. EBRD and other banks were being touted — the Vyborg

22 project, which has nothing to do with us.

23 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, your job here isn’t to argue a case

24 for Dr Arkhangelsky, it is just to answer the questions

25 to the best —

137 139
1 speaking to had concerns about the level of gearing 1 A. No, no, I’m just saying, EBRD were thinking of lending
2 within the OMG group? 2 to Vyborg, and EBRD may have expressed concerns to their
3 A. As I said just now, they were seeking clarification of 3 banks because they were going to syndicate the 250, or
4 it. They didn’t actually, not to my knowledge did they 4 whatever the loan was, I have forgotten what it is now,
5 actually express concern. There clearly was an issue 5 they were going to syndicate that out and they were
6 for them. 6 talking to different banks that we were talking to. So
7 Q. Could you be shown {D67/1053.2/2}, please. This is 7 the two banks may have conceivably overlapped but by and
8 an e-mail from Mr Keith Parker of OMG — 8 large they were different banks, not the banks we were
9 A. Mm hmm. 9 talking to.
10 Q. — to somebody, I think, at the EBRD on 10 Q. I suggest to you that the OMG group could not support
11 4 September 2008. 11 any new borrowing at that time. It was already over
12 A. Yes. 12 borrowed, wasn’t it?
13 Q. You are copied into this e-mail, aren’t you, 13 A. As I said, the $80 million of that 300 million was to
14 Mr Bromley-Martin? 14 replace the existing RUB 4.8 billion of debt and it
15 A. So it would appear, yes. 15 would have been actually far better able to sustain
16 Q. And you can see towards the foot of the page — well, 16 their borrowing at that level because the Russian banks,
17 remind yourself what’s being discussed, but it is really 17 I think from memory, were charging between 20 and
18 the second to last big paragraph where Mr Parker says 18 22 per cent, whereas the BNP loan would have been 12 per
19 this to EBRD. He says: 19 cent, so it would have saved — I think somewhere
20 «If the size of loan is to be $250 million, then 20 I remember reading it would save $50,000 a day in
21 this will obviously increase the gearing ratio of OMG 21 interest charges alone to have refinanced this debt.
22 group of companies, and the existing gearing concerns of 22 Q. If we go to paragraph 25 of your witness statement at
23 EBRD (and other banks) will be increased as well.» 23 {C1/3/5}, you pick up this topic of the financing effect
24 So, Mr Bromley-Martin, I’m slightly surprised by 24 of the proposed Western Terminal project and you
25 your answer two minutes ago, I think you were querying 25 describe it in paragraph 25, and what you say in
138 140
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 paragraph 25 —

2 A. Mm hmm.

3 Q. — is that:

4 «In terms of cost, in my opinion, US $300 million to

5 complete the development works, which Vitaly had

6 planned, was significantly more than would have been

7 needed.»

8 You thought it would need to be 220 million, and

9 then you say:

10 «I understood from Vitaly and Keith that the Group

11 was trying to raise the additional finance that it

12 needed for development works at Western to allow it to

13 refinance existing Group short term debt.»

14 Can you see that?

15 A. Which is what I’ve just referred to, yes.

16 Q. You can see that, can you?

17 A. So Vitaly asked us to raise 300 million, yes, and when

18 we got into it we said: hold on, you only need 220. He

19 said: that is because the other 80 is going to be used

20 to refinance our existing high interest Russian debt.

21 Q. So you understood that the Western Terminal project was

22 sought in part by Dr Arkhangelsky in order to be able to

23 refinance OMG group debt more generally; is that right?

24 A. Exactly.

25 Q. Now, I’m slightly puzzled by this evidence, because this

1 lender that 90 million of the 300 was going to be used

2 to repay short term debt used to acquire the terminal —

3 that means Western Terminal — in 2007, doesn’t it?

4 Yes?

5 A. That would be the implication.

6 Q. So what a potential lender is being told in this

7 document is that 300 million is going to be raised,

8 90 million is going to be used to pay off the

9 acquisition cost for the asset, leaving the balance to

10 be used for development of the asset; that’s a fair

11 reading of it, isn’t it?

12 A. Mm hmm, indeed.

13 Q. Now, we know — the reader wasn’t being told, were they,

14 that the 90 million was going to be used for general OMG

15 group refinancing, were they? Were they?

16 A. Well, short term debt, if you want to be absolutely

17 correct, I should have probably … which includes the

18 cost acquired, the use to acquire the terminal.

19 Q. No, but Mr Bromley-Martin, I’m sure you’ve got the

20 point, that if you are a lender, lenders want to know

21 the purpose for which the money is going to be loaned,

22 don’t they?

23 A. Mm hmm.

24 Q. They don’t want to lend 300 million and find that 200 is

25 going on Western Terminal and 100 is going on the

141 143

1 was said to be a ringfenced bit of project finance,

2 wasn’t it? We’ve established that this afternoon,

3 Mr Bromley-Martin, haven’t we?

4 A. We haven’t agreed which entities are actually going to

5 end up taking the debt.

6 Q. We are going to come onto that, because can we look at

7 the funding requirement. Can we look at {D52/889/11},

8 please, which is in the Western Terminal bundle behind

9 tab 10, because there is a section in your information

10 memorandum of July which picks up this point — it is

11 page 10 — sorry, it is page 11, sorry, «Funding

12 requirement»; can you see that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. «OMG are therefore seeking to raise up to $300 million

15 in long term debt to fund the upgrade of the terminal

16 and to repay $90 million of short term debt [wait for

17 it] used to acquire the terminal in 2007.»

18 Now, if you look a bit further down, you can see

19 «Gearing». Can you see that, Mr Bromley-Martin?

20 A. Mm hmm.

21 Q. «The parent company has already put in US $140 million

22 of equity into the facility.»

23 A. Mm hmm.

24 Q. Now, taking a step back, the first point is this: this

25 information memorandum was representing to a potential

1 greyhounds or a horse race, do they? They want to know

2 where their money is going, don’t they?

3 A. Mm hmm.

4 Q. Is that a yes?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And what they were being told here was really: this is

7 going to be a ringfenced project, we are going to borrow

8 300, we are going to use 90 to pay down the acquisition

9 borrowing and we are going to have the balance to

10 develop the asset. That’s what they are being told,

11 aren’t they?

12 A. Exactly.

13 Q. And you see, if what was going to happen here was that

14 Dr Arkhangelsky was going to use this loan to refinance

15 OMG group debt more generally, that would be to break

16 down the ringfencing of this project, wouldn’t it?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Because what’s happening is he is borrowing money, isn’t

19 he, in relation to the Western Terminal, that he is

20 really going to use to refinance non Western Terminal

21 debts of other OMG companies?

22 A. As I said, this is just a sort of taster.

23 An information memorandum of this kind is a taster.

24 There is a huge negotiation we would have had to have

25 taken on to finalise which entity would have borrowed

142 144
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 what, yes?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Now, the 90 million to refinance the OMG was

4 a completely different risk profile to the 200 million

5 required to refinance the development of

6 Western Terminal.

7 Q. You can see, Mr Bromley-Martin, that if a lender were to

8 be told that 90 million was actually going to go to

9 refinance group debt, when the acquisition cost of

10 the asset was only $40 million, most lenders would be

11 concerned at that misinformation, wouldn’t they?

12 A. Well, no, we made it quite clear that the 90 million was

13 going into the OMG pot as a whole.

14 Q. No, but you didn’t make it quite clear, because you said

15 «Used to acquire the terminal in 2007».

16 You are identifying, you are really vouching, you

17 are saying that there is a particular acquisition debt

18 or debts, possibly in other companies, I accept that,

19 but the key point is you are telling the lender that you

20 want 300 million, effectively to finance the cost of

21 buying the asset, and the cost of developing it. Isn’t

22 that what that paragraph is telling the reader?

23 A. It’s telling the reader that 200 million will be backed

24 by the Western Terminal project and the 90 would be

25 backed by other assets in the OMG group.

1 What were you told and what figure did you have in

2 mind, Mr Bromley-Martin?

3 A. The 220 is the figure I had in mind.

4 Q. And when you wrote this paragraph —

5 A. When I wrote this paragraph it was, what, seven years

6 later, and clearly I was mistaken as to the situation,

7 because, if you remember, I haven’t been associated with

8 this case up until when I was asked to make this

9 statement last October or November.

10 Q. Because paragraph 10 implies that that’s information you

11 were given at the time you were involved with OMG back

12 in 2008, doesn’t it?

13 A. It does rather, I must admit, yes.

14 Q. And if you go to {C1/3/7} I think you repeat the point.

15 Can you see the paragraph beginning:

16 «However, at the time Vitaly had acquired

17 Western Terminal LLC the terminal was in a poor state.

18 It had cost him very little…»

19 Can you see that?

20 A. What paragraph are you on?

21 Q. Paragraph 36:

22 «It had cost him very little and relative to its

23 acquisition price I recall it was generating quite a lot

24 of turnover from timber.»

25 Are you saying that when you wrote this statement

145 147

1 Q. You say in your witness statement that, I think —

2 I don’t want to misquote you — you say in your witness

3 statement something about the cost. Yes, in

4 paragraph 10, no need to have it up, I don’t think, you

5 said {C1/3/3}:

6 «I understood from Vitaly and Keith that the Group

7 had acquired Western in 2007 when it purchased

8 Western Terminal LLC, the company which owned the land

9 and property at the terminal, and that it had cost

10 relatively little».

11 I wonder from that, Mr Bromley-Martin, were you led

12 to believe, or were you given some idea of the rough

13 acquisition cost of Western Terminal by Dr Arkhangelsky

14 and Mr Parker?

15 A. Yes, because it was in that list of questions that we

16 referred to this morning.

17 Q. But that was 220 million?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Are you saying that you thought that that was relatively

20 little for a lot of mud by a quay?

21 A. No.

22 Q. No. So what did you mean? Can we have paragraph 10 up

23 and you can tell his Lordship what you meant by that

24 evidence. {C1/3/3}, and you can read that paragraph 10

25 and tell his Lordship what you meant by that.

1 you thought that the acquisition cost of Western

2 Terminal was $220 million or not?

3 A. To be honest with you, as it was eight years apart,

4 I was asked to make a statement and I did this from

5 memory, I hadn’t really gone through and read everything

6 through, but now I have had a chance to do that in order

7 to prepare for today, I recognise that I was mistaken in

8 my belief.

9 Q. Going back to {D52/889/11}, please, which is your final

10 information memorandum for these banks; we have seen

11 now, haven’t we, Mr Bromley-Martin, that the acquisition

12 cost was round about US $40 million?

13 A. So the evidence you put before me this morning?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you take some steps to ascertain the accuracy of

17 a statement in this information memorandum that

18 US $90 million was going to be borrowed to repay short

19 term debt used to acquire the terminal in 2007?

20 A. Well, as I said to you five minutes ago, that was

21 probably badly worded, in the sense that 90 million was

22 partially going to repay the debt taken out to pay for

23 the terminal.

24 Q. If you look a bit further on under «Gearing», the reader

25 is told this, isn’t he:

146 148
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 «The parent company has already put in

2 US $140 million of equity into the facility.»

3 Can you see that?

4 A. Mm hmm.

5 Q. What this document is telling the Bank,

6 Mr Bromley-Martin, I suggest, is that the OMG group, or,

7 if you like, the borrowing group, has already sunk

8 $140 million of its own money into this asset; that’s

9 right, isn’t it? Isn’t it, Mr Bromley-Martin?

10 A. Well, on the basis they borrowed 60 million to buy the

11 facility and they told us that the total cost was 220,

12 it was sort of within the bounds of logic that,

13 therefore, the group from its own resources had put

14 140 million in.

15 Q. Yes, I wasn’t asking that. Can you listen to

16 the question: it is right, isn’t it, that what this

17 sentence is telling a bank is that the parent company,

18 so that’s OMGP, or an OMG group company, has put in

19 $140 million of its own money into the —

20 A. That was my understanding, yes.

21 Q. And we have seen from the acquisition cost, it doesn’t

22 look as if that was correct, does it?

23 A. No.

24 Q. What was the basis — I think you may have answered it

25 just now, but what was the basis for your putting this

1 a western name, as it were, to value the property as

2 part of the due diligence exercise.

3 Q. And it’s likely, isn’t it, Mr Bromley-Martin, that any

4 lender that had received this information memorandum and

5 had been told that 140 million of equity had been sunk

6 into Western Terminal by the OMG parent company, which

7 lender then discovered that that was untrue and that, in

8 fact, the asset had cost 40 million and therefore, no

9 such equity — and, in fact, it had been raised by

10 borrowed funds, that lender was likely not to want to be

11 involved with this project any further; do you agree?

12 A. Well, we discussed this this morning. My view is that

13 the overwhelming driver for the debt would have been the

14 cash flow rather than the value — the purchase price of

15 the property itself, the freehold itself.

16 Q. It’s right, isn’t it, that any lender was going to do

17 its own due diligence; it wouldn’t rely on OMG’s?

18 A. Certainly not. Certainly not.

19 Q. They would do their own work, wouldn’t they?

20 A. Absolutely, or they would hire in KPMG or E&Y or

21 somebody like that to do it, plus their own lawyers who

22 would have checked the title, property, et cetera.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sorry, I didn’t fully understand your

24 answer to Mr Lord’s question that if a lender had

25 discovered that there had been no, or no substantial

149 151

1 sentence into this document, can you tell his Lordship,

2 please?

3 A. Because clearly I was trying to show that there was

4 asset-backing to the debt.

5 Q. And to show, presumably, to a lender, that the owner of

6 the asset in respect of which money was being sought had

7 sunk a lot of its own capital in as a sign of good faith

8 and earnest and seriousness and so on?

9 A. Indeed.

10 Q. And that’s information that, presumably, came from OMG

11 or Dr Arkhangelsky?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And do you agree that if his Lordship finds that the

14 Western Terminal cost 40 million, that looks like

15 a misleading statement, doesn’t it?

16 A. It does, indeed.

17 Q. Yes, thank you. It’s likely, isn’t it, that upon any

18 sort of due diligence, a lender was going to establish

19 that that statement about the equity put in was wrong?

20 It’s likely?

21 A. It was something that was clearly causing us concern,

22 because if you read — I can’t remember where abouts,

23 I think it’s in one of the e-mails, I was pressing

24 Vitaly and Keith that we should get a western — with no

25 disrespect to Russian companies, obviously, but

1 equity contributed, except in the sense that some money

2 had been contributed which was, itself, borrowed, would

3 that lender, when he knew the truth, have — could one

4 realistically expect such a lender to continue with the

5 project? I didn’t follow your answer on that. I am not

6 sure you answered it.

7 A. I would say that it would have taken all my persuasive

8 powers to have kept him on the case, indeed. It would

9 have been very, very difficult, but not impossible.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s an unattractive phrase,

11 especially amongst US bankers, the notion of skin in

12 the game is usually important to investors.

13 A. Exactly.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And if you are told there is

15 80 million-worth and then you are told on the next day:

16 actually, there is substantially none, are you not

17 a little put off?

18 A. Your Lordship, I wonder if I could just split hairs for

19 a second. You used the word «investors». I don’t know

20 whether that was a generic term for anybody providing —

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m sorry, banking, secure creditor.

22 A. An investor, an equity investor, it would have been

23 absolutely crucial, absolutely sir, because then there

24 would have been a negotiation on a valuation and

25 everything else.

150 152
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A lender, a bank lending money, is not interested

2 except for the use of sort of Armageddon security, if

3 I can call it that.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I wonder if that’s right, actually,

5 I’m so sorry to be rude, but an investment bank, you

6 have explained carefully to us, is not so much looking

7 for its security at the value of the property, but at

8 the return potentiality of the enterprise.

9 A. Exactly, sir.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: To that extent an investment bank and

11 investor, one might think, are in rather similar

12 positions, because they are both hoping for a return

13 from the conduct of the business of the entity.

14 A. Now, what is very confusing is the term «investment

15 banker», sir, because if you go to Goldman Sachs, one

16 department will do the equity and another department

17 will do the debt. So, again, we need to be careful to

18 distinguish between the two animals.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I understand that, and I don’t

20 want to get too philosophical. It just seemed to me

21 that you were making clear — or so I had understood you

22 were making clear, that the banks were being invited to

23 participate not so much on the footing of the capital

24 value of the project, but its income potential.

25 A. 100 per cent. You are 100 per cent right there, sir.

1 are talking about debt here, and I say debt would look

2 to the cash flow of the business rather than whatever

3 was paid for the freehold.

4 MR LORD: But, Mr Bromley-Martin, isn’t the point of telling

5 the bank, the potential lender, that a parent company

6 has put $140 million of equity into it, you are telling

7 the lender that the owner, effectively, the borrower,

8 has put its own money at risk and has sunk its own —

9 and believes in the business. It is a world of

10 difference if you say: I would like to borrow

11 $300 million please, and I have borrowed a few quid to

12 buy it, and I’m not going to put any of my own money in,

13 but I would like your money, Goldman Sachs. That’s one

14 position, and the other end is: I’ve put in $140 million

15 of my own money which I will lose if this project, which

16 I want finance for, doesn’t work out. Can you not see,

17 Mr Bromley-Martin, that —

18 A. Can I make two points to answer you? First of all, yes,

19 I agree, this was an attempt to reassure would-be

20 lenders that there was some underlying thing based on

21 the numbers that we had been given.

22 Now, the second point I would like to make is, and

23 I am jumping here, if you will forgive me, to Vyborg and

24 EBRD, and I know you have the term sheet from EBRD, and

25 if you look at the term sheet for the EBRD loan, for

153

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That is what you told me, as I had

2 understood it.

3 A. Yes, correct, sir.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And therefore, one might think that

5 skin in the game in the sense of someone actually

6 putting themselves at risk in order to obtain the upside

7 is rather an important factor, but if I am wrong on

8 that, you must tell me.

9 A. Sorry, just say that again, sir. I lost you in

10 the middle there.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Where the prospect of repayment is

12 from the performance of the company, so that you are

13 reliant on the potential of the company, it is of very

14 considerable reassurance that the owners or others of

15 the company, have put skin in the game, because then you

16 feel you are on a joint game, rather than being suckered

17 in to something which might not return. Maybe I have

18 misunderstood.

19 A. A lender doesn’t necessarily look for skin in the game;

20 an investor would do.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right.

22 A. So if you are an entrepreneur and you want to start up,

23 as I have done, several businesses, they are looking to

24 me and the management team I’m with to put in 25 or

25 30 per cent of the funding, yes, but that is equity. We

155

1 Vyborg, is there any mention of any equity requirement:

2 no sir.

3 Q. That’s a sort of clever answer. Can we —

4 A. No, no, no, because the term sheet is a legal document

5 which forms the basis of the debt provision.

6 Q. Looking at this page, funding requirement, what a lender

7 is being told is that the asset was bought for

8 $220 million, and we now know it was 40. The lender is

9 also being told that the short term debt that’s going to

10 be repaid that was used to buy the asset was $80 million

11 to $90 million, again, untrue, because the asset only

12 cost 40 in the first place, so that’s untrue, and

13 thirdly the lender is being told that the owner, the

14 parent company has put $140 million of its own money on

15 top — wait a minute — on top into this facility which,

16 again, looks to be untrue. Now, are you suggesting that

17 a lender that finds out about those untruths is not

18 going to be concerned at the moral hazard of lending to

19 this particular borrower?

20 A. It would be a considerable embarrassment, as I said.

21 Some banks might easily walk away, but I don’t think

22 it’s necessarily a deal breaker for every bank. So

23 mea culpa that I put it in there, that was wrong, now

24 that you have given me different numbers, but it was to

25 seek to reassure the banks that there was an underlying

154 156
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 asset there.

2 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, you know that’s not right, because —

3 we will come to your witness statement on this point.

4 You know, Mr Bromley-Martin, that if you are trying to

5 borrow money from a bank, the bank has to trust you,

6 hasn’t it? It has to trust that you are an honest

7 borrower; that’s right, isn’t it?

8 A. In the main.

9 Q. In the main. And banks would be very concerned at

10 a borrower that told them one thing and was going to do

11 another, wouldn’t they?

12 A. You are taking a very prurient(?) view of bankers, if

13 you don’t mind me saying so. There are guys, there are

14 individuals working in these banks whose job it is to

15 lend money and they all behave like lemmings, and at

16 that stage in 2008 they were falling over themselves to

17 lend money to infrastructure projects in Russia.

18 Q. And do you think that’s an accurate opinion after

19 15 September 2008?

20 A. I thought we were talking about July.

21 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, you are just trying to be clever

22 here, and —

23 A. No, no, I am not. You keep quizzing me on the basis of

24 six years of hindsight, and sorry, that wasn’t the

25 situation that was facing us in July 2008.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. «It is an essential element in executing a fundraising

3 mandate to verify every element of information that goes

4 into an IM. Any potential investor or lender will

5 undertake detailed ‘Due Diligence’ as part of their

6 evaluation, and therefore, not least to safeguard our

7 own professional reputation, it is essential that no

8 ‘skeletons’ are found during that process. We therefore

9 require our clients to provide us with justification for

10 all statements which would include, inter alia,

11 an account by account reconciliation of the balance

12 sheet, proof of ownership of Intellectual Property or

13 real estate, as well as comfort with market

14 projections.»

15 Now, you pick up that theme again,

16 Mr Bromley-Martin, in paragraph 33 on {C1/3/6}:

17 «At Oxus we made every possible effort to have

18 a full reconciliation of each account within a balance

19 sheet agreed with the client before issuing an

20 information memorandum to any fund or bank. If we went

21 to the market without doing so, we would have put our

22 professional reputation at risk and, more to the point,

23 fund and bank managers would not have considered us if

24 we had presented an ill-conceived or unrealistic

25 proposal.»

157

1 Q. You picked July because you know it predates the Lehman

2 Brothers collapse.

3 A. Even after that they were still trying to lend money.

4 Q. Try again. After the Lehman Brothers collapse on

5 15 September 2008, it is right, isn’t it, that the world

6 of lending changed?

7 A. Mm hmm.

8 Q. Yes?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And —

11 A. Not to start with, but it gathered pace, I will agree.

12 Q. And lenders overnight became much more rigorous in

13 lending their money, didn’t they? There was

14 a sea-change, wasn’t there, after that earthquake,

15 wasn’t there?

16 A. Not — no, actually, I’m going to disagree with you, and

17 I’ll tell you for why, and that is Emerging Capital

18 Partners backed us to buy an operating port in

19 Equatorial Guinea and were still negotiating the term

20 sheet with us in May 2009.

21 Q. Do you want to go in your witness statement at {C1/3/4}

22 and could you look at paragraph 22 and just read that to

23 yourself. Paragraph 22, {C1/3/4}.

24 A. That’s exactly what I said this morning, isn’t it?

25 Q. Yes, these are your words.

159

1 So Mr Bromley-Martin, your evidence this afternoon

2 to his Lordship, I put to you is untrue: if

3 an information memorandum was as materially inaccurate

4 as we have identified, I put to you that would have been

5 fatal to the credibility of this project in the eyes of

6 any reputable lender, either before 15 September or

7 after 15 September 2008. The idea that you could get

8 away with those sorts of untruths and bounce back and

9 say: no hard feelings, I suggest, Mr Bromley-Martin,

10 that that is simply not true. What do you want to say

11 to that?

12 A. What I want to say is that you — as a broker of

13 the variety that we are, you have to tread a very narrow

14 path between what your client wants you to do and what

15 you know is acceptable to the banks.

16 Now, we were therefore pressing for the IFRS

17 accounts, so that we could do this justification account

18 by account, and we had to get — we were being pressed

19 to get the information memorandum out in order to try

20 and start the process, because clearly OMG needed the

21 funding, if nothing else.

22 Q. But if we —

23 A. And, therefore, we perhaps strayed a little too eagerly

24 into issuing an IM that wasn’t, probably, watertight.

25 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, I’m sorry to go back to this, we are

158 160
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 not talking about here, are we, really, innocent

2 mistakes in a possible lender’s eyes? We are not really

3 sort of talking about something: well, it depends how

4 you look at it, sort of thing. Or: it’s a bit

5 subjective. We are talking about some very, very big

6 and concrete untruths, aren’t we? The acquisition cost

7 of the asset, 40 versus 220; the short term debt, 80 to

8 90 compared with whatever, can’t be more than 40, and

9 the equity from the owner, 140 compared with nothing.

10 We are not talking about: oh, well, I should have

11 mentioned that and I should have mentioned this, but

12 really it’s all still all right. It’s not that sort of

13 untruth, is it, Mr Bromley-Martin? It’s nuclear, it’s

14 apocalyptical, isn’t it, in terms of the credibility of

15 this project for any lender?

16 A. To be honest with you, no more than probably one,

17 conceivably two, bankers would have gone into it in such

18 detail that they would have noticed that paragraph.

19 What they were far more interested in was in the

20 financial model. So I appreciate that it was

21 an unfortunate statement to put in there and it was

22 clearly seeking to give them greater comfort, but

23 I suspect that it would have been lost in

24 the undergrowth, if you know what I mean.

25 Q. What does that mean, Mr Bromley-Martin? Does that mean

1 believe it is, to use your word,»nuclear». It is not

2 assured destruction, put it that way.

3 Q. I think you said earlier today that you don’t, I think,

4 speak or read Russian; is that right?

5 A. Mm hmm.

6 Q. Is that yes, for the transcript?

7 A. Sorry, I do not speak Russian, no.

8 Q. Did you have any staff working for you in relation to

9 the Western Terminal project who did speak or read

10 Russian?

11 A. We were relying upon Clydes for that. Are you referring

12 to translation of legal documents?

13 Q. No, sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin, was the question unclear:

14 did you have anybody working for you on your team, or

15 for you, within Oxus, who read or spoke Russian?

16 A. No.

17 Q. So would it be fair to say that were that you were,

18 really, in large measure, reliant upon Dr Arkhangelsky

19 and OMG for the information that you got?

20 A. That’s a different question. You asked me about

21 translation, now you are asking me about information.

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. Translation, as I say, probably I suspect 75 per cent of

24 the documents that were in Russian got translated by

25 Keith or someone for us, and Clydes did probably the

161 163

1 that it would have been covered up afterwards and you

2 would hope people wouldn’t notice the untruths; is that

3 what you are saying?

4 A. No, no, because it clearly would have come out in

5 the due diligence because they would clearly require a

6 valuation of the freehold property, which is what I was

7 trying — which I was pressing Keith and Vitaly to do,

8 of their own volition.

9 Q. So suddenly Goldman Sachs, who spent some time getting

10 involved in this project, they sit down with their

11 lawyers and their people —

12 A. It wouldn’t have got that far, I explained that this

13 morning.

14 Q. No, but Mr Bromley-Martin, you know the point I make,

15 and they sit down with you at Oxus and they assume that

16 there are no skeletons here because you have done this

17 professional job that you say you have done and they

18 think that you will have done a proper job. Then they

19 find out there are all these untruths or inaccuracies in

20 the information memorandum. Are you suggesting that

21 they would have said: well, don’t worry, let’s look at

22 your model, let’s carry on? Is that an honest answer,

23 Mr Bromley-Martin?

24 A. I was saying that there is a grave danger that it might

25 have stopped the procedures — discussions, but I don’t

1 rest. Any legal documents we got, Clydes — because

2 clearly their reputation was on the line too, so they

3 were keen to have any legal documents translated.

4 Q. And it is right, isn’t it, Mr Bromley-Martin, that if

5 a bank learnt that money was being borrowed for

6 a ringfenced Western Terminal project that was going, in

7 fact, to be used to refinance OMG companies more

8 generally, that would have concerned them because that

9 would bring into play the question of the group’s

10 leverage, wouldn’t it? You would have started to

11 contaminate the ringfenced project, wouldn’t you?

12 A. Not necessarily, because, as I say, you almost certainly

13 have different lending agreements with different

14 entities in the group such that the Western Terminal

15 would merely have access to 200 million of potential

16 loans and not 300.

17 Q. And I suggest that if a lender had learnt that OMG group

18 companies — if a lender in this situation had learnt

19 that an OMG group company was borrowing money at about

20 this time, autumn 2008, to pay interest bills, that

21 would have been likely to cause concern for that lender;

22 do you agree? Borrowing to pay back interest is a red

23 flag for a bank, isn’t it, by and large?

24 A. Sorry, you are telling me that who was borrowing money

25 to pay what debt?

162 164
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Q. I’m just assuming — can you just assume for one minute,

2 that if in fact — do you agree with the general

3 proposition that most banks or lenders are concerned if

4 a borrower or potential borrower is having to borrow

5 money in order to pay interest on existing borrowed

6 monies? Borrowed to service the interest?

7 A. It’s not unknown, because I’ve known a lot of companies

8 be in that position but —

9 Q. That wasn’t the question, Mr Bromley-Martin —

10 A. —hold on, let me finish the sentence, then I can

11 answer the question.

12 Q. — well you are not answering the question, the question

13 wasn’t whether you’ve known it in your long history,

14 career, it’s really whether it would be, in most cases,

15 a concern to a lender or potential lender that

16 a borrower was already borrowing to service its interest

17 payments?

18 A. It is a concern, indeed, but it happens quite a lot.

19 Q. Yes. And the concern is because that is — that can

20 often be a sign that the business is in trouble; that’s

21 right, isn’t it?

22 A. Not necessarily, it could be a start-up, as this

23 business was. For the first few years of any new

24 business, a company is always cash-negative.

25 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, the reason it would generally be

1 say, two years, can you just assume that,

2 Mr Bromley-Martin?

3 A. Mm hmm.

4 Q. That has hundreds of millions of dollars of debt

5 group-wide, assume that.

6 A. Mm hmm.

7 Q. Then assume that OMG group companies within that group

8 structure are having to borrow money to pay interest on

9 existing debt; can you assume all that? Assume that; do

10 you understand?

11 A. Mm hmm.

12 Q. It’s right, isn’t it, that most lenders would be

13 concerned at borrowing to pay interest by that

14 particular group or company within the group?

15 A. I repeat my answer: not necessarily. Because you’ve got

16 Vyborg in start-up mode, you have Onega just beginning

17 to generate revenue, you have three new ships beginning

18 to generate revenue, you have got a chipboard plant

19 starting up, so you’ve a whole number of start-up

20 businesses.

21 Q. And I suggest, Mr Bromley-Martin, that your model showed

22 losses after interest was taken into account for either

23 the first two years or the first four years; do you

24 agree?

25 A. Indeed, yes, we ascertained that this morning.

165

1 a concern to a lender is because borrowing to pay

2 interest suggests that the company at that point does

3 not have sufficient operational revenue to meet its

4 interest payments; that’s right, isn’t it?

5 A. But surely the lending bank would not do that unless

6 they had confidence that that money would ultimately be

7 repaid, so they had good reason to lend the money,

8 because they, presumably, wouldn’t have lent the money

9 unless they had ascertained that the interest would have

10 come out of the new loan.

11 Q. I’m going to ask the question again, Mr Bromley-Martin,

12 and give you one last chance to answer it, because you

13 didn’t answer the question, you really put an argument

14 in to try and justify the position. I put to you again,

15 the reason why a lender would generally be concerned if

16 a borrower or potential borrower was borrowing to pay

17 interest is because that would suggest that the borrower

18 did not have sufficient operational revenue to be able

19 to service its interest payments; do you agree?

20 A. In certain circumstances, yes; in other circumstances,

21 as I explained to you, no. It purely depends on the

22 circumstances.

23 Q. Leaving aside a start-up company, let’s assume we have

24 a great big, allegedly diversified shipping and

25 insurance and port business that’s been going for, let’s

167

1 Q. And I suggest that your model proceeded on the basis of

2 unrealistic assumptions because the turnover of

3 containers per year was much too high.

4 A. I disagree with that.

5 Q. And your handling charges were also much too high.

6 A. I disagree with that.

7 Q. And once you plug in more realistic assumptions, the

8 profitability of that business gets even worse than you

9 modelled?

10 A. At 110 — THCs at $110, that the four-year, so you

11 wouldn’t go below 110 that’s even below Mr Sutcliffe’s

12 $120, so it was unlikely to go below that, isn’t it?

13 So we are talking about two years of pre-tax

14 profit — losses, or four years of pre-tax losses.

15 Worst case scenario.

16 Q. And the information memorandum that you had sent out to

17 the banks contained very serious inaccuracies, didn’t

18 it?

19 A. Serious inaccuracies? Inaccuracies, yes. I don’t think

20 serious.

21 Q. You don’t think that the inaccuracies we’ve discussed

22 should be described as serious?

23 A. Because they are not material to the debt, as I’ve

24 explained.

25 Q. And I suggest that all those problems would have been

166 168
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 revealed on any typical due diligence by any reputable

2 lender?

3 A. Well, hopefully we would have spotted them and ironed

4 them out before we got to due diligence, that was our

5 intention.

6 Q. And that there was no real chance of OMG raising finance

7 to develop Western Terminal?

8 A. Again, I disagree. I think there was a very good chance

9 we could have done it.

10 Q. Either on your model, or on any other orthodox basis.

11 A. Well, I believe my model to be orthodox.

12 Q. If we go to paragraph 60 of your witness statement,

13 {C1/3/12}, where you say:

14 «I have no doubt that Vitaly and the Group’s plans

15 for Western Terminal could have been financed and

16 implemented, and I do believe that if the Group had paid

17 the retainer which BNP were requesting and had signed

18 the mandate letter, the financing would have almost

19 certainly gone ahead, albeit delayed by the financial

20 crisis at the time.»

21 I suggest first, Mr Bromley-Martin, that you have no

22 reliable basis to suggest that financing of the sort

23 that OMG was seeking for Western Terminal would ever

24 have been provided.

25 A. Well, we had that letter from BNP. Clearly they

1 would have calmed down enough to be able to go back and

2 pick up the pieces?

3 A. Crumbs, you are asking me to put my mind back eight

4 years.

5 Q. 2012?

6 A. No, no, no. Optimistically, third or fourth quarter of

7 2009. Pessimistically, second or third quarter of 2010.

8 Q. So realistically not until 2010. Realistically?

9 A. Taking a mid-point, January 2010 would seem a good

10 compromise.

11 Q. Yes, thank you. Could you go, please —

12 A. Can I just raise a point here. That wouldn’t

13 necessarily be to the detriment of the project schedule,

14 because we could have done the detailed design work in

15 the interim period.

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. And, therefore, actually, as soon as the financing came

18 through we could have got into the field, whereas before

19 we were going to raise the money and then do the

20 detailed engineering work and then get into the field.

21 So, actually, as I put in one of my letters to

22 Vitaly — or e-mails, should I say — you will recall

23 that I said it may not have any deleterious effect on

24 the overall schedule for the project.

25 Q. No, but you are talking about the closing of

169 171

1 wouldn’t have entered into that if they weren’t

2 optimistic, shall we say, that they could syndicate

3 a loan out, and having been in this game for 30 years,

4 you get to understand the tell-tale signs, and if I can

5 use an American expression, you know when there’s a warm

6 and fuzzy feeling at the other end of the telephone or

7 across the meeting table, and certainly we were getting

8 very positive vibes.

9 Q. You had a warm, fuzzy feeling about the —

10 A. About their ability and desire to fund the project.

11 Q. And do you think that warm, fuzzy feeling might have

12 evaporated once a lender realised the inaccuracies in

13 what it had been told in the information memorandum?

14 Might it have cooled a bit in its warmth and fuzziness?

15 A. I’ve already said, yes, it would do.

16 Q. And I —

17 A. It wouldn’t be — I don’t believe it would have been

18 terminal.

19 Q. And your suggestion — I think you have said that the

20 financing would have been delayed by the financial

21 crisis; is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And you have said it is difficult to say when financial

24 close would have been achieved. When do you think?

25 Some time in 2010? 2011? When do you think things

1 the financing deal, aren’t you, being sort

2 of January 2010.

3 A. Yes, but I still — by implication you are saying,

4 therefore, it won’t start generating revenue — it would

5 only start generating revenue much later. I’m saying

6 that is not the case. That was the implication in

7 your question.

8 Q. But you are talking about getting the money from the

9 banks, when you talk about closing, you are talking

10 about getting the money out from the bank, aren’t you?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. That means that up until that point, OMG don’t have any

13 refinancing coming out of this Western Terminal project,

14 do they?

15 A. No, I mean, clearly what became apparent

16 in October 2008, that OMG didn’t have the resources to

17 continue at that stage.

18 Q. No. We are coming to that, don’t worry.

19 Could you go to paragraph 13 of your statement at

20 {C1/3/3} where you describe meeting Dr Arkhangelsky.

21 You say in the second sentence of that paragraph:

22 «Vitaly struck me as an impressive individual. He

23 seemed well-regarded and well-connected in

24 St Petersburg. He came across as an energetic

25 entrepreneur, frequently travelling to attend and give

170 172
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 presentations about his business and the Group’s plans

2 at roadshows around the world. He was always fun to

3 work with. It seemed to me that he was a bit of a star

4 whose ascent people felt they should watch.»

5 Do you see that?

6 A. I do.

7 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, would it be fair to say that you were

8 a little bit impressed by Dr Arkhangelsky at that time?

9 A. I was. He is a very intelligent man.

10 Q. Can I ask you, Mr Bromley-Martin, what were the fee

11 arrangements that you entered into, if any, with

12 Dr Arkhangelsky or OMG companies of any sort in relation

13 to the services that you have provided to them?

14 A. We had a retainer and a success fee.

15 Q. And when was that entered into, that arrangement? Back

16 in 2008, at the time you entered into the work?

17 A. February/March 2008, I think it was.

18 Q. And what was the retainer?

19 A. From memory, $20,000 a month, I think it was.

20 Q. And was that paid to you?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. For how many months?

23 A. March, February — March, April, May … it must have

24 been six months.

25 Q. And what was the success fee arrangement?

1 figures, please, for turnover and profit for the OMG

2 group; can you go to {D48/829/1}. It’s in

3 the Western Terminal bundle, and it is behind divider 3

4 towards the back of that tab. You see it is the

5 questions and answers, can you see that,

6 Mr Bromley-Martin?

7 A. D43, did you say?

8 Q. {D48/829/1}. It’s the questions and answers I took you

9 to earlier.

10 A. I have the questions but not the answers for some

11 reason.

12 Q. If you could go to {D48/829/1}, if you could be helped

13 to find the page. Thank you.

14 A. There are about three different versions of it here.

15 Q. Yes, I understand.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: D48?

17 MR LORD: {D48/829/1}, it’s the penultimate entry between

18 the pink slips at the back of divider 3A, my Lord. It

19 is just before divider 4. It is the second to last

20 entry in that tab.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.

22 MR LORD: I asked you, Mr Bromley-Martin, earlier today

23 about the acquisition costs, do you remember, that was

24 item 12 on the second page.

25 A. Mm hmm.

173 175

1 A. 25 per cent when we had a bona fide offer and

2 75 per cent of it when the funds were actually received.

3 Q. Do you have a copy of the retainer. You must have kept

4 that? Have you still got a copy of it?

5 A. Not with me, no.

6 Q. But you have a copy of it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And there’s no reason why his Lordship couldn’t see that

9 and you couldn’t provide a copy of it?

10 A. I could provide a copy of that, yes, if it is material

11 to the case, clearly.

12 Q. I am trying to identify how was that success fee

13 calculated? What was the size of it, how much was it?

14 A. I think it was — I can’t remember now — 1 or

15 2 per cent of the money raised.

16 Q. So that would be, what, about US $6 million?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And is there any expectation that you might still be

19 remunerated in any circumstance to do with the matters

20 that are in dispute in this case?

21 A. There is absolutely nothing organised, outstanding or of

22 any commercial relationship with Vitaly in existence now

23 that would provide any income to me or my company.

24 Q. Can I ask you about some other points, please, on the

25 information memorandum. I want to ask you about the

1 Q. If we go to the first page, please, question number 1:

2 «What turnover and profit should be used in para 1?»

3 And the answer was:

4 «OMG turnover for 2007 is €500 million. Pre-tax

5 profit is €4.5 million.»

6 Do you have any information or idea as to the basis

7 for that answer provided by OMG to you?

8 A. Absolutely none at all, because when the IFRS came

9 through, we were struggling to find where that

10 500 million came from.

11 Q. Mm. And if we go to {D51/888/1}, one of the drafts,

12 please. So it is the draft — sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin,

13 behind tab 8 is draft 5, which is one of the final

14 drafts — not the final draft, but a later draft of

15 the memorandum. You can see D51 is behind divider 8 of

16 the bundle, at {D51/888/5} you have some figures for

17 turnover and profit in the same first paragraph of

18 the document; can you see that?

19 A. Mm hmm.

20 Q. And the figures that are in this version are

21 US $320 million for the turnover in 2007, I think that’s

22 for the group, and a pre-tax profit of US $3 million;

23 can you see that?

24 A. Mm hmm.

25 Q. Again, Mr Bromley-Martin, was that information that came

174 176
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 to you or Oxus from OMG or Dr Arkhangelsky?

2 A. All this information came from the gentleman who replied

3 to our questions, called Daniil — I can’t pronounce his

4 surname, I am afraid, but he was the business

5 development manager, if I recall correctly.

6 Q. And given your evidence about doing a sort of line by

7 line reconciliation and how important it was to check

8 the accuracy of the figures, can his Lordship take it

9 that you did a bit of due diligence on these figures

10 before you stuck any of them into the draft of

11 the information memorandum?

12 A. Well, we clearly have to rely, hence the disclaimer at

13 the front of the information memorandum, we have to rely

14 upon information given to us by the client, and in our

15 mandate agreement is an indemnity against that

16 information.

17 Q. If we look at the last, the final version, behind

18 divider 10, please, and if you go to {D52/889/6} you can

19 see the figures change again in paragraph 1. Can you

20 see that, Mr Bromley-Martin?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. It has turnover for the OMG group of US $88 million in

23 2007, and a pre-tax profit of US $33 million; can you

24 see that?

25 A. Mm hmm.

1 to your witness statement, and I think you said they

2 were available by September; do you remember that?

3 A. Mm hmm. Thank you.

4 Q. So they would have post-dated possibly this July version

5 of the IM that I am asking you about, but they would

6 have predated the October version, wouldn’t they?

7 A. Mm hmm.

8 Q. Could you be kind enough, please, to go to page 5. You

9 will see there is a heading «Combined income statement

10 for the year ended 31 December 2007». Can you see that?

11 A. Mm hmm.

12 Q. And you see the figures there. Can you identify for his

13 Lordship — I’ve shown you the page in the accounts and

14 I’ve shown you the information memorandum. Can you

15 explain to his Lordship what, if any, basis you think

16 that you had for putting in the figures of 88 and 33

17 into the information memorandum final draft?

18 A. Well, clearly I don’t make these numbers up myself, so

19 I clearly would have got them from various people in

20 the OMG group.

21 Q. But I just wanted you — if you could identify, you

22 know, the sort of basis, whether you did some check and

23 you —

24 A. To be honest with you, from memory, what was included in

25 these companies here, and what the 88 referred to,

177 179

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Where is this in the tabs?

2 MR LORD: It’s behind divider 10, my Lord.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

4 MR LORD: It’s the final version that was sent out

5 in July 2008.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

7 MR LORD: And it is the first paragraph.

8 So the figures were 88 for turnover and 33 million

9 for profit. If you go, please, to {D52/889/9}, you will

10 see, I think, these figures appear again. Can you see

11 «OMG Key Financials», the table at the top?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. I think you can see there you get turnover of 88.8, and

14 you get gross margin 34 — these are all millions of US

15 dollars — then you can see EBIT at the bottom, 30.4.

16 So it looks as if these figures of 88 and roughly

17 US $30 million-odd appear again in the information

18 memorandum, and they come in again, they come in

19 again — no, I think that’s …

20 Can I ask you, please, keep that page open,

21 {D52/889/9}, and could we have up on screen, please, the

22 relevant page from the 2007 accounts that I know you

23 looked at at some stage, {D15/363/5}. I think,

24 Mr Bromley-Martin, we have seen these accounts earlier

25 today; do you remember these are the ones you exhibited

1 without going away and doing some homework, I would not

2 be able to tell you if they are directly relevant

3 numbers to one another.

4 Q. Did you ever have any concern in the course of your

5 dealing with Dr Arkhangelsky or his OMG companies, that

6 the information you had been given, for example, for

7 turnover, seemed to have gone from €500 million to

8 US $320 million, to $88 million? Did you ever think to

9 yourself: gosh, I wonder how these figures can be moving

10 around in this way? Did you ever have any sort of pause

11 for thought?

12 A. I have worked for a number of entrepreneurs like Vitaly

13 in my career, and they are all prone to exaggeration,

14 and, therefore, I probably made a note at some stage in

15 my little black book and put it in in the absence of any

16 other more compelling information, which slowly

17 manifested itself and enabled me to get the

18 $88.8 million of turnover into the IM in time.

19 Q. And if we could go, please, to paragraph 10. Could you

20 go to {C1/3/3}, please.

21 A. Yes, I am there.

22 Q. You say in paragraph 12:

23 «The Group had purchased land at Onega in 2005.

24 Since then major development works had been undertaken

25 with substantial investment …»

178 180
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 It is right, isn’t it, Mr Bromley-Martin, that you 1 My Lord, I am going to ask the witness about it but
2 were there reliant upon Dr Arkhangelsky or OMG for that 2 I see the time, I wonder if that would be a convenient
3 information: you didn’t carry out any independent 3 point for a break. I am conscious that the transcribers
4 verification of what, if any, development works had been 4 and shorthand writers have probably had a fairly
5 undertaken at Onega? 5 exacting afternoon.
6 A. Not exactly true because, as I say here, Vitaly asked me 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
7 if I would become project manager, because he said: 7 MR LORD: Thank you, my Lord.
8 you’ve clearly done this a lot before. So on one of my 8 (3.22 pm)
9 visits to Onega, I think I spent half or a complete day 9 (A short break)
10 there in absolutely spanking new facilities, beautifully 10 (3.30 pm)
11 tarmacked storage areas for the cars, and they showed me 11 MR LORD: My Lord, I trust that the copies of
12 how the system worked for customs clearance coming in 12 the spreadsheets, the summary and the assumptions for
13 from Gdansk, or wherever they — it wasn’t Gdansk where 13 the two different models which I have been taking
14 they come from, but anyway, Bremerhaven, et cetera, 14 witnesses to have got to your Lordship?
15 et cetera. 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, they have, thank you.
16 So whilst I may not have had a chance, because it 16 MR LORD: It is quite hard to print them off because it is
17 all came to a grinding halt before I had a chance to do 17 a spreadsheet, so on Magnum you have to click on the
18 so, I saw with my own eyes the extent of the 18 relevant cell or page.
19 redevelopment of Onega and it was considerable. In 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s helpful to have that, thank
20 marked contrast to Western Terminal, I should say. 20 you.
21 Q. Yes. If we go to {C1/3/8}, please, paragraph 41, you 21 MR LORD: So Mr Bromley-Martin —
22 explain that after finalising the IM in July 2008 you 22 A. Your Lordship, could I just — I don’t understand the
23 immediately contacted potential lenders in the public 23 etiquette in court, so if I am transgressing, please
24 and private sectors; do you see? 24 forgive me.
25 A. Mm hmm. 25 Just apropos something that was discussed this
181 183

1 Q. So can his Lordship take it that that July 2008

2 information memorandum I have asked you about, that that

3 document was sent out to all these potential lenders?

4 A. Exactly.

5 Q. And it was sent to them with a view to persuading them

6 to become interested in the Western Terminal project?

7 A. Not all of them — actually, in the end, if you refer to

8 the «Status of lenders discussions» they were contacted,

9 yes, but not all of them asked for the IM. For those

10 who signed NDAs and said they would like to take it to

11 the next stage were, indeed, sent the IM.

12 Q. I think in your witness statement you describe a status

13 of lender discussion document?

14 A. Report.

15 Q. That’s right, yes. I think, if I — sorry,

16 Mr Bromley-Martin, sorry to detain you, I just need to

17 find the …

18 Yes, it is paragraph 42, sorry about that, on

19 {C1/3/8}, so the next paragraph you explain that you:

20 «… recorded the banks’ attitudes and comments in a

21 document entitled ‘Status of Lenders Discussions’…»

22 A. Indeed.

23 Q. Can you see that? You say:

24 «It was updated once a week and sent to Vitaly and

25 his staff.»

1 morning, I know you have a summary of the port project

2 by the Oslo Marine Group, I have no idea where it is in

3 your papers, but I know you have it, and I would just

4 like to bring to the court’s attention the page on which

5 it describes Western Co and its ownership. If I could

6 read verbatim:

7 «Currently the terminal of Western Company includes

8 three companies: LLC Western Terminal, JSC Western

9 Company, LLC Western Production Company, each of them

10 owned by LLC Stividoyna Company Scandinavia with a fixed

11 price capital of 100 per cent.»

12 So I think that is where some of the confusion may

13 lie, in that the sale document you showed me this

14 morning said that one company owned Western and my

15 information is that three companies owned it.

16 My second point, sir, is that the paper that we

17 talked about earlier which I handed out, that was to

18 remind me in the heat of the battle, if I can call it,

19 as a thing. Mr Stroilov asked me if I could bring

20 copies, because he said if you use it in court you

21 should be able to produce it. So if I again have

22 transgressed court etiquette, please forgive me, it was

23 an aide-memoire to myself that has gone beyond its

24 intended purpose, if I could leave it like that.

25 MR LORD: Right, thank you, Mr Bromley-Martin.

182 184
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Could you please be shown {D84/1153/1} which is

2 a version of this status of lender document that you

3 have described.

4 A. Mm hmm.

5 Q. And it is dated 10 October 2008, which we see in the top

6 right corner.

7 Again, I will be corrected if I am wrong here, but

8 I think this is the last version of this document that

9 we have seen, I think, Mr Bromley-Martin. Do you think

10 it likely that this 10 October 2008 status of lender

11 document is either the last, or probably one of the last

12 versions of this document that was produced?

13 A. It’s probably one of the last, I suspect.

14 Q. Yes. I understand.

15 A. But, to be honest with you, I can’t be certain of that,

16 but definitely from the date it would indicate it was

17 one of the last, if not the last, version.

18 Q. I understand. You have said in your witness statement

19 that generally the feedback we received was it was

20 a good project and definitely fundable. I just want to

21 test that, if you don’t mind, by looking through some of

22 these entries in this status of lender document.

23 A. Mm hmm.

24 Q. You can see that you have the «lender» down the left

25 side, you have the «contact», then you have

1 on the assumptions, do you remember?

2 A. I would imagine that as there are — as you probably saw

3 from all the red numbers on that page — 500 or 600

4 assumptions in that model, and they may have been asking

5 for any of them. Presumably they would centre in on the

6 capex and the potential revenue stream.

7 Q. Does this document provide a reasonably accurate status

8 report on the degree of interest of prospective lenders

9 as at 10 October 2008?

10 A. On the basis it was our control document it is actually

11 100 per cent reflective of the discussions that my

12 colleagues and I had with these banks.

13 Q. So if we go to {D84/1153/2}, Standard Bank of South

14 Africa, halfway down, «Effectively on hold in current

15 market»?

16 A. Yes, right.

17 Q. Then if we go down to {D84/1153/3}.

18 A. 3 is the last page, is it?

19 Q. No, it’s not the last page.

20 A. «Potential Equity Providers». Right, yes.

21 Q. Then {D84/1153/4}, we have a series of banks:

22 «HSBC… not interested in Russia».

23 What does that signify, what does that mean?

24 A. HSBC weren’t interested in lending to Russia. CIS.

25 Q. I see. And that was true of ING as well?

185 187

1 «e-mail/phone», «meeting?» then you have «latest

2 position» on the right; can you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. So if you have IFC, as at 10 October 2008 IRC it looks

5 like they were concerned about leverage, is that right?

6 A. Exactly, yes.

7 Q. So did that mean that they thought that the OMG group

8 was over borrowed, would that be fair?

9 A. No, that’s not the way they put it to me. Basically, if

10 I can use the court expression, they wanted there to be

11 a little more skin in the game in the form of equity,

12 which clearly Vitaly wasn’t in a position to provide.

13 Q. But they were not positive at this stage, were they?

14 A. Yes. Well, they wouldn’t have come back and asked me,

15 or be worried about the leveraging if they weren’t

16 really interested in the project.

17 Q. Then Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, it says:

18 «Mtg — 10.9.08.»

19 It says:

20 «Now have model and asking questions on

21 assumptions.»

22 A. Yes, which is perfectly understanding procedure, yes.

23 You would be worried if they weren’t asked questions

24 about the assumptions.

25 Q. Yes, Mr Bromley-Martin, what questions would they have

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Then KBC:

3 «No in their sphere of activity.»

4 What does that mean?

5 A. They are more a hardware funder rather than

6 an infrastructure.

7 Q. Right, and quite a number of banks on that page seem to

8 be not interested or not covering Russia, would that be

9 right?

10 A. I would say that is probably fewer rejections than one

11 would normally have, actually.

12 Q. And down to Nordea Bank on that page, it says

13 «declined», 29 August, I think. What does:

14 «Too big for OMG»?

15 What does that mean?

16 A. They didn’t think they had the project management

17 capacity to build OMG — build, I beg your pardon,

18 Western Terminal.

19 Q. If we go, please, in your witness statement to {C1/3/8}.

20 A. Mm hmm.

21 Q. It’s right, isn’t it, that a number of lenders expressed

22 concerns about the model, didn’t they?

23 A. One did.

24 Q. Yes. And those concerns included, didn’t it, the

25 handling charge that was put in?

186 188
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. No.

2 Q. What were the concerns, then?

3 A. For some reason they didn’t like the way it was laid

4 out, because all the banks had their own way of doing

5 these, and also remember that BNP were trying to justify

6 their proposed retainer fee.

7 Q. Yes, but in paragraph 39 on {C1/3/7}, I think you

8 accepted earlier that in September 2008 you redid the

9 model, removing bulk cargoes and reducing the tariffs;

10 is that right?

11 A. Yes, because I was asked to flex the model. I mean,

12 that is standard practice when you are talking to

13 anybody, because what they want to know is what’s the

14 downside, what’s the downside risk for this, that you

15 can’t service a debt. So they would automatically —

16 there’s no inference to be taken from the fact they

17 asked me to do that.

18 Q. And if you go to {C1/3/8}, paragraph 43.

19 A. Mm hmm.

20 Q. You are talking about BNP Paribas, I think, in this

21 paragraph.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And I think you say in this paragraph that:

24 «BNP also queried a valuation of real estate owned

25 by the Group at Western, which had been undertaken by

1 report? They get a comfort from an internationally

2 recognised valuer —

3 A. I’m not quite sure if I’m allowed to use this expression

4 in the court, sir, but I call it CYA.

5 Q. What’s that?

6 A. «Cover your arse».

7 Q. I see.

8 A. That’s purely what it’s there for, because at the end of

9 the day, if they get a rocket from their boss for

10 getting a bad loan out, they can say: oh, well, KPMG

11 looked at it, or CBRE did the valuation, boss, and they

12 justify themselves that way.

13 Q. And when you say at the end of paragraph 43 the

14 following:

15 «I recall that we considered the valuation [that’s

16 the Lair one] was accurate, but suggested firmly to

17 Vitaly that the Group engage a British or European

18 company such as CBRE to value the assets, which would

19 have had more weight with BNP.»

20 Can you see that?

21 A. Well, that seems to be what I’ve just said, isn’t it?

22 Q. What was Dr Arkhangelsky’s reaction to your firm

23 suggestion?

24 A. I mean, in the sense that he was coming around to

25 the appointment of a PSC contractor, a project services

189 191

1 a Russian valuer called Lair … Lair had valued the

2 real estate at the terminal at RUB 4.8 billion (…

3 about US $160 million)…»

4 Do you see that?

5 A. I think the actual translation, I found the translation,

6 I probably did that myself, I found the English

7 translation which came out at 220 so I —

8 Q. And you say further on in that paragraph:

9 «BNP wanted to be able to rely on a valuation

10 produced by an internationally recognised valuer.»

11 A. I’ve mentioned that already this morning, yes.

12 Q. So should his Lordship take it that BNP Paribas, who

13 seemed to be the most interested bank of any, that they

14 seemed to be unprepared to rely upon the valuation of

15 Lair; would that be a fair thing to say?

16 A. I think you’ve got to understand how the banks work.

17 The notion of no one got sacked for buying an IBM holds

18 very true in the banks. That’s why the banks would have

19 wanted a western engineering contractor, a design

20 engineer, they wanted western companies they could rely

21 upon to do the valuation, western companies to do the

22 financial audit, et cetera, et cetera. That’s pretty

23 standard. Africa, India or Russia.

24 Q. That’s because they would have some concern, would they,

25 about the reliability of a non-international valued

1 contractor, and the appointment, he was definitely

2 coming around to that viewpoint and understood that BNP

3 wanted it, but of course, the situation never arose

4 because everything came to a standstill in mid-October.

5 Q. He never actually agreed to have an international valuer

6 value Western Terminal, did he?

7 A. My recollection, and I put it no stronger than that, is

8 that Keith and I — Keith Parker, who is the UK managing

9 director, and I agreed that this was essential and the

10 pair of us agreed that we would work on Vitaly to

11 convince him, but the opportunity never arose.

12 Q. I want to focus on BNP Paribas, please,

13 Mr Bromley-Martin. I want to trace their participation

14 in this project.

15 Could you be shown {D74/1074/5}, please? You can

16 see a letter from BNP Paribas to Dr Arkhangelsky and

17 Mr Parker.

18 A. Mm hmm.

19 Q. And Mr Macpherson, September 12, 2008; can you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And this was a letter of interest from BNP Paribas,

22 wasn’t it?

23 A. The first one we got, yes.

24 Q. Yes. And it set out, didn’t it, a number of the further

25 steps that BNP Paribas would insist upon having carried

190 192
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 out before they got into any kind of binding fundraising

2 position; isn’t that fair?

3 A. Well, this is a bog-standard template letter they send

4 out, so exactly, one would expect to get this letter.

5 Q. So if we go to the second page, {D74/1074/6}, we can see

6 they say this during a first phase:

7 «The following sections are intended to provide you

8 with the requirements of BNP Paribas (as

9 an international financing institution) in order to be

10 ultimately in a position to lend to the Project.»

11 Do you see that?

12 A. Mm hmm.

13 Q. Then it says:

14 «During a first phase… the risks related to the

15 Project will need to be reviewed… a financial model

16 developed… a term-sheet agreed and … a review of the

17 involvement of Multilaterals institutions and/or ECAs

18 conducted.»

19 A. Mm hmm.

20 Q. They are suggesting, aren’t they, they are going to want

21 risk analysis and due diligence to be done?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And that would be independent of OMG, wouldn’t it?

24 A. Exactly.

25 Q. And three up from the bottom, they want a financial

1 Q. And this was a formal proposal to act as structuring and

2 arranging bank.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Building on from their letter of interest.

5 A. Very few banks, even in the height of the 2007 bubble,

6 would have lent 300 million. It was increasingly

7 becoming standard practice to syndicate loans, and

8 that’s effectively — they were happy to put the

9 syndication together.

10 Q. And they said, three paragraphs up from the foot of

11 the page:

12 «We believe therefore that significant preliminary

13 works need to be carried out at this stage in order to

14 elaborate the most appropriate financing structure for

15 the Project.»

16 So as you understood it, BNP Paribas, as at the end

17 of September 2008, were telling you that significant

18 preliminary works would have to be carried out; is that

19 right?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Then they have paragraph (i):

22 «Structuring services offer».

23 They are offering to help structure the fundraising.

24 Over the page to page 2, you can pick up a number of

25 things that BNP Paribas are suggesting need to be done.

193 195

1 model to be run on the project.

2 A. Mm hmm.

3 Q. And, again, they would want that model to have been

4 verified or authenticated independently of OMG, wouldn’t

5 they?

6 A. Yes, we’re quite used to that, so someone like

7 Pricewaterhouse or E&Y would take my model and not quite

8 take it apart, but quiz me, go through it line by line

9 with —

10 Q. And possibly take it apart?

11 A. In the nicest possible way.

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. They may want to change some assumptions. I mean, it’s

14 quite usual to send them anything up to four or five

15 different scenarios, funding structures, capex, revenue

16 streams, everything else, so they can form their own

17 view of the fundability of the project, what gearing it

18 would stand.

19 Q. And if we go to {D74/1102/1}, please, there is a letter

20 of 25 September 2008, so a couple of weeks later, or

21 thereabouts.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. BNP Paribas write again to Mr Macpherson and to you,

24 I think, this time, Mr Bromley-Martin?

25 A. Yes.

1 In the second paragraph, you can see this:

2 «When appointed, we will start reviewing the

3 financial model prepared by Oxus and providing comments

4 to ensure that it answers lenders’ usual requirements.

5 On the basis of our preliminary review, the model may

6 need to be substantially amended and we would like to

7 discuss the most efficient process to do so with you.»

8 Mr Bromley-Martin, just listen to the question; can

9 you see that paragraph?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So BNP Paribas seem to be suggesting that following

12 a preliminary view, your model may need to be

13 substantially amended; now, did you have any reason to

14 understand or to appreciate what was meant by that? And

15 maybe you didn’t, maybe they didn’t tell you what they

16 meant, so tell his Lordship what you actually know

17 rather than your speculation, please?

18 A. A model is a model, it seeks to replicate reality to

19 a greater or lesser extent, and clearly they wanted it

20 to go into considerably more detail than the model we

21 had.

22 Q. But they say:

23 «On the basis of our preliminary review, the model

24 may need to be substantially amended.»

25 So can his Lordship take it that by this stage, your

194 196
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 model, one of your models, had actually gone to

2 BNP Paribas?

3 A. Yes, exactly.

4 Q. And that means the spreadsheet had gone, had it?

5 A. I’m almost certain it had by that stage, yes.

6 Q. And did they not tell you or did you not query with them

7 what were the substantial amendments they had in mind?

8 A. Not in so few words, no.

9 Q. So you can’t give any evidence to his Lordship as to

10 what amendments may have been intended by this paragraph

11 from BNP?

12 A. They weren’t querying the revenue stream or the P&L

13 account, they were really wanting to structure the debt

14 in a different way and, therefore, the model would have

15 to be changed. But the basic algorithms of multiplying

16 numbers of containers by the average income is clearly

17 a straightforward algorithm and the model is perfectly

18 successful in achieving a P&L, it was more the funding

19 structure they wanted to look at.

20 Q. Then halfway down the page they say this:

21 «We also suggest that the due diligence related to

22 the market be undertaken as a matter of priority. We

23 would therefore need to be advised by an independent

24 technical consultant.»

25 A. That’s perfectly normal. If you look, you have the EC

1 practice and nothing untoward could be read into that.

2 Q. And they wanted an independent technical consultant.

3 That would be independent of Oxus, would it?

4 A. Yes, exactly. Which would be why we wanted to appoint

5 Scott Wilson or Matt MacDonald or whomever, yes.

6 Q. And then they go on to say:

7 «The above activities will culminate in the fatal

8 flaw analysis and a detailed risk analysis of the

9 Project and related mitigation strategy as may be deemed

10 necessary in the context of raising a long term project

11 financing.»

12 Can you see that?

13 A. Yes, all standard practice.

14 Q. And it is right, isn’t it, that in the event, those

15 various checks were not carried out, were they? In

16 the event?

17 A. No, because we did — everything came to a grinding halt

18 shortly after we received this letter.

19 Q. So when you say in your witness statement in

20 paragraph 54 on {C1/3/11}, in the first paragraph, you

21 talk about BNP’s proposal.

22 A. Mm hmm.

23 Q. When you say in the third line:

24 «This was in line with market rates — another sign

25 that BNP regarded the project as easily fundable.»

197

1 Harris —

2 Q. Sorry, Mr Bromley-Martin, I wasn’t asking for you to

3 give a sort of speech, just look at the paragraph and

4 then if I may ask the paragraph, because I am trying to

5 finish today with you, but it is a bit touch and go at

6 the moment, all right.

7 Can you see the paragraph:

8 «We also suggest that the due diligence related to

9 the market be undertaken as a matter of priority. We

10 would therefore need to be advised by an independent

11 technical consultant.»

12 Can you see that paragraph?

13 A. Mm hmm.

14 Q. What they were saying there was they would want some

15 independent of OMG market due diligence to be undertaken

16 as a matter of priority, weren’t they?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. In other words, they were not going to rely, were they,

19 on — BNP Paribas were not going to rely upon the market

20 analysis that had been carried out so far by or on

21 behalf of OMG? They were going to do their own, weren’t

22 they?

23 A. Well, if you recall in the documents, there’s such

24 a market survey done by EC Harris on behalf of EBRD on

25 the Vyborg project, so that was absolutely standard

199

1 It’s not really a fair thing to say, is it, that BNP

2 regarded the project as easily fundable? They hadn’t

3 actually got to a stage where they could give you that

4 sort of assurance, had they, really?

5 They hadn’t carried out the various checks that they

6 were obviously going to do before they took the matter

7 out to the market to check on the fundability; that’s

8 right, isn’t it?

9 A. Sorry, I’m not quite sure of the question here.

10 Q. I’m just querying whether or not you have a basis for

11 saying BNP regarded the project as easily fundable when

12 I have just taken you to a letter that seemed to suggest

13 a number of checks being undertaken by way of

14 BNP Paribas before they agreed to take it out to

15 the market?

16 A. No bank will lend any money without those three or four

17 independent bits of work being done ever anywhere in

18 the world or anything else. That is completely and

19 utterly standard practice. It is not untoward at all,

20 not in the faintest. The fact that they only wanted

21 €25,000 a month meant that they reckoned it was a low

22 risk project and in line with market rates and therefore

23 there was nothing untoward there by the 25,000.

24 If they charged 100,000 then I would have been

25 worried because they clearly were worried they weren’t

198 200
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 going to succeed and they just wanted to be paid to do

2 some work, but at €25,000 a month, that was very much in

3 line with market rates and therefore they were clearly

4 confident they could put the syndication together.

5 That’s my point.

6 Q. If we look at their draft mandate letter at —

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can we have a quick look at

8 {D74/1102/1}, I’m so sorry. I think it is the second

9 page {D74/1102/2}.

10 Yes, Mr Bromley-Martin, in the last sentence before

11 the break at «Underwriting/arranging offer» it says:

12 «Furthermore, we will need to discuss the strategy

13 to approach both commercial banks and multi-lateral

14 institutions (or export credit agencies).»

15 I just wanted to ask about that because that gives

16 an impression that the size of the loan is going to mean

17 that on syndication they are going to have to go to

18 a broader spread, not only investment banks, commercial

19 banks and multilateral institutions or export credit

20 agencies, as if getting the syndication off the blocks

21 is not going to be an altogether straightforward

22 process; would you comment on that?

23 A. Rather the reverse, sir. At the time, these banks were

24 all putting together syndicated loans. They had

25 special — such was the level of work in the market that

1 Q. And I think in the event it probably wasn’t signed, was

2 it, the way things worked out?

3 A. No. Keith and I had considerable pressure on Vitaly to

4 agree to this and sign it but, as you can see, it

5 was October, and I think it was October 12 when we were

6 told to stop work, so we never got to that point.

7 Q. If we could go to the second page, please, {D75/1116/2},

8 in paragraph 1.4 of this letter can you see

9 «Arranging Option» set out there?

10 A. Mm hmm.

11 Q. Can you see the beginning of the second paragraph:

12 «For the avoidance of doubt, by accepting the

13 Sponsor’s appointment hereunder [so that’s BNP agreeing

14 to be appointed here] and in performing the Services,

15 BNP Paribas in no way explicitly or implicitly makes (or

16 otherwise represents that it will make) any commitment

17 or offer (or otherwise agrees) to invest in or to

18 provide financial resources to, the Project, the Sponsor

19 or any other party.»

20 Can you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. So it is right, isn’t it, that the most that BNP Paribas

23 had agreed as part of this interest that it had

24 expressed, was that it was prepared to act as structurer

25 and arranger, but it had not actually committed to

201 203

1 banks had special syndication loan departments to

2 concentrate on this work, so if Bank A had a deal one

3 week that B and C contributed to, Bank C might go back

4 to Bank A and say: right, we took a 50 million ticket

5 off you last week, you take a 50 million ticket for this

6 other project off us for next week, please. So it was

7 a pretty live market, the syndication loan market, at

8 that stage. So I don’t see that as anything untoward or

9 anything to be worried about, and something that would

10 be a matter of routine. Does that answer your question,

11 your Lordship?

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I fully understand that many of these

13 loans, if not most of these loans, were syndicated

14 loans, but I wondered whether the need for discussion

15 with regard to looking into the commercial banks and the

16 multi-lateral institutions or export credit agencies

17 signified that it would have to be a pretty broad

18 syndication, which might take a bit of time.

19 A. No, I think that is a wrong interpretation, sir.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

21 Sorry.

22 MR LORD: If we go to {D75/116/1}, that is a draft mandate

23 letter, I think from BNP Paribas to OMG. It was a draft

24 mandate, wasn’t it, for structuring services?

25 A. Yes.

1 provide any of its own money to this project; that’s

2 right, isn’t it?

3 A. Well, you wouldn’t expect it to at this stage.

4 Q. That wasn’t the question — that wasn’t quite the

5 question, Mr Bromley-Martin. Is it right that

6 BNP Paribas were making it plain here —

7 A. This is standard, boilerplate bank spiel that goes into

8 a letter like this. That is — this is in every offer

9 letter you ever see. It’s a —

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. So, again, you are trying — you are trying to cast

12 aspersions on BNP’s intentions where here the lawyers

13 have clearly got hold of it and written this clause in

14 here to exclude any misunderstanding, presumably. That

15 is a very standard paragraph in any letter of this kind.

16 Q. But BNP Paribas never got to a point where they had

17 contractually bound themselves to lend any money to

18 the Western Terminal project, had they?

19 A. That was in the hands of Vitaly. If Vitaly had signed

20 this letter and sent the cheque back, yes, they would

21 have done.

22 Q. Sorry. The question was: would it? But did it happen?

23 It didn’t ever happen, did it?

24 A. No, I’ve already explained to you it didn’t happen

25 because we were told to stop working the middle

202 204
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 of October.

2 Q. Could you be shown, please, {D98/1259/1}, which is

3 a letter, I think, from you to Dr Arkhangelsky,

4 27 November 2008; can you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you are trying to revive Dr Arkhangelsky’s interest

7 in this Western Terminal finance project, aren’t you?

8 A. Exactly.

9 Q. And you can see in the second paragraph you say this:

10 «Given this, our advice is promulgated by:

11 «1. The fact that, if OMG were to borrow

12 $300 million, using western finance would save OMG

13 roughly $50,000 per day in interest charges alone.»

14 Can you see that?

15 A. I can, I mentioned that this morning, if you remember.

16 Q. Yes. So, by my calculation — and I am sure you are

17 better at it than me — that’s about $17 million per

18 year in interest saving; is that right?

19 A. Something — probably a little bit more, actually. 175,

20 yes. 175, wouldn’t it be?

21 Q. How much per year?

22 A. 175. I think that’s right. Half of 364.

23 Q. I could be completely wrong, I may well be. Is that

24 50,000 per day, so that’s times 365, is it?

25 A. Mm hmm.

1 Then you say this:

2 «So what is the downside risk to you?»

3 Just trying to test that, Mr Bromley-Martin. You

4 have a situation where OMG could save potentially

5 US$18 million a year in interest charges, and the price

6 to pursue that refinancing is €25,000 per month. It’s

7 right, isn’t it, that Dr Arkhangelsky did not go ahead

8 with this project, notwithstanding those factors?

9 A. As I understand it, he didn’t have the 25,000 a month to

10 pay for it, or it wasn’t on his list of priorities to do

11 so.

12 Q. And might it also have been a factor that by that stage

13 it was appreciated that this financing initiative with

14 Western Terminal was going to involve a lot more

15 rigorous due diligence by lenders than perhaps had

16 happened to earlier fundraisings by OMG. In other

17 words, was there a bit of discussion with OMG at this

18 time, Mr Bromley-Martin, about the sort of rigorous

19 checks that were going to be applied to the material

20 that OMG had put out to the lenders? Was that a factor,

21 do you think, as well here?

22 A. I mean, we had many philosophical chats with Keith,

23 Vitaly and myself about this subject.

24 Q. Mm.

25 A. At the risk of taking up your time, if you sought to

205

1 Q. Maybe I am wrong. Perhaps somebody could do that

2 calculation. Sorry, I might be out by a serious factor.

3 It wouldn’t be the first time.

4 No, I think it’s about 18 million. Would that be

5 about …?

6 A. A bit more, yes.

7 Q. Right, it’s about $18 million. You were saying to

8 Dr Arkhangelsky: well, if OMG goes ahead with this

9 project finance with Western Terminal, you could save

10 $18 million per year in interest charges.

11 A. Based on the 20 or 22 per cent.

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the only commitment required from OMG to take up

15 this potential financing at that stage, the only

16 commitment required was to pay the BNP monthly retainer

17 of €25,000; that’s right, isn’t it?

18 A. Mm hmm.

19 Q. And if you go over the page to {D98/1259/2}, you can see

20 what you say in the third paragraph:

21 «Either route [you are looking at different routes

22 now for financing] we are looking at completing this

23 fundraising in 3Q09 at the earliest. But clearly any

24 delay in appointing the PSC contractor will delay that

25 closing, with each day costing $50,000.»

207

1 make a particular decision in the design stage which

2 cost $1, if you have to change that decision in

3 the construction sequence, it would probably cost you

4 $100.

5 So the philosophical issue I had with Vitaly, and

6 the reason why I was pressing, and we were pressing to

7 get him to appoint the PSC contractor, was in order to

8 define the project and in defining the project that you

9 could actually fund it a lot more easily, because not

10 only would there be a defined project, but also a

11 detailed cost estimate on which the Bank could rely.

12 Q. You see, Mr Bromley-Martin, I’m going to suggest to you

13 that with so much upside and so little downside, the

14 options really are either OMG really had reached the

15 end. If it couldn’t raise €25,000 per month to save

16 $18 million per year, it was really — that business was

17 finished, wasn’t it, Mr Bromley-Martin, really, in your

18 view?

19 A. The western project, or OMG?

20 Q. Well, any business. Any company or group of companies

21 that is told: well, you could save $18 million a year

22 but you have to pay €25,000 per month for another three,

23 six months —

24 A. Well, you are slightly — I was clearly using

25 a sledgehammer here, sort of thing. Clearly there were

206 208
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 other expenses involved because clearly we needed to get

2 all this due diligence work done. So in committing to

3 the $25,000 a month, he was also committing to paying

4 for all the due diligence work that needed to be done

5 with the independent auditor, the independent legal

6 adviser and the independent engineering design

7 consultant and the independent market survey.

8 So that would have been probably getting on for half

9 a million dollars worth of work that would have to go on

10 hand in glove with this BNP Paribas. I was gilding the

11 lily a little bit here in trying to get my point across

12 rather than suggesting that that was the only cost

13 involved.

14 Q. But you were struggling, weren’t you, to explain why

15 a business with these possible refinancing advantages,

16 wouldn’t be going ahead. It was puzzling to you, wasn’t

17 it, Mr Bromley-Martin?

18 A. It was very puzzling to me because I thought it was such

19 a phenomenally profitable project.

20 Q. And doesn’t that show that the business concerned, the

21 potential borrower, was in a phenomenally distressed

22 state that it couldn’t go ahead?

23 A. Forgive me, I thought that the issue here was the value

24 of Western, had it been possibly developed, rather than

25 the financial status of OMG.

1 initiatives.

2 So we were not involved directly with the KIT work;

3 merely we were kept abreast and asked for our comments

4 and how that might affect the other fundraising

5 activities.

6 Q. But taking it in stages, OMG as a group were

7 considering, or were working on, three separate

8 fundraising initiatives around about summer/autumn 2008,

9 weren’t they?

10 A. Probably more than that, but three, yes.

11 Q. At least three, Mr Bromley-Martin, weren’t they?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Western Terminal project, yes?

14 A. Mm hmm.

15 Q. KIT Finance LPNs; yes?

16 A. Mm hmm.

17 Q. And EBRD, Vyborg Port.

18 A. And there was also other — they were also talking about

19 raising finance for ships and also for Onega.

20 Q. And I think the first three that I described to you,

21 I think the total amount of finance being sought to

22 raise at that time was probably over US$500 million.

23 A. I think you — I can’t remember the —

24 Q. 300 for Western Terminal: €150 million for EBRD, and

25 US$150 million for KIT Finance; all right?

209 211

1 Q. I’m going to ask you about KIT Finance, please, now,

2 paragraph 62 of your witness statement, {C1/3/12}. You

3 give some evidence in this paragraph about the

4 KIT Finance loan participation note proposal, which was

5 being debated around August 2008. You say in

6 paragraph 62, you refer to the KIT Finance matter, and

7 then you say halfway down:

8 «Discussions with KIT followed as to how the two

9 financing projects would work in parallel, and with the

10 proposed EBRD financing too.»

11 Can you see that?

12 A. Indeed.

13 Q. So it is right, isn’t it, that in August 2008 you were

14 discussing the issue of how would a number of these OMG

15 financing initiatives, how would they work together? In

16 other words, you had the Western Terminal project

17 finance that you were doing, you had the KIT Finance

18 LPNs, and you had some proposed European Bank for

19 Reconstruction and Development financing, didn’t you?

20 There were three separate potential fundraisings

21 being —

22 A. Sorry, if I can explain it differently: you had the

23 funding that we were organising for the western project,

24 you had EBRD looking at Vyborg, and then KIT came in on

25 a different tangent to cut right across these other two

1 A. Yes. Those numbers ring a bell.

2 Q. So upwards of US$500 million.

3 A. But they were mutually exclusive, remember.

4 Q. We’re going to come to that.

5 Your witness statement slightly plays down your

6 awareness, or your involvement, in the other projects,

7 doesn’t it, apart from Western Terminal, would that be

8 fair?

9 A. Vyborg and KIT, you mean?

10 Q. Yes, and why is that?

11 A. Because, as I said in my witness statement, we were

12 asked to concentrate on Western.

13 Q. Could you look at {D66/1035.1/1}, please. I just want

14 to take you to a number of documents we have seen where

15 you appear to be involved in at least some of

16 the consideration of the other financing initiatives by

17 OMG. Do you have that document, Mr Bromley-Martin?

18 A. I have an e-mail from Keith on 21 August. Or am I

19 looking at the hard copy here?

20 Q. That’s all right, {D66/1035.1/1}.

21 A. I beg your pardon. No, I have a different thing on the

22 screen completely.

23 Q. That’s okay.

24 A. Halcro(?), a letter to Halcro?

25 Q. It is on the screen, yes.

210 212
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. I haven’t been given that in hard copy.

2 Q. Perhaps just look on the screen.

3 A. Right, okay. Sorry, yes.

4 Q. That’s all right. It is an e-mail of 21 August 2008

5 from Keith Parker. I think it is actually to people at

6 EBRD, isn’t it? Or maybe it is KIT Finance. Hang on,

7 I need to check.

8 A. From memory that was KIT. That was KIT, I’m sure.

9 Natalia I am pretty sure was KIT.

10 Q. Yes, it’s to KIT Finance. Sorry, yes, it is to all at

11 KIT Finance, my fault.

12 Can you see that you are copied in on the e-mail and

13 so is Dr Arkhangelsky; can you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And there is some text, obviously, in the e-mail, but

16 can you see that it appears to be sent on behalf of

17 Keith and Robin; can you see that?

18 A. Yes, because he and I shared our concerns about this

19 approach.

20 Q. So Mr Parker is sending an e-mail to KIT Finance and

21 he is sending it on behalf of himself and you, isn’t he?

22 A. Yes, exactly.

23 Q. So at least to that degree you were involved in

24 the KIT Finance debate, weren’t you?

25 A. Only in a negative sense, by which I mean they were

1 thought that whilst they were discussing a big loan to

2 a borrower, that borrower was also trying to get some

3 serious finance from other lenders? That tends to set

4 off alarm bells, doesn’t it, Mr Bromley-Martin?

5 A. Well, by the time they found out, of course, we hadn’t

6 furthered the discussions with BNP Paribas for the best

7 part of a month, it might have been six weeks. So

8 I think it was in late November, early December that BNP

9 became aware of these abortive efforts with KIT.

10 Q. And the reason that one lender wouldn’t like the fact

11 that the same borrower was trying to raise money

12 elsewhere is because there would be concern, wouldn’t

13 there — there would be a concern about whether that

14 borrower was actually trying to over borrow and there

15 would be issues about transparency, wouldn’t there, for

16 the lender: the first lender would want to know that it

17 had fully understood the borrower’s business and purpose

18 before it made its loan, and it would be worried if

19 there were other loans going on in the background?

20 I know it is a bit of a long point, but is that fair?

21 A. As I said, yes, they were mutually exclusive, these

22 loans.

23 Q. Yes, I understand. And if you look —

24 A. So if KIT had gone ahead, our work would have got

25 nowhere with BNP.

213 215

1 basically suggest — KIT were suggesting that there was

2 a Cypriot holding company set up which would own all the

3 major assets within the OMG group, and clearly that

4 would completely and utterly negate our discussions with

5 BNP Paribas if that was, indeed, the case, allowed to go

6 ahead.

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. So, basically, by this time we were getting a lot of

9 interest and the last thing I wanted to do was for

10 BNP Paribas or somebody to discover that there was

11 an alternative restructuring of the route going on to

12 the detriment of the fundraising that we were doing.

13 Q. Yes. So, in other words, if the Western Terminal banks

14 got wind of some other finance raising of the sort —

15 A. Which they did.

16 Q. — then that would be probably fatal for the

17 Western Terminal finance raising?

18 A. I think if you recall in the documentation we did in

19 fact get an e-mail from BNP saying: what’s going on,

20 because they had seen it in the IJ, International

21 Journal.

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. So, yes, it did cause us a considerable amount of

24 embarrassment, but nothing terminal.

25 Q. Lenders wouldn’t like it, would they, really, if they

1 Q. Yes. And if you look on this e-mail there were a series

2 of questions that were being identified by you and

3 Mr Parker.

4 A. Mm hmm.

5 Q. Number one, I think these were possible concerns for the

6 banks:

7 «Why is a Cyprus Holding Company needed? (It will

8 be viewed negatively by banks).»

9 Can you just confirm that that was a potentially

10 serious issue at the time for the fundraising by OMG?

11 A. Because effectively —

12 Q. No, can you confirm that it was a potentially serious

13 issue.

14 A. Absolutely.

15 Q. And an adverse issue for fundraising?

16 A. Adverse in the context of what we were doing, not

17 necessarily what KIT were proposing. KIT were our

18 competitors, effectively.

19 Q. And why would it be viewed negatively by banks?

20 A. Because they would see the assets being transferred to

21 a Cypriot company, and there —

22 Q. Right.

23 A. So, as I say — and they would have owned any

24 unencumbered assets and, therefore, it was — it would

25 have been seen very negatively.

214 216
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Q. And I think you actually did a note. You don’t refer to 1 Can you see that?
2 it in your witness statement, I think, but I think you 2 A. Mm hmm.
3 did a fuller note of these concerns. Would you be kind 3 Q. You see what you say afterwards:
4 enough, please, to go to {D67/1042/1} and, actually, if 4 «Oxus’ view of the situation …»
5 you have first {D67/1042.1/1} you can see that on 5 Can you see that? Can you just confirm that that
6 27 August 2008, so about a week after that last e-mail, 6 was your view of the situation?
7 Mr Parker sent an e-mail to Dr Arkhangelsky copied to 7 A. Sorry, where are you? I have lost you.
8 you «Comments on LPN», that’s the KIT Finance 8 Q. Halfway down the first page —
9 initiative, saying: 9 A. EBRD —
10 «Vitaly, I attach a note from Oxus regarding the 10 Q. — you say:
11 KIT/LPN.» 11 «… as with any commercial bank, will be very
12 Can you see that? 12 surprised to hear that $75 million is being raised to
13 A. Exactly, yes. 13 fund Vyborg, as the two ‘fundings’ will be running in
14 Q. «I have discussed this with Oxus and agree with their 14 parallel.»
15 comments. In essence, the LPN would cross over both the 15 Can you see that?
16 EBRD/Vyborg & Oxus/OMG Western projects. If we proceed 16 A. Yes. Yes.
17 with the LPN in September, then both the EBRD & Oxus 17 Q. And that would have been a surprise to a commercial
18 projects would most probably fail.» 18 bank, wouldn’t it?
19 Can you see that? 19 A. Totally.
20 A. Yes. 20 Q. Why would they have been surprised?
21 Q. Then I think the note that he is referring to there is 21 A. Because it was effectively pledging the same assets that
22 your note, and it is at {D67/1042/1}. 22 they thought that their loans would have.
23 Mr Bromley-Martin, if you would go to the second page 23 Q. Trying to sort of double-up on the security, really?
24 {D67/1042/2}, you can see what appear to be your 24 A. I don’t think it is doubling-up on the security.
25 initials and the date of 27 August 2008. 25 I think what Vitaly was trying to achieve here was hedge
217 219

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Can you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And can you confirm to his Lordship that that is a note

5 that you drafted for the benefit of OMG on or around

6 27 August 2008?

7 A. I did, indeed.

8 Q. And do you remember this note? Is it ringing some bells

9 with you?

10 A. To be honest, this is the first time I’ve seen it in

11 nearly eight years, but …

12 Q. And —

13 A. So if I may just quickly speed-read it?

14 Q. Yes. (Pause)

15 A. Yes. I’ve read it, yes.

16 Q. I think what you are doing there, Mr Bromley-Martin, is

17 you are expanding upon some of your concerns in relation

18 to three particular issues besetting the financing

19 initiatives, aren’t you?

20 A. Mm hmm.

21 Q. And you’ve said:

22 «The three major issues here are:

23 «1. Parallel funding for Vyborg with EBRD.

24 «2. Extent of the security being sought.

25 «3. Use of Cypriot company.»

1 all his bets and try several different funding routes at

2 the same time. Clearly as our interests lay in

3 completing Western, we were rather more interested in

4 him not torpedoing, if I can use that expression, our

5 efforts with BNP and the other banks to these guys at

6 KIT.

7 Q. And the second concern was the extent of the security

8 being sought, and you take that up in the second section

9 here. You say:

10 «The level of security, being sought by KIT, is, in

11 our view, excessive. There are two aspects to this:

12 «… the use of personal guarantees is most unusual

13 in this sort of deal.»

14 Can you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Then over the page you say:

17 «(b) In the current market, the level of security is

18 bound to be higher than hitherto, and we have concerns

19 as to whether the security for the proposed $300 million

20 funding, provided by the Western Terminal itself, will

21 be sufficient for lenders. While we are making every

22 effort to avoid this, other Group assets may have to be

23 pledged to meet a potential lender’s requirement.»

24 Can you see that?

25 A. Exactly, yes.

218 220
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Q. So can his Lordship take it that by the end of

2 August 2008, you had a concern that the security being

3 offered for Western Terminal, in other words the

4 terminal itself, was not going to be sufficient for

5 lenders to lend $300 million on the strength of it?

6 A. Yes, because as I mentioned this morning, we were

7 looking for additional equity to be able to improve that

8 situation, so we were looking at every eventuality to

9 make the loan a little more attractive, exactly.

10 Q. And if, in fact, there wasn’t any additional collateral

11 to be found in the OMG group, or none to speak of, that

12 would have been a further problem potentially to this

13 Western Terminal financing, wouldn’t it?

14 A. Only to the extent that Vitaly, in bringing some equity

15 into the equation, would have had to relinquish outright

16 control of the Western Terminal. He could have still

17 had a majority, but perhaps brought in 33 per cent of

18 equity capital instead of debt. So that would still

19 have worked.

20 Q. Then number 3, «Use of Cypriot Company». You see what

21 you say there?

22 A. I think any tax haven like that, a number of them suffer

23 from the same trouble.

24 Q. Did you understand what the rationale behind using a

25 Cypriot company in this way was? Why was that being

1 A. No, they did not.

2 Q. No. I want to ask you, please, about the OMG debt

3 schedule. It’s right, isn’t it, that as part of your

4 work on the Western Terminal project you wanted to know

5 about the level of debts and pledges and guarantees that

6 OMG companies had entered into, isn’t that right?

7 A. Mm hmm, indeed.

8 Q. That’s a yes, because it would obviously be relevant,

9 wouldn’t it, when you are presenting to banks to be able

10 to show them the level of borrowing by the OMG group,

11 wouldn’t it?

12 A. Exactly. I mean, apart from knowing the general

13 situation of one’s client, clearly one needed to know

14 what assets were unencumbered and, therefore, available

15 to be used as additional security for any lender.

16 Q. And if you go, please — could you go to {D74/1096.1/1}.

17 A. D74?

18 Q. Yes, {D74/1096.1/1}. No, my fault, can you go to

19 {D74/1104.1/1}. You can see that in September 2008 —

20 A. Hold on, sorry.

21 Q. That’s okay.

22 A. We are at sixes and sevens here.

23 Q. No, we are. {D74/1104.1/1}.

24 A. I have a passport.

25 Q. Oh dear. It means you can fly back to the Isle of Man

221

1 suggested?

2 A. It struck us as being extremely odd.

3 Q. Right. Then a bit further on down, second paragraph up

4 from the bottom, you say:

5 «Where a company uses a significant amount of debt,

6 it is custom and practice to have an agreement, often

7 referred to as an ‘intercreditor Deed’, detailing out

8 the priority of any potential claims that lenders may

9 have over a business, in the event of such a claim or

10 claims. It is a very complex document by its nature,

11 and can take weeks to put together.»

12 Then you recommend that Clyde & Co be asked to start

13 to work on that sort of document, don’t you?

14 A. Mm hmm.

15 Q. It’s right, isn’t it, that an intercreditor deed is

16 a sort of document — if you are a borrower that has

17 lots of different borrowings from different sources,

18 an intercreditor deed is a way of setting those out

19 transparently to show any particular lender where they

20 come in the pecking order. Would that be a fair

21 summary?

22 A. That’s a very good summary, yes.

23 Q. Thank you. It is right, isn’t it, that in the event OMG

24 or Dr Arkhangelsky did not go ahead and seek to

25 have an intercreditor deed drawn up?

223

1 then, I think that’s lucky, isn’t it. On screen,

2 {D74/1104.1/1}.

3 A. Shall we refer to the screen?

4 Q. Yes, why not.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Can you see on 19 September 2008 you sent an e-mail to

7 Mr Parker, and you said:

8 «Keith, got your message but have not rung you back

9 for reasons I will explain.»

10 Can you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. That’s a rather cryptic line, do you know what you meant

13 by that?

14 A. What?

15 «Got your message but have not rung you back for

16 reasons I will explain.»

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. Haven’t a clue —

19 Q. All right.

20 A. — to be honest with you.

21 Q. That’s all right. I wasn’t sure if there was any

22 particularly relevant factor there.

23 Do you see the next line:

24 «Do you have updated debt schedule for the Group?»

25 Can you see that at the foot of the page?

222 224
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 A. I was never terribly good at English. Yes.

2 Q. Then Mr Parker seems to reply 20 September 2008, I think

3 he forwards your e-mail within OMG, and I am not sure

4 you were actually privy to this, but it looks like it

5 has been forwarded with OMG and he says to

6 Mr Arkhangelsky and others:

7 «Can this schedule of debt be updated? Thanks.»

8 Can you see that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Can you see at the top of the page, it looks as though

11 again, I don’t think you were on this e-mail but it is

12 just background really, Daniil Dubitskiy,

13 25 September 2008, to Mr Parker, copied to

14 Dr Arkhangelsky, subject, forward of the debt schedule.

15 Attachment, «Oslo Marine Group Debt Portfolio as of Sep

16 2008.»

17 Mr Dubitskiy seems to have said this:

18 «Keith, please find attached the updated debt

19 portfolio. Please note that Norwood, Petroles and Soyuz

20 companies are not officially affiliated with OMG.»

21 Can you see that?

22 A. Mm hmm.

23 Q. So it looks as if round about that time

24 in September 2008 you had sought an updated debt

25 schedule for OMG and there had been some internal

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you were led to believe by OMG that those were all

3 debts of OMG companies as at September 25, 2008.

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. And you were led to believe that the guarantees that

6 were listed in the second to last column were all

7 guarantees that had been given or entered into by the

8 said guarantors as at 25 September 2008?

9 A. Well, I was only really concerned with the ones that

10 encumbered physical assets.

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. So I didn’t pay much attention to the others.

13 Q. But you had been led to believe by OMG that the debts

14 and guarantees that were set out in this schedule were

15 valid or were binding, that they were real debts and

16 guarantees of OMG companies or Dr Arkhangelsky?

17 A. I think I would be perjuring myself if I said that I had

18 100 per cent confidence in what’s written down on this

19 sheet.

20 Q. No, but you had no basis for thinking — OMG did not

21 give you to think that any of these debts or guarantees

22 were not real debts or guarantees of the particular

23 debtor or guarantor as set out in this schedule?

24 A. I was concerned that, if anything, this was

25 an understatement of their indebtedness.

225 227

1 attempt at OMG to address your request. That’s the

2 context in respect of which I want to take you to

3 the document that I did earlier, and I apologise for

4 taking you round the houses a bit. {D74/1096.1/1},

5 because it looks as if on 22 September 2008 — it’s

6 a bit hard to get the dates here. This seems to be

7 earlier, in fact?

8 A. I asked about three times. I think, from recollection,

9 I got three separate — February, August and September,

10 I think.

11 Q. I think that’s right, and you’ve been sent a debt

12 schedule, and I think if you go then, I think, the debt

13 schedule itself, I think is at {D74/1101/1}.

14 A. 1101?

15 Q. Yes, {D74/1101/1}. Can you see that? It can be blown

16 up a bit on the screen.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Does that look like a version of the debt schedule for

19 OMG that you would have got around about September 2008?

20 A. Indeed.

21 Q. Is that familiar to you?

22 A. It is absolutely, yes.

23 Q. And you were sent, weren’t you, by OMG in answer to your

24 request for information on what debts OMG group

25 companies had at that stage?

1 Q. So you had no doubt that these debts and guarantees,

2 that they were valid as at this time?

3 A. Let’s say, as you and I have discussed during the course

4 of today, the flow of financial information was

5 unreliable and, therefore, I would not like to be quoted

6 as saying that I have absolutely 100 per cent belief in

7 the listing of guarantors or anything else on this

8 sheet.

9 Q. But you were led to believe by OMG that this was

10 a schedule of OMG group debts, as at 25 September 2008?

11 A. Yes, but Daniil was a business development manager.

12 I noticed that this information never came from the

13 finance director.

14 Q. But it looks as if from an earlier e-mail it was copied

15 to Dr Arkhangelsky, though, wasn’t it?

16 A. Mm hmm.

17 Q. You have no reason, do you — nobody led you to think

18 in September 2008 that any of these guarantees that are

19 listed in this schedule, that any of those were not

20 actually actual guarantees? No one led you to believe

21 that, did they? No one said: actually, we filled the

22 column in but it wasn’t a guarantee. No one said that

23 to you, Mr Bromley-Martin, did they?

24 A. No, they didn’t, they certainly didn’t but on the other

25 hand they didn’t say —

226 228
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Q. Forget arguing the case for Dr Arkhangelsky,

2 Mr Bromley-Martin, and just think about the question.

3 Don’t try and argue the case and hold the line for him.

4 You asked for an OMG group debt schedule, didn’t you, in

5 September 2008; yes or no?

6 A. I did.

7 Q. You were sent the document we see at {D74/1101/1},

8 weren’t you?

9 A. I did, indeed, yes.

10 Q. And when you received this document, you were given to

11 understand that the debts set out in this debt portfolio

12 were actual debts of the said borrowers as at that date,

13 weren’t you?

14 A. That was the implication, yes.

15 Q. And you were also given to understand that the

16 guarantees set out in this schedule were actual

17 guarantees of the said guarantors as at that

18 date, September 25, 2008, weren’t you,

19 Mr Bromley-Martin?

20 A. To the extent that they were written on this sheet of

21 paper, yes. Because we never drilled down into the

22 facts.

23 MR LORD: Thank you, Mr Bromley-Martin.

24 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I do think I need a 10-minute break

25 to take instructions because obviously in our team the

1 for everyone’s convenience, so I would hope it won’t

2 take too long, but I need 10 minutes.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, your fate hangs in the balance,

4 Mr Bromley-Martin. If they feel they need more time in

5 order to hone their questions, I am afraid that means

6 another night in London for you. If, on the other hand,

7 they feel they can —

8 A. That’s no problem, sir.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

10 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 4.45. If you need longer, you must

12 let me know.

13 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I am grateful.

14 (4.35 pm)

15 (A short break)

16 (4.46 pm)

17 Housekeeping

18 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I know it is an unusual advantage we

19 are asking for and an inconvenience for everyone,

20 including our witness, I think given that the internet

21 connection was interrupted throughout the day, I think

22 we need to re-read the transcript, especially

23 Dr Arkhangelsky needs to re-read the transcript

24 overnight and consider our re-examination to take place

25 tomorrow morning. I don’t expect it will be longer than

229 231

1 person who understands a lot of the things discussed

2 today is Mr Arkhangelsky, and I’m concerned that of

3 course, it wasn’t going — the videolink wasn’t

4 operating terribly well, so I need to check he has

5 some — he has really managed to catch up with

6 everything. So I don’t think I’m having a massive

7 re-examination. I’m not sure about your Lordship’s

8 questions. I don’t expect I will take more than 10

9 minutes, but before that, I would need 10 minutes to

10 take instructions.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. So you are proposing that —

12 well, you are not proposing we go into tomorrow; you are

13 proposing that we should wait — that we rise for 10

14 minutes or so and then we conclude with the witness

15 today; is that right?

16 MR STROILOV: If that’s all right with your Lordship, yes.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you can do that, well and good.

18 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, subject to what I may discover,

19 if I am told there is a mass of questions which will

20 take another hour, that’s a different matter, but

21 I don’t anticipate that at the moment.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I can’t remember whether it was ever

23 envisaged that Mr Bromley-Martin might go into tomorrow.

24 MR STROILOV: It was envisaged. Of course, everyone would

25 want to try and avoid that for the witness’s sake, and

1 half an hour to be on the completely safe side, but

2 I think that’s what we would request.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Bromley-Martin, you can confirm

4 that that is doable by you?

5 A. Indeed, I was warned I might have to stay tomorrow so,

6 flight-wise, I am in good shape.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Mr Lord, it does slow things up

8 further, but I must say that I think it not unwise for

9 them to review the transcript.

10 MR LORD: That’s fine. My Lord, I wonder if it could be

11 made clear to Mr Bromley-Martin that he is not to

12 discuss the case with anybody overnight, absolutely

13 anybody.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Mr Bromley-Martin, for your

15 reassurance, it is the warning that is given to every

16 witness but it is nonetheless important that you must

17 not discuss this case at all with anybody. Enjoy

18 yourself, rather than going over all this.

19 MR LORD: And there must be no communication with him

20 either. There must be no communication at all, really.

21 He is in purdah, effectively. He can’t be e-mailed, he

22 can’t be contacted in any way. I am sure he understands

23 that.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know that by communication he

25 understands that it is active, passive, through the

230 232
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 airwaves, on the telephone, in any way, your enjoyment

2 is not to be impinged upon.

3 A. Message received and understood, your Lordship.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Now, timing, as I say, I warned

5 against falling into the habit, and yet I always

6 encourage us doing so. I am glad we did, in a way, as

7 the afternoon proceeded I was congratulating ourselves

8 on starting at 10.00 am but in the end it wasn’t quite

9 enough. What time do you wish to start tomorrow?

10 MR LORD: I would have said 10.00, my Lord, should be all

11 right.

12 MR STROILOV: My preference would be for 10.30 simply

13 because I also need time to prepare for Mr Sklyarevsky,

14 there is still quite a lot —

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What is the next one, Mr…

16 MR STROILOV: There is Mr Nazarov, who is here, and I don’t

17 think I copied my update on disclosure to your clerk.

18 (Handed).

19 I’m very grateful, that is the e-mail I sent to RPC

20 this morning, so perhaps if you read that just so that

21 your Lordship is aware.

22 I think Mr Lord has indicated some concerns that he

23 might want to ask some questions of — well, I will just

24 give way to Mr Lord on whatever he may want to say.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Do excuse us. This is nothing

1 morning, which probably wouldn’t take into account this

2 material — it may or may not — and then if, in fact,

3 further questions would have arisen as a result of

4 material that was disclosed only today, or maybe even

5 not yet disclosed but to be disclosed, I would reserve

6 my position in case I needed to have asked some

7 questions of Mr Nazarov, and the court needed to revisit

8 that cross-examination.

9 So I wasn’t proposing to —

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How and when?

11 MR LORD: I don’t know, my Lord. I am the innocent party

12 here. I have a witness coming to cross-examine. I have

13 done it on one basis. I am getting extra disclosure.

14 I don’t know what’s in there.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, I quite — I’m asking, in a sense,

16 a despairing question.

17 MR LORD: Well, my Lord, that’s why ordinarily I would say

18 this witness should be stood out, it is not really

19 acceptable, which it isn’t, to have, after all this

20 preparation, to have this disclosure coming in in this

21 way from what is Mr Arkhangelsky’s lawyer. It should

22 have happened a long time ago and we shouldn’t be taken

23 by surprise by it.

24 But I was proposing, as a pragmatic solution, to do

25 the best I could on the material I have, as best I can,

233 235

1 you need concern yourself about.

2 MR LORD: Your Lordship will know that we got some

3 disclosure on Sunday evening from Mr Nazarov’s files via

4 Mr Stroilov. Yesterday we got some more disclosure, as

5 set out in this e-mail — actually this morning, sorry,

6 we got this disclosure. We haven’t yet had a chance to

7 look through it. I haven’t had a chance to look through

8 it.

9 I think Mr Stroilov is saying in this e-mail, and if

10 not, he confirmed to me today, that whilst there may be

11 no more documents to disclose from within the categories

12 of the court order, there may be some more documents

13 that would fall within the standard disclosure, and

14 there is a suggestion here that some documents within

15 Mr Nazarov’s archive may be privileged and/or

16 irrelevant, and Mr Stroilov is going to have to review

17 the files.

18 So it appears to be the case that this witness may

19 have — there may be some more relevant documents to

20 come from this source. Obviously I haven’t had a chance

21 to absorb or read the material and the process of

22 disclosure doesn’t seem to have finished. So I am in

23 your Lordship’s hands, but what I was proposing to do

24 was to cross-examine Mr Nazarov as best I could on the

25 material that I have been able to review up to tomorrow

1 but if there were other documents I haven’t had time to

2 consider and take instruction on, then I would have to

3 reserve my position on that, but that was going to be my

4 suggestion, and then Mr Nazarov would have been

5 cross-examined tomorrow morning on that basis.

6 But if Mr Stroilov says that there could be more

7 documents coming and I won’t have those by even

8 tomorrow, then your Lordship may think that that puts

9 a different complexion on things.

10 I mean, really, my Lord, the explanation really is

11 a matter for Mr Nazarov. He is in court at the back,

12 and one of the points your Lordship raised earlier this

13 week was whether he should come and confirm today what

14 is going on, really, if there are more documents and

15 what’s happening. I don’t really know what the position

16 is.

17 But that was my intention: to try to cross-examine

18 him tomorrow on the material that I have been able to

19 address up to last Sunday, the Sunday just gone, to

20 reserve my position on this further material that’s come

21 today, whether it needs to be translated, I have to read

22 it, take instructions and so on, it is really very, very

23 late, but it may be that there isn’t really much in this

24 further material, it may be that no questions arise or

25 that matters speak for themselves or it can be done by

234 236
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 videolink later if necessary and there are other ways, 1 I remember correctly, the problem is, the fault is ours,
2 and I am not anxious at all to delay the timetable, hold 2 really. At the time we were given standard disclosure
3 up Mr Sklyarevsky, or in any way, hold things up. 3 in 2013, we simply didn’t think of Mr Nazarov as
4 So I would rather try and do the best I can but on 4 a custodian, and that’s clear in our disclosure
5 the basis that if something important emerges from the 5 statement that —
6 woodwork, your Lordship would be receptive to 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Leave that for the moment, but you
7 considering how that might be addressed. 7 have a whole cohort of documents in addition to
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Stroilov, what is the position: 8 the documents of the specific disclosure which you know
9 Mr Nazarov appears to have given you an assurance on 9 of but have not yet reviewed; is that right?
10 a basis which is unclear, given the performance thus 10 MR STROILOV: Exactly, my Lord, yes.
11 far, that the specific disclosure order that I made 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you need to review those for
12 in September or October last year has been complied 12 relevance and for privilege?
13 with. 13 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, yes.
14 MR STROILOV: Yes. 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And when will you have done that?
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Have you satisfied yourself of that? 15 MR STROILOV: That’s the difficulty, because obviously I’m
16 MR STROILOV: Yes, well — 16 going to work very close to 24/7 on cross-examinations.
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So far as you are able? 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: When will you be able to do that?
18 MR STROILOV: — it has been complied with today not in 18 MR STROILOV: Well, realistically, my Lord, I am afraid
19 a very satisfactory way, as you have seen we haven’t 19 I think it will be during the Easter vacations, but not
20 really disclosed it by list. Literally I did it as soon 20 sooner. Obviously it would have been a task — a very
21 as we could, I simply e-mailed through the documents. 21 urgent task for one of the people sitting behind me, but
22 As far as standard disclosure is concerned, I do 22 there is no one.
23 accept that we are at fault and it is an unsatisfactory 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: My sympathy with you is modified by
24 position. 24 the fact that I have been drilling on about documents
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am going to come to fault later, 25 from Mr Nazarov for months and I have repeated the
237 239

1 I just want to know what the position is. You have

2 checked, so far as you can tell, and on what you have

3 been told by Mr Nazarov, that all documents within the

4 specific categories of disclosure which I ordered

5 in September/October of last year have been provided?

6 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Subject to any claim for privilege?

8 MR STROILOV: No, it was based on a waiver of privilege in

9 the first place.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m sorry, you are quite right, I’m

11 sorry, yes.

12 MR STROILOV: On the basis of the information I have, it has

13 been complied with.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you were provided with the

15 documents on Sunday; is that right?

16 MR STROILOV: I have been provided with some documents on

17 Sunday. There was a logistical problem. He was able to

18 scan only a limited amount of documents —

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, so when he arrived yesterday he

20 brought some more documents.

21 MR STROILOV: Indeed, and he brought, really, a hard copy

22 file which I have with me which I caused to be scanned

23 immediately and then disclosed by e-mail.

24 But apart from that, during his searches for,

25 really, some of the other categories, and — well, if

1 warnings on pretty much every occasion that his name has

2 been mentioned. So whereas if it came as a bolt out of

3 the blue or some exceptional event, I might be

4 sympathetic, I have very, very little sympathy, if any,

5 in the particular circumstances. I don’t know whether

6 Mr Nazarov speaks English or is having this translated,

7 but the fact is that it is a very dismal situation,

8 especially having regard to the fact that he is

9 a lawyer, he was Dr Arkhangelsky’s lawyer, and his

10 performance may tell against his client. It is a very

11 dismal situation.

12 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I do accept the criticism, and I am

13 not really asking for sympathy, I am asking for some

14 consideration of what is realistic.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: When can Mr Nazarov come back if he is

16 required to do so?

17 MR STROILOV: I do hope so, and we would certainly do what

18 we can to cause him to call back.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will ask Mr Lord to think of a time

20 when, assuming that you would be able to do these, as

21 you say, after Easter, when he would come back, Mr Lord

22 and his team having had a chance to review those

23 documents.

24 Come back he will have to in order to speak to any

25 documents which he failed to produce and on which

238 240
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 2, 2016 Day 20

1 Mr Lord has questions. 1 INDEX
2 MR STROILOV: I accept that, my Lord. 2 PAGE
3 I think — I still think that Mr Lord’s suggestion, 3 MR ROBIN BROMLEY-MARTIN (Sworn) ………………….1
4 I would be in favour of it, that he does cross-examine 4 Examination-in-chief by MR STROILOV ………..1
5 on what he — 5 Cross-examination by MR LORD ………………2
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are quite right. I didn’t make 6 Housekeeping …………………………………231
7 myself clear. I am going to grab Mr Lord’s suggestion 7
8 that we carry on with the evidence of Mr Nazarov 8
9 tomorrow, and when I say «grab», that is because I am 9
10 grateful to Mr Lord for not insisting on having the 10
11 entire pack of cards before him when he cross-examines. 11
12 MR STROILOV: So am I. 12
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But I want there to be no doubt, and 13
14 I want you to get Mr Nazarov’s assurance, once you have 14
15 made a time, that there will be no problem in his 15
16 returning, because if it’s not necessary, well good, but 16
17 if it is necessary, I would not like the situation where 17
18 Mr Lord has proceeded on a certain basis and had 18
19 evidence given on that basis, and for there to be other 19
20 documents lurking which might have shed light and for 20
21 the witness not to be available for whatever reason. 21
22 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord. 22
23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. 23
24 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful. 24
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Good. Well, back to the 10.00 or 25
241 243
1 10.30. You wish further time to prepare, do you?
2 MR STROILOV: I do, I am afraid. Obviously I know it is my
3 fault that Mr Bromley-Martin wasn’t here yesterday, but
4 really when I agreed to move Mr Sklyarevsky to Thursday,
5 I assumed that today would be the reading day, so I am
6 in a bit of a …
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will give you until 10.30 am, but we
8 will move forward speedily, I hope. I am so sorry you
9 have to stay. 10.30 am tomorrow.
10 (5.00 pm)
11 (The court adjourned until 10.30 am on
12 Thursday, 3 March 2016)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
242
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

244

March 2, 2016 Day 20

A

abandoned (1) 104:14 ability (1) 170:10 able (26) 16:13 60:4,6

63:11 77:23 93:25 101:5 106:18 107:10 111:14 134:20 140:15 141:22 166:18 171:1 180:2 184:21 190:9 221:7 223:9 234:25 236:18 237:17 238:17 239:17 240:20

abortive (1) 215:9 abouts (1) 150:22 abreast (1) 211:3 absence (1) 180:15 absolute (1) 78:7 absolutely (16) 67:8

112:8 124:4 133:14 143:16 151:20 152:23,23 174:21 176:8 181:10 198:25 216:14 226:22 228:6 232:12

absorb (2) 31:23 234:21

absurdly (1) 86:10 accept (7) 56:5 97:15

125:11 145:18 237:23 240:12 241:2

acceptable (3) 37:6

160:15 235:19

accepted (3) 15:19 136:22 189:8 accepting (1) 203:12

access (1) 164:15 accord (1) 13:12 accords (1) 26:4 account (16) 4:3 32:6

36:24 111:7 134:13 135:8,22,25 159:11 159:11,18 160:17 160:18 167:22 197:13 235:1

accountant (1) 14:23 accountants (1)

109:24 accounting (3) 15:19

109:1 134:19 accounts (34) 15:3,8

15:13,20,23 16:1,5 16:8,12,14,20 18:21 19:1,3,9,13 20:4,10 21:15,18 21:19 23:2,8,9 24:6 26:10 36:24 37:24 101:1 109:22 160:17 178:22,24 179:13

accrue (1) 98:10 accuracy (2) 148:16

177:8 accurate (6) 16:11

19:18 33:16 157:18 187:7 191:16

achievable (2) 66:3

72:23

achieve (2) 127:16 219:25

achieved (1) 170:24 achieving (1) 197:18 acknowledged (1)

132:22

acquire (7) 3:20 4:18

142:17 143:2,18 142:2 160:1 183:5 America (1) 113:10 64:12 70:7 79:23 70:10,24 88:17 145:10,21 149:8
145:15 148:19 233:7 American (2) 71:19 132:8 226:3 112:5 139:24 150:6 151:8 156:7
acquired (21) 7:2,4,11 agencies (3) 201:14 170:5 apologised (1) 126:10 141:22 144:14 156:10,11 157:1
8:3,8 11:9,13 12:2 201:20 202:16 amortisation (2) apparent (1) 172:15 146:13 150:11 161:7
12:10 18:9,17 ago (18) 21:4,9 24:23 108:4 110:3 apparently (1) 131:16 163:18 172:20 asset-backing (1)
20:19 25:12 27:2 26:16 28:18 76:17 amount (16) 3:20 appear (7) 14:19 173:8,12 177:1 150:4
45:25 46:12 53:14 84:6 85:24 86:19 4:18 41:5 44:10 37:14 138:15 180:5 181:2 192:16 assets (12) 95:7 108:8
65:4 143:18 146:7 89:10 91:9 120:1 62:1 69:2 73:23 178:10,17 212:15 205:3 206:8 207:7 133:11 145:25
147:16 122:1,15 123:14 74:5 100:5,6 105:1 217:24 213:13 217:7 191:18 214:3
acquisition (29) 3:2 138:25 148:20 109:15 211:21 appeared (4) 16:6,7 222:24 225:6,14 216:20,24 219:21
6:21 8:24 9:2 13:16 235:22 214:23 222:5 29:12 116:16 227:16 228:15 220:22 223:14
14:16 17:22 18:1 agree (37) 3:2,15 4:10 238:18 appearing (1) 81:7 229:1 230:2 231:23 227:10
20:12 25:23 26:20 13:17 24:5 26:19 analysed (2) 85:14 appears (8) 10:10 Arkhangelsky’s (10) assist (5) 10:9 39:20
27:1,6,7,22 28:20 26:25 27:5 33:19 86:3 28:21 36:19 128:22 10:18,19 11:2 42:16 127:8,24
49:25 65:7 143:9 36:11 38:25 39:6 analysis (17) 15:10 129:13 213:16 13:13 26:5 30:13 assisted (1) 43:4
144:8 145:9,17 41:21 46:13 49:18 61:15 62:9,10 234:18 237:9 191:22 205:6 associated (4) 34:12
146:13 147:23 55:10,15 60:15 67:15 78:5 87:17 apples (2) 108:22 235:21 240:9 41:9 117:1 147:7
148:1,11 149:21 96:10 108:19 91:5 106:19 107:22 114:20 Armageddon (1) association (1) 117:6
161:6 175:23 111:25 121:2,7 107:23 125:16 applied (2) 20:11 153:2 assume (11) 59:3
acreage (1) 3:9 135:13 136:10 134:10 193:21 207:19 arose (2) 192:3,11 94:13 105:11
act (3) 33:10 195:1 137:4,24 150:13 198:20 199:8,8 apply (1) 90:5 arrange (1) 133:17 162:15 165:1
203:24 151:11 155:19 and/or (2) 193:17 appoint (2) 199:4 arrangement (2) 166:23 167:1,5,7,9
active (1) 232:25 158:11 164:22 234:15 208:7 173:15,25 167:9
activities (2) 199:7 165:2 166:19 animals (1) 153:18 appointed (2) 196:2 arrangements (1) assumed (3) 24:20
211:5 167:24 203:4 annual (1) 99:4 203:14 173:11 61:9 242:5
activity (1) 188:3 217:14 annum (30) 66:5 appointing (1) 206:24 arranger (1) 203:25 assuming (7) 14:13
actual (10) 8:24 16:1 agreed (11) 63:15 69:15 71:21,22 appointment (3) arranging (2) 195:2 79:5 101:24 102:2
44:5 103:5 105:9 121:14 142:4 72:20 74:22 75:5 191:25 192:1 203:9 104:9 165:1 240:20
130:20 190:5 159:19 192:5,9,10 76:19 77:1 78:4,16 203:13 arrive (1) 103:20 assumption (1)
228:20 229:12,16 193:16 200:14 80:13 81:5,16,17 appreciably (1) arrived (2) 37:24 126:14
acute (1) 120:25 203:23 242:4 82:5 83:23 84:2,8 123:15 238:19 assumptions (17)
add (3) 49:25 90:18 agreeing (1) 203:13 85:8 86:2,18,24 appreciate (3) 23:22 arse (1) 191:6 33:18 67:9,13
121:10 agreement (8) 12:15 87:1,12 89:7 94:14 161:20 196:14 as-developed (1) 118:25 119:11,12
add-ons (1) 127:16 13:22 34:19 37:21 94:17 95:20 104:12 appreciated (3) 25:3 98:25 122:20 125:15
added (2) 62:2 81:2 41:9 98:9 177:15 answer (50) 1:17 10:8 136:24 207:13 as-projected (1) 104:5 133:18 168:2,7
addition (2) 118:18 222:6 27:12 29:23 42:7 appreciation (1) ascent (1) 173:4 183:12 186:21,24
239:7 agreements (2) 41:8 42:10 49:18 53:2 110:14 ascertain (1) 148:16 187:1,4 194:13
additional (7) 50:6,11 164:13 62:3,18 69:17 approach (5) 121:25 ascertained (3) 123:7 assurance (3) 200:4
121:10 141:11 agrees (1) 203:17 82:11 85:16,19 129:17 132:23 166:9 167:25 237:9 241:14
221:7,10 223:15 Ah (1) 79:19 86:6,7 91:8,24 201:13 213:19 aside (1) 166:23 assured (1) 163:2
address (5) 13:20 ahead (11) 34:15 97:15,22 105:17,18 approached (3) 38:7 asked (36) 14:4,6 28:7 attach (2) 131:18
104:22 127:21 40:25 60:13 169:19 107:15 115:8 116:7 38:18 78:8 28:10 29:12 30:17 217:10
226:1 236:19 206:8 207:7 209:16 121:22 124:13 approaches (1) 3:12 30:19 39:23 49:14 attached (1) 225:18
addressed (3) 104:23 209:22 214:6 127:4,6,19 129:18 appropriate (5) 66:8 68:3 125:4,8,17,20 Attachment (1)
119:21 237:7 215:24 222:24 130:7,12 136:4 116:4 120:9 130:18 127:4 130:4 137:21 225:15
adequately (1) 129:1 aid (2) 11:13 130:13 138:25 139:4,24 195:14 141:17 147:8 148:4 attempt (3) 129:14
adjacent (1) 58:6 aide-memoire (4) 151:24 152:5 approval (1) 60:8 163:20 175:22 155:19 226:1
adjourned (1) 242:11 88:10 131:7,7 155:18 156:3 approvals (1) 59:18 181:6 182:2,9 attend (1) 172:25
adjournment (5) 184:23 162:22 165:11 approve (1) 59:13 184:19 186:14,23 attention (2) 184:4
63:12 73:8 128:9 aiming (1) 4:5 166:12,13 167:15 approving (1) 38:6 189:11,17 211:3 227:12
128:13,17 airwaves (1) 233:1 176:3,7 202:10 approximate (1) 212:12 222:12 attitude (2) 70:13
adjudicate (1) 127:8 alarm (1) 215:4 226:23 110:25 226:8 229:4 235:6 128:5
adjust (1) 37:15 albeit (1) 169:19 answered (3) 42:19 approximately (3) asking (31) 5:1 8:13 attitudes (1) 182:20
adjustment (2) 72:2,4 algorithm (1) 197:17 149:24 152:6 11:22 12:3 65:14 21:24 24:23 26:14 attractive (1) 221:9
admit (2) 9:4 147:13 algorithms (1) 197:15 answering (4) 34:16 April (1) 173:23 26:25 33:12 69:25 audit (1) 190:22
admitted (2) 128:21 alia (1) 159:10 105:16 121:23 apropos (1) 183:25 82:4 86:4 95:15 auditor (1) 209:5
129:10 alleged (1) 40:18 165:12 archive (1) 234:15 97:20 99:9 102:8 auditors (1) 21:17
advance (2) 42:2 allegedly (2) 8:8 answers (10) 9:8,16 area (1) 48:19 104:11,22 110:19 August (11) 6:14
128:4 166:24 30:13 32:21 49:21 areas (2) 76:12 181:11 116:2 121:25 188:13 210:5,13
advantage (1) 231:18 allow (2) 36:22 130:17 175:5,8,10 arguable (1) 110:1 124:18 149:15 212:18 213:4 217:6
advantages (1) 209:15 141:12 196:4 argue (4) 67:23 163:21 171:3 179:5 217:25 218:6 221:2
adverse (2) 216:15,16 allowance (3) 107:13 anticipate (1) 230:21 117:19 139:23 186:20 187:4 198:2 226:9
advice (4) 34:18 35:7 108:6,13 anticipated (1) 130:6 229:3 231:19 235:15 authentic (1) 14:13
35:13 205:10 allowances (1) 110:4 anticipation (1) 130:4 arguing (4) 4:11 39:13 240:13,13 authenticated (1)
advised (2) 197:23 allowed (3) 129:23 Antwerp (1) 93:4 55:5 229:1 aspect (2) 98:19 194:4
198:10 191:3 214:5 anxious (1) 237:2 argument (3) 101:4 103:25 authorities (1) 41:10
adviser (1) 209:6 allowing (1) 95:5 anybody (9) 19:7 127:7 166:13 aspects (4) 44:2 automatically (1)
aerial (2) 51:13,15 allows (1) 128:24 41:17 43:1 152:20 argument’s (1) 95:19 100:19 126:21 189:15
affect (1) 211:4 alongside (1) 65:10 163:14 189:13 argumentative (1) 220:11 autumn (1) 164:20
affiliated (1) 225:20 alter (1) 106:18 232:12,13,17 125:3 aspersions (1) 204:12 available (7) 15:13
afloat (1) 134:21 altered (1) 106:2 anyway (3) 63:3 70:22 arisen (1) 235:3 assessing (1) 60:18 16:9 19:10 76:20
afraid (10) 30:25 31:1 alternative (2) 131:19 181:14 Arkhangelsky (54) assessment (2) 8:11 179:2 223:14
40:10 49:10 101:15 214:11 apart (9) 47:17 84:10 4:24 8:21 12:1 76:25 241:21
129:25 177:4 231:5 altogether (1) 201:21 91:23 148:3 194:8 27:24 28:6,17,25 asset (31) 3:13,15 4:6 availed (1) 66:22
239:18 242:2 amend (1) 100:7 194:10 212:7 29:3,6,12 30:16,23 4:8,18 39:20,24 average (13) 66:4
Africa (6) 32:7 117:3,8 amended (4) 67:9 223:12 238:24 31:13 33:20 34:9 41:17,18,25 42:5 71:17 90:11 93:14
117:16 187:14 196:6,13,24 apocalyptical (1) 34:21 36:9 39:1 42:13,14,18 43:10 93:17,21 115:21,22
190:23 amendments (2) 161:14 60:3 63:23 64:11 50:10 132:24 137:6 118:1,4,20 121:3
afternoon (5) 104:8 197:7,10 apologise (6) 53:6 64:14 66:13 70:8 143:9,10 144:10 197:16

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

245

March 2, 2016 Day 20

averaged (2) 118:6,6 avoid (3) 42:25
220:22 230:25 avoidance (1) 203:12 aware (9) 4:24 8:24 34:8 42:14 66:22

135:1 139:3 215:9 233:21

awareness (1) 212:6

B

b (3) 69:8 202:3 220:17
back (55) 11:22 16:4 21:16,24 22:5 23:8 24:22 34:6 41:22 45:10 50:7 54:10 64:11,19 69:24 84:17 86:13 88:2 103:16,16 106:22 106:23 112:11 113:18 114:12 115:8 116:2 117:20 118:15,16 127:25 133:16 142:24 147:11 148:9 160:8 160:25 164:22 171:1,3 173:15 175:4,18 186:14 202:3 204:20 223:25 224:8,15 236:11 240:15,18 240:21,24 241:25

backed (4) 95:6 145:23,25 158:18

background (2)

215:19 225:12 backward (1) 84:7 backwards (1) 86:23 bad (1) 191:10 badly (1) 148:21 balance (11) 4:1 32:6

36:24 37:2,25 43:15 143:9 144:9 159:11,18 231:3

bank (39) 3:12,14 7:22 11:14 37:7,19 37:23 38:12 41:23 107:18 125:21 149:5,17 153:1,5 153:10 155:5 156:22 157:5,5 159:20,23 164:5,23 166:5 172:10 187:13 188:12 190:13 195:2 200:16 202:2,3,4 204:7 208:11 210:18 219:11,18

bank’s (2) 3:21 8:11 banker (1) 153:15 bankers (4) 40:9

152:11 157:12 161:17

banking (2) 152:21 186:17

banks (65) 2:21,22 4:2 6:7,11,13,18 16:7 17:14,16 18:24 30:17,18 31:15 36:22 38:7,18 40:5 98:9 109:5 124:22 125:12 126:9 134:25 137:25 138:23 139:3,20,21 140:3,6,7,8,8,16 148:10 153:22 156:21,25 157:9,14

160:15 165:3 98:22 103:15 136:25 34:8,22 35:8,15
168:17 172:9 berths (5) 65:25 74:15 137:5 140:12 36:16 37:18 39:12
187:12,21 188:7 75:2 76:6,21 144:25 148:18 40:13,17 41:15
189:4 190:16,18,18 besetting (1) 218:18 149:10 151:10 43:17 44:1 47:25
195:5 201:13,18,19 best (11) 2:5,7 41:11 152:2 155:11 164:5 48:13,15,24 49:15
201:23 202:1,15 104:16 122:3 165:5,6 186:8 51:18 52:5 53:1,19
214:13 216:6,8,19 139:25 215:6 borrower (17) 4:18 54:10 56:4 58:17
220:5 223:9 234:24 235:25,25 155:7 156:19 157:7 63:14 64:15 66:6
banks’ (1) 182:20 237:4 157:10 165:4,4,16 67:22 68:16 71:9
barges (1) 115:1 bets (1) 220:1 166:16,16,17 73:10,14 75:15
barrier (1) 98:21 better (9) 5:14 37:4 209:21 215:2,2,11 78:1,12,18 79:24
base (1) 111:18 63:5 71:1 112:24 215:14 222:16 83:17 84:12,17
based (12) 16:10 128:7 132:22 borrower’s (1) 215:17 85:11,19 87:15
33:18 72:13 73:20 140:15 205:17 borrowers (1) 229:12 88:11 89:5 92:17
87:17 88:24 90:14 beyond (1) 184:23 borrowing (19) 99:2 95:25 97:3,7,17,25
93:23 97:2 155:20 big (8) 45:14 50:9 100:9 132:21 98:13 101:19 104:4
206:11 238:8 56:10 138:18 161:5 134:21 136:9,11 105:14 107:12
basic (7) 4:13 120:6 166:24 188:14 140:11,16 144:9,18 108:5 109:3,4
120:10 121:13,17 215:1 149:7 164:19,22,24 110:11,17 112:20
127:15 197:15 bill (1) 110:8 165:16 166:1,16 115:9 119:14 121:7
basically (5) 23:12 billion (9) 11:16 13:7 167:13 223:10 122:22 124:10,14
134:24 186:9 214:1 13:12 14:17 26:2 borrowings (1) 222:17 125:2 126:6,12
214:8 92:13 137:18 boss (2) 191:9,11 127:1 130:11 132:7
basing (1) 72:25 140:14 190:2 bother (1) 83:15 132:9 133:22 136:4
basis (40) 3:8,10 bills (1) 164:20 bottom (10) 29:17 137:17 138:14,24
14:18 36:7 43:22 binding (2) 193:1 51:23 57:22 73:3 139:10,23 142:3,19
46:6 66:21 70:15 227:15 74:8 93:15 101:17 143:19 145:7
77:17 84:9 90:15 Birt (1) 49:12 178:15 193:25 146:11 147:2
111:17 116:9 121:4 bit (32) 27:10 40:14 222:4 148:11 149:6,9
131:24 132:1,5 53:23 54:23 58:8 bought (6) 3:25 8:19 151:3 155:4,17
149:10,24,25 156:5 58:21 77:24 78:24 25:16 49:18 117:16 157:2,4,21 159:16
157:23 168:1 80:22 87:16 110:3 156:7 160:1,9,25 161:13
169:10,22 176:6 110:25 142:1,18 bounce (1) 160:8 161:25 162:14,23
179:15,22 187:10 148:24 161:4 bound (3) 40:4 204:17 163:13 164:4 165:9
196:5,23 200:10 170:14 173:3,8 220:18 165:25 166:11
227:20 235:13 177:9 198:5 202:18 boundary (9) 52:2,11 167:2,21 169:21
236:5 237:5,10 205:19 206:6 52:13,16 53:8 173:7,10 175:6,22
238:12 241:18,19 207:17 209:11 55:14,19 57:9 176:12,25 177:20
batting (1) 86:23 215:20 222:3 226:4 58:24 178:24 181:1
battle (1) 184:18 226:6,16 242:6 bounds (1) 149:12 182:16 183:21
beautifully (1) 181:10 bits (3) 98:1,13 box (1) 72:14 184:25 185:9
becoming (3) 70:24 200:17 brackets (1) 80:24 186:25 192:13
125:2 195:7 black (3) 45:9 52:12 branch (1) 51:25 194:24 196:8 198:2
beg (9) 5:7 44:12 48:3 180:15 brand (1) 51:3 201:10 204:5 207:3
48:4,6 124:25 block (2) 53:12,13 break (10) 54:4,8 207:18 208:12,17
125:9 188:17 blocks (1) 201:20 126:1 128:7 144:15 209:17 211:11
212:21 blown (1) 226:15 183:3,9 201:11 212:17 215:4
began (1) 129:4 blue (1) 240:3 229:24 231:15 217:23 218:16
beginning (8) 15:15 blueish (1) 51:24 breaker (1) 156:22 228:23 229:2,19,23
39:13 51:4 107:15 BNP (42) 38:18 140:18 Bremen (1) 93:4 230:23 231:4 232:3
147:15 167:16,17 169:17,25 189:5,20 Bremerhaven (2) 232:11,14 242:3
203:11 189:24 190:9,12 113:4 181:14 243:3
begins (1) 7:1 191:19 192:2,12,16 bribe (1) 33:9 Bromley-Martin’s (1)
begs (1) 111:2 192:21,25 193:8 bribery (3) 33:10 40:9 130:17
begun (1) 48:14 194:23 195:16,25 40:14 Brothers (2) 158:2,4
behalf (8) 2:13 9:15 196:11 197:2,11 briefly (1) 21:13 brought (4) 63:4
18:22 19:7 198:21 198:19 199:25 bring (7) 44:11 56:21 221:17 238:20,21
198:24 213:16,21 200:1,11,14 202:23 113:10 114:12 bubble (1) 195:5
behave (1) 157:15 203:13,15,22 204:6 164:9 184:4,19 buffer (2) 58:1,2
Belgian (2) 113:7 204:16 206:16 bringing (2) 61:13 build (6) 61:20 98:8
114:25 209:10 214:5,10,19 221:14 103:23 135:1
belief (4) 2:6,7 148:8 215:6,8,25 220:5 British (1) 191:17 188:17,17
228:6 BNP’s (2) 199:21 broad (1) 202:17 building (6) 51:24
believe (23) 8:22 204:12 broader (1) 201:18 56:10 57:7 58:4
15:13 21:12,13 bobbing (1) 83:24 broadly (2) 66:12,12 59:4 195:4
25:8 46:15 86:9 bog-standard (1) broke (1) 114:9 built (8) 40:8 50:25
88:17 120:7 122:11 193:3 broker (1) 160:12 56:11 61:23 69:18
124:21,22 146:12 boilerplate (1) 204:7 Bromley-Martin (200) 70:1 111:8 135:2
163:1 169:11,16 bolt (1) 240:2 1:5,8,9,15,24 2:8 bulk (24) 50:16 61:3
170:17 195:12 bona (1) 174:1 2:11 3:7,12 4:5,15 61:10,13 65:12,16
227:2,5,13 228:9 bonus (1) 54:1 5:1,3,9,21 6:23 8:7 66:8 67:6,18,20
228:20 book (1) 180:15 9:7 10:15 11:1,6,19 68:6,21 89:3 90:19
believed (1) 68:3 borne (1) 122:8 12:13 13:6,10 91:17 94:4,9
believes (1) 155:9 borrow (10) 3:13 14:13 15:9 17:2 113:12 114:23,23
bell (1) 212:1 111:3,14 144:7 18:7 19:21 20:6 114:24 115:3 126:7
bells (2) 215:4 218:8 155:10 157:5 165:4 21:5 22:9,23 23:1 189:9
benefit (2) 130:19 167:8 205:11 24:17 26:4,19 bundle (12) 5:12 17:3
218:5 215:14 27:14 29:9 30:10 51:14 73:10,12
berth (4) 98:16,17,18 borrowed (15) 103:13 31:2,7,10 33:7,19 79:6,10,17 117:23

142:8 175:3 176:16 burden (3) 66:7 97:23

132:21 business (72) 20:13

40:10 61:18,20,23 61:23 62:5 64:22 65:10,18 66:9,10 68:13 69:12 70:21 77:12 83:16 95:5,5 95:10,11 98:10 100:7,16,16,18 103:20,22 104:6 107:5 108:7,11,19 109:7,17 110:19,20 111:4,6,10,14 113:16 115:4,6 127:2 133:8,13 134:17,19,20 135:2 135:9,24 136:11,15 153:13 155:2,9 165:20,23,24 166:25 168:8 173:1 177:4 208:16,20 209:15,20 215:17 222:9 228:11

businesses (2) 154:23 167:20

businessman (1)

111:3

bust (2) 104:14

109:12 butter (1) 52:15

buy (5) 12:15 149:10 155:12 156:10 158:18

buyer (1) 12:18 buying (3) 12:20 145:21 190:17

C

C (3) 106:12 202:3,3

C1/1/11 (1) 10:25 C1/3/1 (1) 1:14 C1/3/11 (1) 199:20 C1/3/12 (2) 169:13

210:2

C1/3/13 (1) 1:23

C1/3/3 (7) 5:23 132:11 136:17 146:5,24 172:20 180:20

C1/3/4 (3) 59:10 158:21,23

C1/3/5 (1) 140:23 C1/3/6 (5) 15:1 72:7

111:25 115:14 159:16

C1/3/7 (7) 63:18 64:16 72:19 94:24 126:4 147:14 189:7

C1/3/8 (4) 181:21 182:19 188:19 189:18

calculated (1) 174:13 calculation (6) 62:25 67:11 68:24 71:25

205:16 206:2 calculations (2) 3:10
67:7

call (9) 1:5 57:14 70:2 89:18 121:13 153:3 184:18 191:4 240:18

called (5) 2:17 23:11 120:23 177:3 190:1

calm (1) 127:4 calmed (1) 171:1 cancel (1) 98:11

cancelled (1) 98:23 capable (4) 74:21 76:7
87:25 91:2 capacity (26) 66:1

68:14 69:1,1,5,11 69:19,22 72:13,22 77:8,23 85:8 87:11 89:8,23 90:1 93:1 95:1,5 97:16 99:7 104:18 105:8 120:25 188:17

capex (3) 97:4 187:6 194:15

capital (23) 7:18 12:20 18:13 22:15,21 48:21 49:1 97:14 97:22,24 98:15 100:22 105:6 107:13,22 108:14 109:9 110:4 150:7 153:23 158:17 184:11 221:18

cards (1) 241:11 career (3) 92:14 165:14 180:13 careful (1) 153:17 carefully (1) 153:6

cargo (6) 50:5 61:3,13 68:21 70:19 72:13

cargoes (12) 44:9 50:16 61:10 65:12 65:16 66:8 67:7,18 67:20 68:6 126:7 189:9

carried (9) 2:16 49:17 87:17 192:25 195:13,18 198:20 199:15 200:5

carry (8) 33:3 45:9 59:23 60:7 131:8 162:22 181:3 241:8

cars (1) 181:11 case (24) 3:19,19

10:18 14:19 24:21 60:2 79:7 92:19 104:16 122:17 139:23 147:8 152:8 168:15 172:6 174:11,20 214:5 229:1,3 232:12,17 234:18 235:6

cases (1) 165:14 cash (20) 41:24 42:11

95:4 96:16 100:20 101:5 105:2 107:8 107:18,19 109:5,11 109:11,13,15 110:9 110:9 135:2 151:14 155:2

cash-generative (3)

95:11 100:24 111:22

cash-negative (1)

165:24 cast (1) 204:11 catch (1) 230:5

categories (4) 118:7 234:11 238:4,25 category (4) 118:3

122:18,24 123:16 cause (5) 5:4 67:23

164:21 214:23 240:18

caused (1) 238:22 causing (1) 150:21 CB (1) 13:25 CB-15 (1) 13:24 CB-16 (1) 13:24

CBRE (2) 191:11,18

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

246
March 2, 2016 Day 20

ceased (1) 34:11 checked (6) 16:17 164:1 companies’ (1) 21:19 concerns (15) 2:12 70:16 71:2,10,18 Corporation (1)

cell (1) 183:18 26:15 36:24 37:2 cohort (1) 239:7 company (53) 2:16 138:1,22 139:3,12 71:20 72:1,3,15 186:17
cent (25) 12:22 45:21 151:22 238:2 cohorts (1) 37:24 3:20 12:16,18,21 140:2 188:22,24 74:1 77:11,16 correct (14) 6:9 22:18
70:4 85:10 99:7 checking (2) 14:2 coin (1) 27:17 15:3 20:16,17,24 189:2 213:18 216:5 84:16 86:11 89:2,8 30:6 35:9 112:8
106:16 109:12 26:10 collapse (2) 158:2,4 21:6 23:11,14,18 217:3 218:17 89:13,15,18,23 124:24 134:16
111:19 113:1 checks (4) 199:15 collateral (1) 221:10 23:19,24 24:13,19 220:18 233:22 90:23 91:16,17,20 136:16 143:17
123:18 140:18,19 200:5,13 207:19 colleagues (2) 16:16 25:4,11 34:12 conclude (1) 230:14 91:25 92:2,5,7,21 149:22 154:3
153:25,25 154:25 cheque (1) 204:20 187:12 105:24 110:13 concrete (3) 47:8 93:7,21 95:25 174:17 195:20
163:23 174:1,2,15 chipboard (1) 167:18 collect (1) 93:25 142:21 146:8 149:1 48:18 161:6 113:5,17 114:2 227:4
184:11 187:11 chopped (1) 22:12 column (5) 25:22,25 149:17,18 151:6 concreting (4) 47:13 116:1 118:13,23 corrected (6) 12:14
206:11 221:17 chose (1) 106:15 106:12 227:6 154:12,13,15 155:5 47:17 48:10 49:2 122:14 127:17 46:9 76:23 83:13
227:18 228:6 chronicle (2) 46:14,15 228:22 156:14 164:19 condition (8) 44:4,5 container-dedicated… 125:9 185:7
centre (2) 51:23 187:5 circumstance (1) combined (6) 14:20 165:24 166:2,23 44:14 45:7,17 46:1 65:2 correctly (3) 50:17
CEO/Owner (1) 174:19 19:23 21:16 23:2,8 167:14 174:23 46:13 50:14 containers (26) 50:14 177:5 239:1
117:11 circumstances (4) 179:9 184:7,9,9,10,14 conditions (1) 100:8 50:15 51:5 61:20 corresponds (1) 76:8
certain (9) 91:7 93:2 166:20,20,22 240:5 come (42) 8:21 32:24 191:18 208:20 condone (1) 40:6 62:11 66:3 68:8 cost (50) 3:2 4:7,9
104:1 114:25 130:5 CIS (1) 187:24 35:23 36:22 37:3 214:2 216:7,21 conduct (1) 153:13 70:18 71:21 72:23 6:21 8:24 9:3,25
166:20 185:15 city (1) 89:16 38:14 40:22 69:5 218:25 221:20,25 conducted (1) 193:18 76:19 78:16 81:5 13:16 14:16 17:22
197:5 241:18 civil (3) 14:23 15:9 83:17 92:17 93:1 222:5 confidence (2) 166:6 83:23 89:20 90:19 18:1 19:4 26:20,24
certainly (19) 3:13 16:13 93:24 94:10 100:14 compare (1) 80:25 227:18 92:10 102:9 103:6 27:1,6,7,22 28:13
26:12,15 33:11 claim (3) 85:25 222:9 103:10,10 106:10 compared (4) 4:7 confident (4) 60:6 103:19,19 113:20 28:14,20 65:6
34:13 35:2,23 39:2 238:7 111:9 113:18 114:6 120:19 161:8,9 66:1 72:21 201:4 114:11,12 168:3 105:6 118:12
54:5 64:5 66:20 claims (7) 11:3 33:20 114:7 125:6 127:25 comparing (2) 80:9 confined (1) 90:6 197:16 127:16 134:5,13
129:7 151:18,18 33:23 34:2,9 222:8 137:17,19 142:6 114:19 confirm (13) 6:2 17:13 containers’ (1) 89:13 141:4 143:9,18
164:12 169:19 222:10 157:3 162:4 166:10 compelling (1) 180:16 52:17 77:7 116:3 contains (2) 73:17,18 145:9,20,21 146:3
170:7 228:24 clarification (1) 138:3 178:18,18 181:14 compete (1) 65:1 122:17 123:12 contaminate (1) 146:9,13 147:18,22
240:17 clarify (1) 58:18 186:14 212:4 competition (2) 216:9,12 218:4 164:11 148:1,12 149:11,21
cetera (5) 151:22 clause (2) 13:2 204:13 222:20 234:20 118:23 126:24 219:5 232:3 236:13 context (5) 28:22,23 150:14 151:8
181:14,15 190:22 clean (1) 114:12 236:13,20 237:25 competitive (1) confirmed (3) 116:11 199:10 216:16 156:12 161:6 208:2
190:22 clear (11) 67:8 100:14 240:15,21,24 115:21 129:3 234:10 226:2 208:3,11 209:12
challenge (1) 93:20 120:7 123:19 comes (5) 58:1,2,23 competitor (2) 117:24 confusing (2) 130:21 continually (1) 32:3 costing (1) 206:25
challenging (1) 69:17 145:12,14 153:21 96:3 110:9 122:23 153:14 continue (4) 38:23 costs (5) 41:9 99:24
chance (13) 31:23 153:22 232:11 comfort (3) 159:13 competitors (4) confusion (1) 184:12 68:11 152:4 172:17 100:3,5 175:23
112:18 132:22 239:4 241:7 161:22 191:1 121:17 122:14 congratulating (1) continued (2) 69:6 counsel (1) 124:14
148:6 166:12 169:6 clearance (2) 114:10 comfortable (1) 77:22 123:16 216:18 233:7 70:10 counted (1) 72:1
169:8 181:16,17 181:12 coming (14) 24:5 complete (2) 141:5 connect (1) 23:4 continuing (1) 34:22 counterclaims (1)
234:6,7,20 240:22 clearer (1) 54:13 51:22 73:25 101:5 181:9 connected (1) 51:10 contract (13) 12:9 11:4
change (13) 32:25 clearing (1) 113:19 109:5 113:11 completely (12) 80:14 connection (3) 64:3 13:11,15 14:5 21:3 country (1) 110:5
33:2,3 50:9 67:25 clearly (55) 4:3,11,12 172:13,18 181:12 91:8 107:5 109:14 117:14 231:21 21:9,10,14,25 22:4 couple (4) 28:18 41:3
82:18,24 106:14 23:12 24:2 34:16 191:24 192:2 113:22 139:18 conscious (1) 183:3 22:14,20 26:6 127:1 194:20
109:22 125:18 36:21 38:2,3,4 50:2 235:12,20 236:7 145:4 200:18 consider (7) 2:23 contractor (5) 190:19 course (13) 8:15 33:9
177:19 194:13 51:4 61:19 74:2 comment (3) 33:15 205:23 212:22 34:13 85:19 91:22 191:25 192:1 63:10 67:4 111:4
208:2 80:12,13,14 81:9 46:7 201:22 214:4 232:1 104:11 231:24 206:24 208:7 130:3 136:24 180:4
changeable (1) 70:3 81:24 83:1,5,14 commented (1) 64:1 completing (2) 206:22 236:2 contracts (1) 111:18 192:3 215:5 228:3
changed (10) 49:9 84:6 85:13 106:17 comments (5) 182:20 220:3 considerable (8) 27:9 contractually (1) 230:3,24
67:13 75:19 76:21 138:5 139:7 147:6 196:3 211:3 217:8 completion (3) 74:14 95:6 97:8 154:14 204:17 court (12) 5:15 31:13
77:9 82:24 84:7 150:3,21 160:20 217:15 76:5 85:8 156:20 181:19 contrast (1) 181:20 114:15 183:23
87:23 158:6 197:15 161:22 162:4,5 commercial (8) 11:17 complex (1) 222:10 203:3 214:23 contributed (3) 152:1 184:20,22 186:10
changes (2) 16:18 164:2 169:25 60:18 174:22 complexion (1) 236:9 considerably (2) 90:2 152:2 202:3 191:4 234:12 235:7
106:14 172:15 174:11 201:13,18 202:15 complexities (1) 16:14 196:20 control (3) 25:20 236:11 242:11
changing (2) 82:5 177:12 179:18,19 219:11,17 complied (3) 237:12 consideration (8) 3:23 187:10 221:16 court’s (1) 184:4
87:21 181:8 186:12 commercially (1) 74:2 237:18 238:13 13:2 35:4 39:25 controlling (2) 106:6,7 cover (2) 107:11
charge (27) 62:12 196:19 197:16 commercially-sensit… component (1) 112:1 60:18 111:13 convenience (1) 231:1 191:6
101:1 103:12 200:25 201:3 122:3 comprise (2) 74:10 212:16 240:14 convenient (2) 54:3 covered (1) 162:1
111:23 112:2 116:4 204:13 206:23 commitment (3) 76:1 considerations (1) 183:2 covering (1) 188:8
118:2,12 119:17 208:24,25 209:1 203:16 206:14,16 compromise (1) 3:22 conventional (1) crane (2) 50:18 110:1
120:6,10,10,17,19 214:3 220:2 223:13 committed (1) 203:25 171:10 considered (5) 11:16 88:12 craneage (1) 91:23
120:20,21 121:13 clerk (1) 233:17 committing (2) 209:2 computer (1) 5:6 34:22 35:2 159:23 conversation (4) 38:3 cranes (2) 100:1
121:18 122:20,24 clever (2) 156:3 209:3 concave (1) 56:10 191:15 38:17,19,21 108:17
123:4,13,16 124:1 157:21 common (6) 34:7 conceivably (2) 140:7 considering (4) 11:17 conversion (1) 12:5 creation (1) 60:22
125:21 134:4 click (3) 106:9,11 69:20 71:4 98:19 161:17 35:16 211:7 237:7 convert (3) 87:11 98:8 credibility (2) 160:5
188:25 183:17 111:20 117:19 concentrate (2) 202:2 consisted (1) 60:25 108:17 161:14
charged (1) 200:24 client (8) 14:12 32:20 communication (3) 212:12 constructing (1) 69:7 convince (1) 192:11 credit (3) 201:14,19
charges (13) 114:14 60:10 159:19 232:19,20,24 concept (1) 134:24 construction (3) 65:25 convinced (1) 70:18 202:16
114:17 117:20 160:14 177:14 companies (35) 20:19 concern (15) 137:13 134:25 208:3 convincing (2) 70:8,8 creditor (1) 152:21
118:11 121:10 223:13 240:10 20:20 21:22 25:13 138:5 150:21 consultancy (1) 41:8 cooled (1) 170:14 crisis (2) 169:20
134:12,22 135:7 clients (4) 9:5,16 25:16,19 61:19 164:21 165:15,18 consultant (4) 197:24 copied (7) 133:18 170:21
140:21 168:5 122:8 159:9 74:4 109:12 117:14 165:19 166:1 180:4 198:11 199:2 209:7 138:13 213:12 critical (3) 4:22 39:16
205:13 206:10 close (6) 57:12 58:23 117:17 123:9 190:24 215:12,13 consultants (1) 77:16 217:7 225:13 54:2
207:5 58:25 69:5 170:24 137:14 138:22 220:7 221:2 234:1 contact (1) 185:25 228:14 233:17 criticism (1) 240:12
charging (2) 122:7 239:16 139:17 144:21 concerned (19) 3:22 contacted (3) 181:23 copies (5) 62:19,20,22 cross (3) 57:16,18
140:17 closer (1) 55:18 145:18 150:25 4:19 9:2 20:9 40:20 182:8 232:22 183:11 184:20 217:15
chats (1) 207:22 closing (3) 171:25 164:7,18 165:7 64:25 145:11 contained (1) 168:17 copy (17) 5:13,18 28:2 cross-examination (8)
cheap (1) 44:11 172:9 206:25 167:7 173:12 156:18 157:9 164:8 container (59) 55:7 52:4 63:4 78:21,22 2:10 129:4,16,19
check (15) 10:19 16:8 cloth (1) 101:8 179:25 180:5 184:8 165:3 166:15 59:2 60:22 61:4,11 79:16 122:13 174:3 129:21 130:4 235:8
18:23 19:7,13 24:1 clue (1) 224:18 184:15 190:20,21 167:13 186:5 61:15,18,23 62:13 174:4,6,9,10 243:5
24:2 64:5,6 67:16 Clyde (5) 34:17 38:3,5 208:20 223:6 209:20 227:9,24 64:25 65:10,18 212:19 213:1 cross-examinations …
177:7 179:22 200:7 41:13 222:12 225:20 226:25 230:2 237:22 66:10 68:13,22 238:21 239:16
213:7 230:4 Clydes (3) 163:11,25 227:3,16 concerning (1) 2:13 69:8,11,21 70:9,14 corner (2) 57:2 185:6 cross-examine (4)

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

247

March 2, 2016 Day 20

234:24 235:12 236:17 241:4 cross-examined (2)
28:7 236:5 cross-examines (1)
241:11 cross-reference (1)

21:2

crucial (3) 39:15 136:10 152:23

Crudely (1) 71:23 Crumbs (1) 171:3 cryptic (1) 224:12 culminate (1) 199:7 culpa (1) 156:23 currency (1) 34:7 current (2) 187:14

220:17

Currently (1) 184:7 curtilage (1) 52:22 curve (2) 70:2,2 Curves (2) 106:10,11 custodian (1) 239:4 custom (1) 222:6 customs (4) 100:4

113:19 114:10 181:12

customs-cleared (1)

118:17

cut (4) 101:7 105:24 130:13 210:25

CYA (1) 191:4

Cypriot (6) 12:17

214:2 216:21 218:25 221:20,25

Cyprus (1) 216:7

D

D (1) 24:12

D/43 (1) 78:20 D15/363/1 (3) 15:6,24

19:20

D15/363/10 (1) 24:12 D15/363/5 (1) 178:23 D15/363/52 (2) 20:3

24:22

D15/363/9 (2) 21:16 23:16

D196/2931/1 (1)

51:15

D196/2931/2 (1)

54:15

D197/2944/1 (1)

117:10

D197/2945/1 (1)

116:24

D197/2945/4 (1)

117:1

D197/2945/5 (1)

117:2

D20/407/1 (3) 12:8 22:5 23:6

D20/407/2 (1) 13:1 D20/407/28 (1) 22:11 D20/407/29 (1) 22:9 D43 (1) 175:7 D43/750/1 (1) 80:3 D43/750/13 (1) 88:3 D43/750/4 (2) 73:9

74:7

D43/751/1 (2) 78:21 81:3

D43/751/20 (1) 85:1 D43/751/6 (3) 78:12

81:4 84:17

D44/753/1 (1) 81:14 D44/753/22 (2) 87:5

87:10

D44/753/6 (3) 81:14 date (8) 9:10 25:19 110:2,8 detailed (5) 159:5 228:13 130:14,15 131:3
86:15,17 47:16 121:21 dedicate (1) 71:1 171:14,20 199:8 dirty (2) 52:9 71:3 143:7 149:5 150:1
D48 (1) 175:16 185:16 217:25 dedicated (3) 65:1 208:11 disagree (8) 50:2 156:4 176:18 182:3
D48/829/1 (4) 175:2,8 229:12,18 70:9 92:10 detailing (1) 222:7 107:7 126:15 182:13,21 184:13
175:12,17 dated (3) 5:19 12:10 deduce (2) 33:25 details (1) 24:14 129:25 158:16 185:2,8,11,12,22
D48/829/2 (2) 9:6,22 185:5 73:19 detain (1) 182:16 168:4,6 169:8 187:7,10 212:17
D50 (1) 101:16 dates (1) 226:6 deed (3) 222:15,18,25 detriment (2) 171:13 disappointed (1) 222:10,13,16 226:3
D51 (1) 176:15 day (20) 28:1,5 30:4 Deed’ (1) 222:7 214:12 66:19 229:7,10
D51/887/1 (1) 17:5 30:22 39:9 62:7 deemed (1) 199:9 develop (10) 3:13 4:2 disclaimer (1) 177:12 documentation (2)
D51/887/15 (1) 18:5 82:16 84:10 125:9 defendants’ (1) 11:3 4:6 39:19,24 40:3 disclose (2) 45:13 32:10 214:18
D51/887/38 (3) 18:12 127:5,9 140:20 defensive (1) 78:2 97:12 98:5 144:10 234:11 documents (30) 5:15
49:8,14 152:15 181:9 191:9 defer (2) 98:11 116:19 169:7 disclosed (7) 44:23 5:16 28:20 82:13
D51/887/9 (1) 17:20 205:13,24 206:25 deference (1) 63:6 developable (1) 42:14 129:2 235:4,5,5 111:9 163:12,24
D51/888/1 (1) 176:11 231:21 242:5 deferred (2) 98:23 developed (15) 60:17 237:20 238:23 164:1,3 198:23
D51/888/5 (1) 176:16 Day11/52:17 (1) 28:2 101:7 69:11 75:25 76:15 disclosure (14) 233:17 212:14 234:11,12
D52/889/1 (3) 5:18,25 Day11/57:3 (1) 29:2 deferring (1) 91:4 89:9 91:24 94:15 234:3,4,6,13,22 234:14,19 236:1,7
6:16 Day11/57:6 (1) 29:18 deficit (1) 29:13 97:19,25 99:12 235:13,20 237:11 236:14 237:21
D52/889/11 (2) 142:7 Day11/58:3 (1) 29:19 define (1) 208:8 100:11 104:7,17 237:22 238:4 239:2 238:3,15,16,18,20
148:9 Day11/60:2 (1) 30:4 defined (1) 208:10 193:16 209:24 239:4,8 239:7,8,24 240:23
D52/889/15 (1) 7:7 Day11/65:1 (1) 30:9 defining (1) 208:8 developing (3) 43:2 discomfort (1) 5:4 240:25 241:20
D52/889/29 (2) Day11/66:1 (1) 30:10 definitely (8) 3:23 107:1 145:21 discover (4) 36:5 37:4 doing (21) 23:3 40:10
117:22 122:14 Day13/194:1 (1) 40:22 46:19 56:13 development (44) 7:8 214:10 230:18 41:10 46:21 67:15
D52/889/35 (1) 45:23 30:16 57:17 185:16,20 37:10 39:20 41:20 discovered (6) 38:1 84:5 86:12 91:2
D52/889/37 (4) 7:16 Day13/194:9 (1) 31:4 192:1 42:1,4,16,17 43:10 40:19 43:19 122:5 96:21 103:20
48:1,5,10 Day13/195:1 (1) 31:4 definition (1) 90:9 47:3 49:4,22 56:19 151:7,25 107:21 114:5
D52/889/6 (3) 75:12 Day13/196:1 (1) 31:5 definitive (1) 14:11 59:14,22,24 60:13 discrepancies (2) 159:21 177:6 180:1
75:21 177:18 Day13/197:1 (1) 31:6 degree (2) 187:8 66:1 72:22 73:19 32:24 37:3 189:4 210:17
D52/889/7 (1) 76:3 days (1) 114:8 213:23 74:9,14 75:1 76:5 discrepancy (12) 27:6 214:12 216:16
D52/889/9 (3) 6:22 days’ (1) 66:4 delay (3) 206:24,24 85:9 91:13,19 92:6 27:24 28:19 29:8 218:16 233:6
178:9,21 DD (2) 36:23 67:15 237:2 96:23 97:18 98:2 35:18 36:2,14 38:1 dollar (2) 11:23
D53/889/37 (1) 47:6 de-stuff (1) 114:13 delayed (2) 169:19 98:14 117:3,8 39:6 41:4,7 125:6 115:22
D55/944 (1) 119:9 de-stuffed (1) 118:16 170:20 132:25 141:5,12 discuss (5) 128:8 dollars (4) 11:21
D55/944.1/1 (4) de-stuffing (1) 113:20 deleted (1) 83:2 143:10 145:5 177:5 196:7 201:12 167:4 178:15 209:9
101:10,15 118:25 dead (2) 63:20 76:9 deleterious (1) 171:23 180:24 181:4 232:12,17 domain (2) 73:23 74:6
133:19 deal (7) 97:20 132:1 delivered (3) 45:14 210:19 228:11 discussed (8) 102:3 doodling (1) 125:9
D66/1035.1/1 (2) 136:9 156:22 172:1 48:17 50:4 difference (8) 4:4 27:9 138:17 151:12 double-counting (1)
212:13,20 202:2 220:13 Deloittes (1) 92:19 35:19 38:15 112:14 168:21 183:25 61:13
D67/1042.1/1 (1) dealing (2) 97:18 demand (2) 103:24 112:17 114:4 217:14 228:3 230:1 double-up (1) 219:23
217:5 180:5 120:23 155:10 discussing (4) 41:23 doubling-up (1)
D67/1042/1 (2) 217:4 dear (1) 223:25 demonstrate (1) different (38) 6:11 9:1 123:20 210:14 219:24
217:22 debate (3) 53:23 127:10 26:24 43:24 56:6 215:1 doubt (6) 24:17 93:20
D67/1042/2 (1) 104:8 213:24 demurrage (1) 114:8 67:22 79:25 85:22 discussion (9) 61:21 169:14 203:12
217:24 debated (1) 210:5 department (2) 91:22 94:2 104:7 64:20 80:15 84:6 228:1 241:13
D67/1053.2/2 (1) debt (63) 95:3,6,9,12 153:16,16 104:12 112:12 84:14 86:11 182:13 downside (4) 189:14
138:7 96:13,17 97:8,14 departments (1) 114:3,17 117:17 202:14 207:17 189:14 207:2
D74 (1) 223:17 98:12 101:6 105:19 202:1 120:22 128:25 discussions (8) 16:7 208:13
D74/1070.1/1 (2) 107:9,11 132:21 depending (2) 72:2 139:18 140:6,8 133:2 162:25 182:8 Dr (59) 4:24 8:21
119:6 135:5 134:5 136:14 137:2 98:7 145:4 156:24 187:11 210:8 214:4 10:18,19 11:2 12:1
D74/1074/5 (1) 137:3,16,23 140:14 depends (2) 161:3 163:20 164:13,13 215:6 13:13 27:24 28:6
192:15 140:21 141:13,20 166:21 175:14 183:13 Discussions’ (1) 28:17,25 29:3,6,12
D74/1074/6 (1) 193:5 141:23 142:5,15,16 deployed (1) 131:7 194:15 197:14 182:21 30:13,16,23 31:13
D74/1096.1/1 (3) 143:2,16 144:15 depots (1) 89:18 206:21 210:25 dismal (2) 240:7,11 33:20 34:9,21 36:9
223:16,18 226:4 145:9,17 148:19,22 depreciating (2) 107:2 212:21 220:1 disproved (1) 88:15 39:1 60:3 64:11
D74/1101/1 (3) 150:4 151:13 108:8 222:17,17 230:20 dispute (1) 174:20 66:13 70:8,10,24
226:13,15 229:7 153:17 155:1,1 depreciation (14) 236:9 disrespect (1) 150:25 82:13 88:17 112:5
D74/1102/1 (2) 156:5,9 161:7 100:23,25 105:6,8 differently (1) 210:22 distinguish (1) 153:18 139:24 141:22
194:19 201:8 164:25 167:4,9 107:14,16,23 108:4 difficult (9) 14:9 39:2 distressed (1) 209:21 144:14 146:13
D74/1102/2 (1) 201:9 168:23 189:15 108:6,14 109:9,25 39:3 65:1 122:2 diversified (1) 166:24 150:11 163:18
D74/1104.1/1 (3) 197:13 221:18 110:7 134:19 127:11 130:21 diversion (1) 132:7 172:20 173:8,12
223:19,23 224:2 222:5 223:2 224:24 depressing (1) 97:16 152:9 170:23 divider (29) 5:18 17:2 177:1 180:5 181:2
D75/1116/2 (1) 203:7 225:7,14,15,18,24 describe (5) 75:17 difficulties (1) 127:18 51:14 54:13 73:13 191:22 192:16
D75/116/1 (1) 202:22 226:11,12,18 229:4 122:19 140:25 difficulty (1) 239:15 75:14 78:22,23 205:3,6 206:8
D84/1153/1 (1) 185:1 229:11 172:20 182:12 digit (1) 82:8 79:9,9,11,14 80:3 207:7 213:13 217:7
D84/1153/2 (1) debtor (1) 227:23 described (7) 31:14 diligence (23) 32:5 80:20 81:3,13 222:24 225:14
187:13 debts (13) 144:21 33:9 47:2 55:10 35:16,22 37:4,23 84:18 86:14,16,17 227:16 228:15
D84/1153/3 (1) 145:18 223:5 168:22 185:3 38:23 42:24 43:19 87:7 88:3 117:23 229:1 231:23 240:9
187:17 226:24 227:3,13,15 211:20 66:15 150:18 151:2 175:3,18,19 176:15 draft (28) 73:15,19
D84/1153/4 (1) 227:21,22 228:1,10 describes (1) 184:5 151:17 162:5 169:1 177:18 178:2 76:8 77:4 78:13
187:21 229:11,12 design (4) 171:14 169:4 177:9 193:21 doable (1) 232:4 79:1,12 80:4,9,9,18
D98/1259/1 (1) 205:2 December (4) 15:4 190:19 208:1 209:6 197:21 198:8,15 document (55) 5:24 81:7,12 82:24 85:5
D98/1259/2 (1) 19:24 179:10 215:8 designed (3) 20:7 207:15 209:2,4 6:16 9:14,20 13:19 87:23 88:2,21
206:19 decide (1) 33:17 66:9 90:15 Diligence’ (1) 159:5 14:14 17:11,13 91:21 176:12,13,14
danger (1) 162:24 decided (1) 4:2 desire (1) 170:10 dimension (1) 120:22 18:12 23:6 35:20 176:14 177:10
Daniil (3) 177:3 decides (2) 94:13 despairing (1) 235:16 dimensions (3) 76:14 49:2,19 73:15 179:17 201:6
225:12 228:11 95:18 destined (1) 137:16 76:22 96:21 78:17 80:21 81:3 202:22,23
dark (1) 56:7 decision (4) 97:2 98:7 destroy (2) 43:6 107:5 direct (2) 57:21 100:5 82:15 84:9,25 drafted (2) 86:1 218:5
data (7) 15:17 16:10 208:1,2 destruction (1) 163:2 directly (2) 180:2 85:18 87:24 124:7 drafts (8) 78:9,18
73:23,24 91:11 declined (1) 188:13 detail (2) 161:18 211:2 124:9 128:17 79:25 83:25 87:22
93:23 122:3 decrease (3) 62:1 196:20 director (2) 192:9 129:23 130:1,5,12 88:6 176:11,14

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

248

March 2, 2016 Day 20

draught (1) 113:9 draw (2) 97:5 104:1 drawdowns (1) 98:11 drawing (1) 24:8 drawn (5) 16:2 53:16

105:22 110:23 222:25

Drewry (2) 77:15 90:2 drilled (1) 229:21 drilling (1) 239:24 driver (2) 114:7

151:13 drivers (1) 100:2 driving (2) 76:24

105:18 drop (1) 113:12

Dubitskiy (2) 225:12

225:17

due (24) 32:5 35:16 35:22 37:4,23 38:22 42:24 43:19 66:15 150:18 151:2 151:17 159:5 162:5 169:1,4 177:9 193:21 197:21 198:8,15 207:15 209:2,4

Dutch (1) 114:25 dynamics (1) 61:17

E

e-mail (20) 138:8,13 139:5 212:18 213:4 213:12,15,20 214:19 216:1 217:6 217:7 224:6 225:3 225:11 228:14 233:19 234:5,9 238:23

e-mail/phone (1)

186:1

e-mailed (2) 232:21 237:21

e-mails (3) 16:5 150:23 171:22

E&Y (2) 151:20 194:7

E5/17/22 (2) 92:15 112:15

E5/17/23 (2) 92:24 112:16

eagerly (1) 160:23 earlier (20) 3:25 4:7,9

8:9 20:25 73:11 102:3 104:14 128:18 163:3 175:9 175:22 178:24 184:17 189:8 207:16 226:3,7 228:14 236:12

earliest (1) 206:23 early (2) 116:14 215:8 earn (1) 118:17 earnest (1) 150:8 earnings (1) 110:14

Earth (2) 51:16 54:25 earthquake (1) 158:14 ease (1) 5:16

easier (3) 4:14 78:22 133:19

easily (8) 70:2 84:4 97:9 156:21 199:25 200:2,11 208:9

East (1) 113:10

Easter (2) 239:19 240:21

easy (8) 53:3,20 55:7 59:1 62:16 67:14 125:16,18

EBIT (1) 178:15 ensure (1) 196:4 131:25 132:3,13 139:11 140:14
EBITDA (7) 108:3,12 entered (6) 170:1 199:14,16 203:1 141:13,20 165:5
108:21 109:20 173:11,15,16 223:6 222:9,23 240:3 167:9
110:13,21 111:1 227:7 events (2) 121:24 expanding (1) 218:17
EBRD (20) 138:10,19 enterprise (4) 108:11 131:6 expect (12) 35:15
138:23 139:13,15 109:19,19 153:8 eventuality (1) 221:8 78:25 81:11,20
139:21 140:1,2 entire (1) 241:11 eventually (2) 15:22 94:8 95:22 103:2
155:24,24,25 entirely (3) 6:9 64:4 70:9 152:4 193:4 204:3
198:24 210:10,24 77:22 everyone’s (1) 231:1 230:8 231:25
211:17,24 213:6 entities (2) 142:4 evidence (62) 2:3,11 expectation (1)
217:17 218:23 164:14 3:18,19 4:24 6:4,13 174:18
219:9 entitled (2) 73:5 12:1 15:25 16:3 expectations (1)
EBRD/Vyborg (1) 182:21 23:21,25 26:5,22 110:25
217:16 entity (2) 144:25 27:4 28:6,18,25 expected (2) 98:10
EC (2) 197:25 198:24 153:13 29:3,6 30:17,21 103:17
ECAs (1) 193:17 entrepreneur (2) 31:15,19,20,24 expenditure (6) 48:22
economic (2) 43:6 154:22 172:25 33:16 34:20 35:8 49:1 97:14,23,24
70:25 entrepreneurs (1) 35:11 38:8 54:11 98:15
Educating (1) 127:2 180:12 61:9 63:3 66:7 expense (2) 61:3
effect (20) 31:15 entries (2) 23:2 67:17 72:19 73:8 68:22
35:10 42:10 62:10 185:22 85:23 95:1,2,8,13 expenses (3) 25:23
68:3 94:18 95:16 entry (6) 21:7 23:22 100:9 109:16 99:23 209:1
96:1,2 97:16 99:11 25:23 26:13 175:17 124:19 126:23 experience (14) 4:15
99:16 102:12 175:20 128:8,21 129:17,23 64:24 88:24 90:14
104:11,19 109:23 envisaged (3) 60:21 130:16,24 141:25 90:18 91:10,19
126:16,18 140:23 230:23,24 146:24 148:13 92:5,7,11 116:6,9
171:23 equal (1) 96:7 160:1 177:6 197:9 116:12 127:3
effectively (12) 35:23 equals (1) 88:9 210:3 241:8,19 expert (7) 83:20,22
41:20 108:13 equation (3) 4:20 Evo (2) 117:12,18 91:5 92:18 99:10
113:24 145:20 39:14 221:15 Evolution (4) 117:3,8 116:19 129:14
155:7 187:14 195:8 equations (1) 135:1 117:13,16 expertise (1) 83:18
216:11,18 219:21 Equatorial (1) 158:19 ex (1) 128:23 experts (1) 77:15
232:21 equipment (3) 100:5 exact (1) 39:22 explain (17) 29:12
efficient (3) 78:24 107:2 110:3 exacting (1) 183:5 62:24 65:20 66:24
110:2 196:7 equity (18) 133:5 exactly (37) 6:19 9:19 102:8 112:13
effort (3) 62:1 159:17 142:22 149:2 13:10 17:9 34:14 125:15 127:20
220:22 150:19 151:5,9 35:14 36:18 53:14 130:12,18 179:15
efforts (2) 215:9 152:1,22 153:16 58:10 59:20 71:3 181:22 182:19
220:5 154:25 155:6 156:1 71:16 72:24 73:2 209:14 210:22
eight (4) 84:5 148:3 161:9 186:11 84:24 96:1 109:2 224:9,16
171:3 218:11 187:20 221:7,14,18 127:23 141:24 explained (13) 25:10
either (13) 36:4,8 equivalent (12) 13:15 144:12 152:13 34:10 41:7 72:8
89:19 114:1 129:1 15:20 66:2,4 71:14 153:9 158:24 181:6 107:15 118:10
129:6 160:6 167:22 72:11 75:11 80:21 182:4 186:6 193:4 122:1 130:3 153:6
169:10 185:11 82:1 87:7,10 193:24 197:3 199:4 162:12 166:21
206:21 208:14 100:22 205:8 213:22 168:24 204:24
232:20 error (10) 81:10 83:9 217:13 220:25 explaining (5) 21:19
elaborate (1) 195:14 83:12 84:22 85:12 221:9 223:12 63:5 82:5 124:15
element (2) 159:2,3 85:20,24 86:8,10 239:10 127:23
elicit (1) 9:16 86:20 exaggeration (1) explanation (22)
embarrassment (2) especially (3) 152:11 180:13 27:16,23 28:19
156:20 214:24 231:22 240:8 Examination-in-chie… 29:3 36:1,9,10,15
embryonic (2) 68:13 essence (1) 217:15 1:13 243:4 38:24,25 80:12
77:12 essential (3) 159:2,7 example (4) 3:24 81:6 82:12 83:11
emerged (1) 41:5 192:9 110:6 113:3 180:6 84:4 85:12 86:9,21
emerges (1) 237:5 establish (2) 92:5 examples (1) 114:15 87:21 90:6 125:5
emerging (4) 32:8 150:18 exasperating (1) 236:10
40:8,11 158:17 established (1) 142:2 127:3 explicitly (1) 203:15
emphasised (1) 31:17 estate (4) 39:11 exceptional (1) 240:3 export (7) 61:25 70:15
enabled (2) 32:25 159:13 189:24 excessive (1) 220:11 70:20,21 201:14,19
180:17 190:2 exchange (2) 11:21 202:16
encourage (2) 2:23 estimate (2) 89:7 38:21 exporting (1) 69:6
233:6 208:11 exclude (2) 61:10 exports (1) 62:1
encumbered (1) et (5) 151:22 181:14 204:14 express (1) 138:5
227:10 181:15 190:22,22 excluded (1) 60:9 expressed (3) 140:2
ended (3) 15:4 19:24 etiquette (2) 183:23 excluding (1) 130:20 188:21 203:24
179:10 184:22 exclusive (2) 212:3 expression (5) 114:20
energetic (1) 172:24 EU (6) 115:24 118:19 215:21 170:5 186:10 191:3
engage (1) 191:17 121:5,20 122:8 exclusivity (1) 37:21 220:4
engineer (3) 14:23 126:24 excuse (2) 52:9 extending (1) 115:11
16:13 190:20 Europe (2) 77:12 233:25 extension (1) 55:2
engineering (4) 15:9 118:23 executing (1) 159:2 extent (13) 16:13
171:20 190:19 European (4) 113:4 exercise (2) 124:12 20:11 23:14 91:7
209:6 118:22 191:17 151:2 97:12 114:25
English (5) 22:6,13 210:18 exhibit (2) 5:25 15:6 153:10 181:18
190:6 225:1 240:6 evaluation (1) 159:6 exhibited (1) 178:25 196:19 218:24
Enjoy (1) 232:17 evaporated (1) 170:12 existed (1) 122:6 220:7 221:14
enjoyment (1) 233:1 evening (1) 234:3 existence (1) 174:22 229:20
enquiry (1) 41:7 event (11) 129:11,15 existing (7) 138:22 extra (8) 50:3 56:24

58:24 73:8 89:16 114:7 122:7 235:13

extract (1) 11:2 extracts (1) 92:18 extremely (5) 4:17

53:3 59:1 122:2 222:2

eyes (4) 41:21 160:5 161:2 181:18

F

face (2) 35:19 87:15 facilities (6) 42:11 94:4,12 112:21 113:2 181:10 facility (15) 75:2,25

85:9 94:3 112:12 112:13 113:9 114:14 115:13 120:3,3 142:22 149:2,11 156:15

facing (1) 157:25

fact (37) 6:2 8:7 22:23 40:10,17 41:15,19 43:1,3 44:9 55:7,25 84:13,15 87:23 104:20 105:8 110:8 122:9 124:17 127:17 136:23 151:8,9 164:7 165:2 189:16 200:20 205:11 214:19 215:10 221:10 226:7 235:2 239:24 240:7,8

facto (1) 128:23 factor (12) 4:20 42:17

43:9 111:12,12 134:4 136:10 154:7 206:2 207:12,20 224:22

factored (1) 43:11 factors (1) 207:8 facts (4) 33:14 40:22

70:25 229:22 fail (1) 217:18 failed (1) 240:25 faintest (1) 200:20 fair (22) 9:18 14:7

25:19 32:21 49:22 50:19,20 66:15 67:20 73:21 95:12 132:20 143:10 163:17 173:7 186:8 190:15 193:2 200:1 212:8 215:20 222:20

fairly (4) 50:19 69:20 129:5 183:4

fairness (1) 31:25 faith (1) 150:7 fall (1) 234:13 falling (2) 157:16

233:5 false (1) 84:2

familiar (1) 226:21 familiarising (1) 10:7 familiarity (1) 79:6 far (16) 3:21 9:2 29:8 40:7 70:13 90:10 90:10 113:10

140:15 161:19 162:12 198:20 237:11,17,22 238:2

fast (1) 14:8

fatal (3) 160:5 199:7 214:16

fate (1) 231:3

fault (10) 46:18 48:5 52:6 92:18 213:11 223:18 237:23,25 239:1 242:3

favour (2) 104:9 241:4 feature (2) 69:21 88:6 February (3) 128:3

173:23 226:9

February/March (1)

173:17 fed (1) 10:13

fee (5) 173:10,14,25 174:12 189:6

feed (1) 64:8 feedback (1) 185:19 feeder (1) 113:13 feel (6) 77:22 121:4

127:5 154:16 231:4 231:7

feeling (4) 32:17 170:6,9,11 feelings (1) 160:9

feet (1) 51:2 Felixstowe (1) 93:5 felt (2) 35:12 173:4 fence (2) 55:19 56:9 fewer (1) 188:10 fide (1) 174:1

field (2) 171:18,20 fifth (1) 135:25 figure (42) 26:1,4

28:21 78:15 81:5,6 81:17 82:5 83:24 84:18 85:13,21,22 86:3,21 87:21 88:12 89:5 93:9,10 93:21 94:14,16,17 95:18 99:18 102:16 102:23 104:12 109:22 110:21 116:8 119:24 120:5 120:9 123:3,20 124:16 127:12,14 147:1,3

figures (31) 15:21 33:14 70:23 77:10 90:2,14 92:21,25 93:13 101:22 102:13 106:3 112:22 118:1,5 123:7 125:5 128:1 135:6 175:1 176:16 176:20 177:8,9,19 178:8,10,16 179:12 179:16 180:9

file (2) 5:15 238:22 files (3) 1:11 234:3,17 filled (1) 228:21

final (13) 6:6 65:12 67:1 75:11,18 77:3 77:5 148:9 176:13 176:14 177:17 178:4 179:17

finalise (1) 144:25 finalised (1) 16:1 finalising (1) 181:22 finally (1) 115:20 finance (45) 3:4 4:8

4:16 20:8 23:10,25 30:19 31:21 34:23 35:17 37:1 39:16 43:21 49:4 92:6,13 99:10 134:6 141:11 142:1 145:20 155:16 169:6 205:7 205:12 206:9 210:1 210:4,6,17,17 211:15,19,21,25 213:6,10,11,20,24

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

249
March 2, 2016 Day 20

214:14,17 215:3 164:23 frontispiece (1) 80:21 164:8 165:25 117:10,20,22 241:16,25 half-witted (1) 47:22

217:8 228:13 flash-on (1) 127:16 full (6) 69:2,11 97:5 166:15 185:19 118:25 126:4,19 goodwill (1) 34:3 halfway (7) 6:25
financed (2) 10:7 flaw (1) 199:8 104:1 105:22 generate (5) 105:1 132:3 133:15 135:4 Google (3) 51:16 17:24 88:7 187:14
169:15 flex (1) 189:11 159:18 109:15 134:22 136:8 140:22 145:8 54:25 58:19 197:20 210:7 219:8
financer (1) 24:16 flight-wise (1) 232:6 fuller (1) 217:3 167:17,18 147:14 153:15 gosh (1) 180:9 halt (4) 57:24 66:21
financial (23) 14:20 floating (1) 50:18 fullness (2) 66:18 generated (1) 60:17 158:21 160:25 Government (2) 61:24 181:17 199:17
15:10,17 16:10 flow (8) 41:24 42:11 112:7 generating (10) 44:8 168:11,12 169:12 70:20 halve (2) 96:6 104:24
18:23 19:8,23 100:20 107:8 135:2 fully (4) 134:25 50:3,6,12 65:7 171:1,11 172:19 grab (2) 241:7,9 halved (3) 95:25
21:17 23:9,17 151:14 155:2 228:4 151:23 202:12 108:12 111:11 175:2,12 176:1,11 grateful (5) 79:22 107:3 108:19
99:16 101:22 fluent (1) 90:24 215:17 147:23 172:4,5 177:18 178:9 179:8 231:13 233:19 halves (1) 105:3
161:20 169:19 fly (1) 223:25 fun (1) 173:2 generation (1) 95:4 180:19,20 181:21 241:10,24 halving (3) 96:7 103:7
170:20,23 190:22 focus (6) 22:12 29:23 fund (6) 142:15 generic (1) 152:20 187:13,17 188:19 grave (1) 162:24 109:16
193:15,25 196:3 61:11 78:15 104:16 159:20,23 170:10 gentleman (2) 88:25 189:18 193:5 194:8 great (1) 166:24 Hamburg (1) 93:4
203:18 209:25 192:12 208:9 219:13 177:2 194:19 196:20 greater (3) 4:12 hand (5) 62:16 80:19
228:4 focused (1) 47:1 fundability (2) 194:17 gentlemen (1) 89:4 198:5 199:6 201:17 161:22 196:19 209:10 228:25
financially (1) 16:16 focusing (1) 121:12 200:7 getting (13) 27:12 202:3,22 203:7 greatest (3) 19:1 231:6
Financials (1) 178:11 follow (8) 29:7,9 fundable (4) 185:20 62:22 89:3 118:13 206:19 207:7 209:9 80:15 109:24 handed (4) 63:4 79:20
financier (1) 4:17 63:11 79:18 80:17 199:25 200:2,11 162:9 170:7 172:8 209:22 214:5 217:4 greatly (1) 89:15 184:17 233:18
financing (22) 38:9 129:13 131:23 fundamental (1) 172:10 191:10 217:23 222:24 greenfield (1) 44:16 handle (1) 97:9
44:3 137:9 140:23 152:5 87:24 201:20 209:8 214:8 223:16,16,18 grey (3) 4:12 39:14 handled (1) 118:21
169:18,22 170:20 followed (1) 210:8 funded (1) 132:17 235:13 226:12 230:12,23 55:6 handling (33) 62:12
171:17 172:1 193:9 following (9) 9:23 funder (2) 23:12 gilding (1) 209:10 goes (10) 57:12,25 greyhounds (1) 144:1 74:21 87:25 96:4
195:14 199:11 20:19 25:12 83:8 188:5 give (25) 3:24 14:25 100:6 104:10 grinding (3) 66:21 111:23 112:2 116:4
206:15,22 207:13 99:2 128:22 191:14 funders (1) 65:20 18:3 29:2 31:23 120:21 131:11,20 181:17 199:17 117:20,24 118:1,3
210:9,10,15,19 193:7 196:11 funding (12) 135:3 37:22 45:1 47:15 159:3 204:7 206:8 gross (2) 108:16 118:12 119:17
212:16 218:18 follows (2) 8:2 95:1 142:7,11 154:25 63:2 78:25 79:4 going (153) 4:14 178:14 120:6,10,10,17,21
221:13 foot (7) 11:5 13:3 156:6 160:21 80:6 82:12 90:8 12:22 14:9 27:23 ground (1) 68:9 121:9,13,18 122:15
find (18) 5:18 9:7 17:3 70:12 74:12 138:16 194:15 197:18 129:18 161:22 30:25 31:16,22 group (54) 11:9 14:21 122:18,20,23,24,24
23:1 38:24 45:11 195:10 224:25 210:23 218:23 166:12 172:25 36:1,4,14,15,16 19:24 60:4 132:17 123:13,16 124:1
47:2,4 65:1 73:10 footing (2) 131:17 220:1,20 197:9 198:3 200:3 39:17,21 42:16 132:21 137:1,5,13 125:20 168:5
81:25 114:14 153:23 fundings’ (1) 219:13 210:3 227:21 43:5,22,24 44:1 138:2,22 139:4,16 188:25
143:24 162:19 footprint (1) 51:1 fundraising (10) 23:15 233:24 242:7 47:9 49:3 57:4,5 140:10 141:10,13 hands (3) 111:7
175:13 176:9 Forget (1) 229:1 159:2 193:1 195:23 given (47) 4:25 10:20 58:5,21 62:2,5 141:23 143:15 204:19 234:23
182:17 225:18 forgive (6) 99:25 206:23 211:4,8 11:3 12:1 20:7 23:9 63:11 64:6,9 65:9 144:15 145:9,25 handy (1) 11:1
finding (1) 88:19 118:8 155:23 214:12 216:10,15 27:4,19,24 29:3,6 67:4,25 68:21 146:6 149:6,7,13 Hang (1) 213:6
finds (3) 34:20 150:13 183:24 184:22 fundraisings (2) 30:21 31:20 34:13 69:14 70:20 80:10 149:18 164:14,17 hangs (1) 231:3
156:17 209:23 207:16 210:20 36:9,10 38:8 39:1 81:5 83:10,17,19 164:19 167:7,7,14 happen (9) 40:11 51:4
fine (1) 232:10 forgotten (2) 125:7 funds (3) 2:22 151:10 40:15 65:24 78:19 84:7 85:5 89:5 167:14 169:16 69:25 104:20 105:9
fingers (1) 52:9 140:4 174:2 79:16 87:16 90:6 92:17 95:9,10,11 175:2 176:22 144:13 204:22,23
finish (7) 33:6 34:16 form (7) 4:13 51:25 further (23) 6:9 27:5 123:7 129:7,8 96:2,7,16,23 97:15 177:22 179:20 204:24
98:20 125:25 126:2 62:24 77:4 128:24 29:2,4 32:23 56:11 131:16 134:21 98:5 99:16,21 180:23 184:2 186:7 happened (4) 78:6
165:10 198:5 186:11 194:16 57:14,20 58:2 146:12 147:11 100:1,2,10,14 189:25 191:17 98:1 207:16 235:22
finished (3) 128:3 formal (2) 130:16 98:11 121:10 155:21 156:24 101:1 103:10,11 208:20 211:6 214:3 happening (4) 38:19
208:17 234:22 195:1 142:18 148:24 177:6,14 180:6 105:5,6,15 106:8,9 220:22 221:11 63:21 144:18
finite (2) 60:25 62:6 forms (2) 50:5 156:5 151:11 190:8 205:10 213:1 227:7 107:4,8 108:7 223:10 224:24 236:15
fire (1) 45:2 forth (2) 41:10 103:25 192:24 221:12 229:10,15 231:20 110:23,24 111:13 225:15 226:24 happens (1) 165:18
fire-fighting (1) 109:7 forthcoming (1) 14:6 222:3 232:8 235:3 232:15 237:9,10 115:2 116:1,2 228:10 229:4 happy (3) 33:8 132:4
firm (1) 191:22 Fortis (3) 124:23 236:20,24 242:1 239:2 241:19 121:13 126:2,12 group’s (3) 164:9 195:8
firmly (1) 191:16 125:7 126:9 furthered (1) 215:6 gives (3) 8:15 24:13 127:8 128:5 129:15 169:14 173:1 hard (27) 28:2 44:6
first (51) 1:20 7:25 forward (2) 225:14 Furthermore (1) 201:15 134:1,5,8 135:9,15 group-wide (1) 167:5 45:17,20,22 47:8
13:18 25:17 26:25 242:8 201:12 giving (4) 28:6 35:9,11 140:3,5 141:19 growing (1) 14:8 47:13 48:10 49:3
27:2 28:2 44:3 61:6 forwarded (1) 225:5 future (4) 7:8 39:10 106:21 142:4,6 143:1,7,8 growth (1) 70:16 50:8 52:4 56:6 63:4
63:8 73:15,19 forwards (3) 84:7 47:11,12 glad (1) 233:6 143:14,21,25,25 guarantee (1) 228:22 76:12 78:21,22
74:25 79:12 80:4 86:24 225:3 fuzziness (1) 170:14 glancing (1) 114:23 144:2,7,7,8,9,13,14 guarantees (13) 79:16 102:4 122:13
80:18 81:15 88:21 found (7) 88:14 123:8 fuzzy (3) 170:6,9,11 glove (1) 209:10 144:20 145:8,13 220:12 223:5 227:5 131:21,23 160:9
98:6 111:5 118:2,6 159:8 190:5,6 go (140) 5:17 6:21 7:7 148:9,18,22 150:18 227:7,14,16,21,22 183:16 212:19
121:12,22 122:18 215:5 221:11 G 7:16 9:22 12:25 151:16 155:12 228:1,18,20 229:16 213:1 226:6 238:21
122:23 123:16 four (11) 45:13 62:20 game (7) 152:12 15:18 16:4 17:20 156:9,18 157:10 229:17 hardware (2) 100:6
133:25 134:17 69:4 89:14 118:6 18:12 19:20 20:2 158:16 164:6 guarantor (1) 227:23 188:5
154:5,15,16,19
136:9 142:24 121:16 136:7 21:1,16,24 22:5,11 166:11,25 171:19 guarantors (3) 227:8 Harris (2) 198:1,24
170:3 186:11
155:18 156:12 167:23 168:14 23:8 24:12,22 180:1 183:1 193:20 228:7 229:17 hate (1) 77:25
games (1) 109:25
165:23 167:23,23 194:14 200:16 25:25 26:17 28:24 198:18,19,21 200:6 guess (1) 51:2 haven (1) 221:22
garden (1) 86:13
169:21 176:1,17 four-year (1) 168:10 30:22 32:5,5 37:19 201:1,16,17,21 guide (1) 128:5 hazard (1) 156:18
gate (1) 51:3
178:7 192:23 193:6 fourth (3) 25:23 128:6 37:22 41:22 42:24 207:14,19 208:12 Guinea (1) 158:19 head (3) 17:17 70:3
gathered (1) 158:11
193:14 199:20 171:6 44:18 45:23 51:13 209:16 210:1 212:4 guys (2) 157:13 220:5 87:20
Gdansk (15) 69:16,18
206:3 211:20 fraction (1) 99:6 51:14 54:10,14 214:11,19 215:19 headed (1) 9:13
88:24 90:15,16
215:16 217:5 frame (1) 42:8 56:3,15 57:20 221:4 230:3 232:18 H heading (8) 7:8,18 8:1
91:10 113:9,13
218:10 219:8 238:9 free (1) 107:8 63:13,17 64:19 234:16 236:3,14 habit (1) 233:5 11:5 75:20 85:1
114:19 115:10,15
fit (1) 50:14 freehold (9) 4:13 7:11 65:23 69:24 72:18 237:25 239:16 130:19 179:9
116:6,10 181:13,13 hairs (2) 71:25 152:18
five (22) 17:17 21:4,9 8:16 18:9 42:9,11 74:7 75:8,10 76:3 241:7 hear (2) 1:18 219:12
gearing (9) 136:12 Halcro (2) 212:24,24
24:23 69:13,14,15 151:15 155:3 162:6 78:8,12,23 79:9 Goldman (4) 38:17 heat (1) 184:18
138:1,21,22 139:3 half (22) 26:16 58:2
69:20 70:7 89:14 frequently (1) 172:25 80:20 81:12,12,13 153:15 155:13 heavily (2) 136:25
139:12 142:19 74:8 78:3 89:12
90:9,22 95:23 friend (1) 2:9 81:14 84:17,25 162:9 137:4
148:24 194:17 94:17 96:1,12
106:17 109:19 front (14) 1:10 5:12 86:14 87:5 88:2,3 good (16) 1:4 45:17 hectare (9) 11:11 88:8
general (5) 73:18,20 97:10,19,21 99:14
110:1 114:8 120:1 17:7 26:22 37:5 92:12,15 95:23 48:18 53:18 126:1 88:13 89:6 93:11
143:14 165:2 102:9 103:2 104:18
123:14 125:18 47:6 73:10 78:21 98:6 101:9,9 150:7 166:7 169:8 93:17,22 94:6,16
223:12 105:24 107:3 122:1
148:20 194:14 79:13 80:7,23 103:16,16 104:6,14 171:9 185:20 hectares (13) 32:16
generally (7) 15:19 181:9 205:22 209:8
fixed (2) 107:1 184:10 81:13 105:17 106:7,22,23 109:12 222:22 225:1 44:10 45:20 53:14
141:23 144:15 232:1
flag (3) 35:12 41:12 177:13 115:8 116:24 230:17 232:6 56:24 57:5 58:25

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

250

March 2, 2016 Day 20

65:14 66:4 75:23 135:23 136:19 160:16 176:8 increased (3) 49:24 inserted (1) 80:23
84:13,14 87:25 138:9 141:2 142:20 IFRS’ (1) 15:20 90:1 138:23 inside (1) 101:14
hedge (1) 219:25 142:23 143:12,23 ignore (1) 111:9 increasing (2) 103:17 insist (1) 192:25
height (2) 89:13 195:5 144:3 149:4 158:7 IJ (1) 214:20 110:7 insistence (1) 68:1
help (7) 5:4 51:20 163:5 167:3,6,11 ill-conceived (1) increasingly (1) 195:6 insisting (1) 241:10
78:23 79:4 80:8 175:25 176:19,24 159:24 indebtedness (1) inspired (1) 131:15
130:7 195:23 177:25 179:3,7,11 illegality (1) 42:4 227:25 instance (1) 111:20
helped (1) 175:12 181:25 185:4,23 IM (17) 15:14,16 indemnity (1) 177:15 institution (1) 193:9
helpful (4) 31:7 188:20 189:19 17:21 61:24 64:21 independent (14) institutions (4) 193:17
119:11 128:4 192:18 193:12,19 65:12 67:1 81:8 60:7 121:2 181:3 201:14,19 202:16
183:19 194:2 198:13 83:16 101:14 159:4 193:23 197:23 instructed (3) 59:12
helping (1) 89:1 199:22 203:10 160:24 179:5 198:10,15 199:2,3 60:3 65:11
helps (1) 39:14 205:25 206:18 180:18 181:22 200:17 209:5,5,6,7 instruction (1) 236:2
Helsinki (1) 113:15 211:14,16 216:4 182:9,11 independently (2) instructions (3)
hereunder (1) 203:13 218:20 219:2 imagine (3) 38:19 100:13 194:4 229:25 230:10
hidden (1) 114:14 222:14 223:7 73:22 187:2 INDEX (1) 243:1 236:22
hiding (1) 5:5 225:22 228:16 immediately (4) 55:22 India (2) 32:7 190:23 insurance (1) 166:25
high (7) 90:8,9 100:23 hold (12) 52:4 74:2 106:16 181:23 indicate (1) 185:16 Intellectual (1) 159:12
125:22 141:20 122:2 124:7 141:18 238:23 indicated (1) 233:22 intelligent (1) 173:9
168:3,5 165:10 187:14 impinged (1) 233:2 indicates (4) 52:7 intended (4) 132:14
higher (5) 39:14 204:13 223:20 implemented (1) 53:13 58:21 80:8 184:24 193:7
122:10 123:15,18 229:3 237:2,3 169:16 indication (1) 8:15 197:10
220:18 holding (2) 214:2 implication (4) 143:5 individual (3) 74:1 intention (2) 169:5
highly (3) 39:17,24 216:7 172:3,6 229:14 94:7 172:22 236:17
115:21 holds (1) 190:17 implicitly (1) 203:15 individuals (1) 157:14 intentions (1) 204:12
Hildyard (119) 1:4,6,9 homework (1) 180:1 implies (1) 147:10 industry (5) 88:16 inter (1) 159:10
5:3,8 28:10 35:6 hone (1) 231:5 import (1) 91:17 90:11 111:21 intercreditor (4) 222:7
41:2 47:22 48:6,9 honest (12) 32:17 importance (1) 131:18 116:16 117:1 222:15,18,25
48:12,21 49:7 53:5 46:25 82:11 125:7 important (7) 29:22 inference (1) 189:16 interest (40) 2:21
54:5 56:12 57:13 148:3 157:6 161:16 100:19 152:12 information (114) 97:23 103:11
57:16,22 58:1,6,8 162:22 179:24 154:7 177:7 232:16 2:18,20 3:4,14,21 105:12,19 110:14
58:11,14 62:19,21 185:15 218:10 237:5 5:10,19 6:3,17,20 111:10 134:4,12,13
63:5,25 64:8,13 224:20 imposing (1) 31:2 7:17 8:1,20,21 9:5 134:22,25 135:7,22
70:6,23 71:5 75:13 hope (12) 31:3 36:20 impossible (2) 26:14 9:14,18 10:13,14 135:25 140:21
79:4,19 81:25 82:3 63:20,24 66:19 152:9 14:3,3,8,10,22 16:1 141:20 164:20,22
84:2 108:22,25 103:19 116:21,23 impressed (1) 173:8 16:2,10,19 17:4,22 165:5,6,16 166:2,4
110:11,17,21 162:2 231:1 240:17 impression (1) 201:16 18:24,25 19:8,8,17 166:9,17,19 167:8
112:15 113:3 242:8 impressive (1) 172:22 19:18 20:7,9 21:18 167:13,22 187:8
114:21 115:3,7 hoped (1) 96:17 improper (1) 33:21 23:17 24:8 26:11 192:21 195:4
119:2,5 124:13 hopefully (2) 38:1 improve (1) 221:7 27:8 28:8,13,22 203:23 205:6,13,18
125:25 126:25 169:3 improved (1) 77:21 32:3 35:21 37:15 206:10 207:5 214:9
127:23 128:11,19 hoping (2) 66:17 improvement (5) 38:5,9 40:16 43:18 interested (13) 4:17
130:23 131:11,14 153:12 46:10,11,14 47:18 45:24 46:10,13 37:20 38:9 39:5
132:3 151:23 horse (1) 144:1 49:16 48:24 49:15 73:11 153:1 161:19 182:6
152:10,14,21 153:4 hour (3) 122:1 230:20 inaccuracies (6) 74:5,25 78:13 186:16 187:22,24
153:10,19 154:1,4 232:1 162:19 168:17,19 79:11,25 81:2 188:8 190:13 220:3
154:11,21 175:16 Housekeeping (2) 168:19,21 170:12 88:14,18,19,21 interesting (1) 38:2
175:21 178:1,3,6 231:17 243:6 inaccurate (1) 160:3 89:3 90:20,25 interests (1) 220:2
183:6,15,19 201:7 houses (1) 226:4 inaccurately (1) 63:6 91:21 121:21 122:4 interim (1) 171:15
202:12,20 230:11 HSBC (2) 187:22,24 inappropriate (1) 122:25 123:17 intermodal (18) 72:14
230:17,22 231:3,9 huge (5) 95:4 109:15 58:16 142:9,25 144:23 94:5,10 112:13,17
231:11 232:3,7,14 112:21,22 144:24 inaudible (1) 126:11 147:10 148:10,17 112:21 113:23
232:24 233:4,15,25 hugely (2) 100:24 include (4) 65:11 66:8 150:10 151:4 159:3 114:2,14,18 115:10
235:10,15 237:8,15 109:20 66:13 159:10 159:20 160:3,19 115:11,23 119:23
237:17,25 238:7,10 hundreds (1) 167:4 included (4) 38:3 88:4 162:20 163:19,21 120:3,20 121:9
238:14,19 239:6,11 hypothesis (2) 99:23 179:24 188:24 168:16 170:13 127:14
239:14,17,23 103:14 includes (2) 143:17 174:25 176:6,25 internal (7) 82:13,14
240:15,19 241:6,13 hypothetical (1) 184:7 177:2,11,13,14,16 84:6 87:24 124:7
241:23,25 242:7 104:21 including (3) 80:23 178:17 179:14,17 124:12 225:25
hindsight (3) 39:22 133:5 231:20 180:6,16 181:3 internally (1) 24:2
121:21 157:24 I inclusion (1) 64:21 182:2 184:15 international (3)
hint (2) 40:9,13 IBM (1) 190:17 income (10) 68:17 226:24 228:4,12 192:5 193:9 214:20
hire (1) 151:20 94:22 96:3 99:13 238:12 internationally (2)
ICDs (1) 89:18
historical (1) 88:14 108:19 109:16 infrastructure (5) 2:22 190:10 191:1
IDC (1) 134:24
history (1) 165:13 153:24 174:23 40:7 136:2 157:17 internet (4) 64:3
idea (8) 56:18 63:22
hitherto (1) 220:18 179:9 197:16 188:6 88:15 93:25 231:20
133:7,8 146:12
hmm (84) 9:12 23:20 inconsistencies (1) ING (1) 187:25 interpretation (1)
160:7 176:6 184:2
24:15 25:6 26:3 14:1 initials (2) 9:10 217:25 202:19
identified (5) 123:17
65:22 69:16 71:12 inconvenience (1) initiative (2) 207:13 interrupt (4) 36:20
129:1,2 160:4
74:24 75:4 76:11 231:19 217:9 63:19,22 79:15
216:2
76:18 81:1 82:19 incorporated (1) initiatives (5) 210:15 interrupted (1)
identify (7) 20:9 35:18
82:21 87:14,14 15:22 211:1,8 212:16 231:21
57:8 59:18 174:12
88:5 92:3,22 93:3,6 incorrect (6) 49:6 218:19 interrupting (1) 64:12
179:12,21
93:12 94:25 96:5 85:22 120:2,7,8 inject (2) 42:3,16 intervening (2) 106:17
identifying (1) 145:16
96:15 99:1 101:23 127:20 inland (2) 89:18,22 106:18
IFC (2) 133:5 186:4
102:7,11 105:4 Incorrectly (1) 120:1 innocent (2) 161:1 introduce (1) 120:22
IFRS (11) 15:3,22 16:5
117:21,25 119:15 increase (5) 70:20 235:11 invest (1) 203:17
16:11,14 18:21
123:2 132:12,19 89:15,22 103:18 innominate (1) 41:8 investigate (1) 63:20
19:3,9 36:23
133:24 134:2 138:21 input (2) 88:25 91:10 investigation (1)

128:1 79:4,19 81:25 82:3
investment (9) 65:25 84:2 108:22,25
89:25 103:18 110:11,17,21
110:24 153:5,10,14 112:15 113:3
180:25 201:18 114:21 115:3,7
investor (5) 152:22,22 119:2,5 124:13
153:11 154:20 125:25 126:25
159:4 127:23 128:11,19
investors (2) 152:12 130:23 131:11,14
152:19 132:3 151:23
invited (1) 153:22 152:10,14,21 153:4
involve (1) 207:14 153:10,19 154:1,4
involved (13) 2:17 154:11,21 175:16
43:3 91:14 92:8 175:21 178:1,3,6
137:24 147:11 183:6,15,19 201:7
151:11 162:10 202:12,20 230:11
209:1,13 211:2 230:17,22 231:3,9
212:15 213:23 231:11 232:3,7,14
involvement (3) 2:12 232:24 233:4,15,25
193:17 212:6 235:10,15 237:8,15
involves (2) 62:10 237:17,25 238:7,10
121:9 238:14,19 239:6,11
IRC (1) 186:4 239:14,17,23
ironed (1) 169:3 240:15,19 241:6,13
irrelevant (5) 3:21 241:23,25 242:7
55:9 56:2 80:15 justification (3) 90:4
234:16 159:9 160:17
Isle (1) 223:25 justified (1) 131:16
isolate (2) 137:11,11 justify (6) 39:2 66:14
isolation (1) 111:11 78:3 166:14 189:5
issue (9) 54:2 138:5 191:12
139:7 208:5 209:23
210:14 216:10,13 K
216:15 KBC (1) 188:2
issues (4) 32:23
keen (1) 164:3
215:15 218:18,22
keep (10) 10:25 65:9
issuing (2) 159:19
75:9 100:3 106:8,8
160:24
127:4 134:20
isthmus (1) 57:14
157:23 178:20
item (1) 175:24
Keith (15) 138:8
iterations (1) 79:10
141:10 146:6

150:24 162:7
J
163:25 192:8,8
James (1) 88:24
203:3 207:22
January (2) 171:9 212:18 213:5,17
172:2 224:8 225:18
job (6) 53:25 114:9 kept (4) 68:5 152:8
139:23 157:14 174:3 211:3
162:17,18 key (6) 3:4 60:17 83:7
joint (1) 154:16 95:4 145:19 178:11
jottings (2) 129:12 keyboard (1) 86:5
131:22 killed (1) 70:21
Journal (1) 214:21 kind (19) 5:17 9:9,22
JSC (1) 184:8 10:24 12:25 17:20
juddering (1) 57:23 20:2 28:24 29:14
judge (1) 127:12 30:11 31:5 92:6
judges (1) 127:2 133:20 136:3
July (30) 5:19 6:8,13 144:23 179:8 193:1
17:23 18:7 46:24 204:15 217:3
47:1 48:2,24 67:1 kit (27) 66:1 210:1,4,6
75:12 76:15 101:9 210:8,17,24 211:2
101:19 118:24 211:15,25 212:9
119:7,16 120:14 213:6,8,8,9,10,11
123:3,12 133:16,22 213:20,24 214:1
142:10 157:20,25 215:9,24 216:17,17
158:1 178:5 179:4 217:8 220:6,10
181:22 182:1 KIT/LPN (1) 217:11
jumping (1) 155:23 Klang (1) 91:11
June (1) 9:10 knew (5) 26:24 31:17
Justice (119) 1:4,6,9 87:19 116:16 152:3
5:3,8 28:10 35:6 know (63) 5:24 27:14
41:2 47:22 48:6,9 31:18,19 36:1,13
48:12,21 49:7 53:5 38:17 39:5 40:2,2
54:5 56:12 57:13 45:3,5,13,15 56:17
57:16,22 58:1,6,8 57:19 64:9 75:18
58:11,14 62:19,21 78:3,25 84:9 108:5
63:5,25 64:8,13 110:22,23 112:19
70:6,23 71:5 75:13 112:23 113:5 128:6

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

251

March 2, 2016 Day 20

143:13,20 144:1 152:19 155:24 156:8 157:2,4 158:1 160:15 161:24 162:14 170:5 178:22 179:22 184:1,3 189:13 196:16 215:16,20 223:4,13 224:12 231:12,18 232:24 234:2 235:11,14 236:15 238:1 239:8 240:5 242:2

knowing (2) 37:8 223:12

knowledge (3) 2:5,7 138:4

known (7) 11:12 24:6 25:4 41:16 118:11 165:7,13

knows (1) 71:13 KPMG (2) 151:20

191:10 kTEU (1) 93:10

L

lack (3) 130:25 131:8 131:17
laid (1) 189:3

Lair (4) 190:1,1,15 191:16
land (11) 12:23 13:23 44:5 57:7 59:3 60:25 62:6 77:9 89:25 146:8 180:23

language (1) 71:13 laptop (1) 45:2

large (7) 73:20 100:25 112:25 113:6 140:8 163:18 164:23

largely (2) 90:19 98:5 lasts (1) 110:1

late (3) 114:8 215:8 236:23

lately (1) 128:2 latest (1) 186:1 lawful (1) 40:3 lawyer (3) 235:21

240:9,9 lawyers (6) 37:24

38:12 127:2 151:21 162:11 204:12

lay (1) 220:2 lead (1) 52:24 leading (2) 77:16

129:20

learned (2) 2:8 37:1 learnt (3) 164:5,17,18 leave (4) 132:1 134:14

184:24 239:6 leaving (2) 143:9

166:23

led (10) 67:1 88:17 122:11 146:11 227:2,5,13 228:9 228:17,20

left (6) 29:8 51:23 56:13 58:4 80:19 185:24

left-hand (2) 25:21 57:2

legal (7) 35:13 38:6 156:4 163:12 164:1 164:3 209:5

legislation (1) 110:5 Lehman (2) 158:1,4 lemmings (1) 157:15

lend (12) 30:19 37:7 likelihood (2) 40:25 long-standing (1) 89:2 184:25 202:22 magically (1) 103:18 236:25
39:23 143:24 70:19 longer (5) 71:6,7 229:23,24 230:18 magnitude (1) 39:19 maximum (2) 52:20
157:15,17 158:3 liken (1) 70:12 94:11 231:11,25 231:10,13,18 232:7 Magnum (1) 183:17 93:14
166:7 193:10 lily (1) 209:11 look (73) 1:15,19 5:9 232:10,10,19 main (3) 105:6 157:8 mea (1) 156:23
200:16 204:17 limited (6) 12:17 22:8 6:20 12:13 14:20 233:10,10,22,24 157:9 mean (40) 4:19 5:4
221:5 75:20 117:9,13 16:4 21:25 29:11 234:2 235:11,11,17 maintain (1) 111:1 13:20 14:6 27:16
lender (55) 3:5 35:16 238:18 32:10 33:13 43:14 235:17 236:10 maintained (2) 41:12 27:18 40:24 44:7
35:17 36:1,8,13 line (57) 25:18 28:9 44:24 45:16 47:5 238:6 239:10,13,18 65:19 50:22 53:25 55:5
39:4,18 40:19,24 28:17 29:11,14,15 48:16 49:2 54:22 240:12,19,21 241:1 major (6) 88:25 71:3 75:11 80:13
43:19 143:1,6,20 29:16,21,22,23,24 55:11 58:21 59:10 241:2,10,18,22 103:11 112:1 82:7 83:7 84:5
145:7,19 150:5,18 30:5,5,11,12,25 63:9,12,24 64:15 243:5 180:24 214:3 86:10 100:12
151:4,7,10,16,24 31:1,9,10 32:23 66:23 68:3 69:3,16 Lord’s (3) 151:24 218:22 106:11 113:3 115:3
152:3,4 153:1 37:2,25,25 52:12 73:2,8 78:14 80:10 241:3,7 majority (1) 221:17 146:22 161:24,25
154:19 155:5,7 52:13,17 53:20 87:15 89:12 93:7 Lordship (61) 1:3 3:18 making (9) 107:6 161:25 172:15
156:6,8,13,17 54:1 55:2,6,17,23 98:24 100:19 6:2 17:13 20:6 108:13,16 109:8 186:7 187:23 188:4
159:4 160:6 161:15 55:25 56:7,14,16 115:23 118:2,19,20 23:21 30:23 33:17 136:6 153:21,22 188:15 189:11
164:17,18,21 57:11,13,21 58:23 123:24 125:4 133:1 34:20 48:25 58:20 204:6 220:21 191:24 194:13
165:15,15 166:1,15 58:24 59:6,8 64:22 133:15,16 135:7 62:14 67:5 69:9 man (3) 40:3 173:9 201:16 207:22
169:2 170:12 125:25 164:2 177:6 136:17 142:6,7,18 71:13 73:12 77:7 223:25 212:9 213:25
182:13 185:2,10,22 177:7 194:8,8 148:24 149:22 82:17 84:21 85:20 managed (1) 230:5 223:12 236:10
185:24 215:10,16 199:23,24 200:22 154:19 155:1,25 86:19 94:13 95:15 management (4) 74:3 meaningful (1) 14:10
215:16 222:19 201:3 224:12,23 158:22 161:4 95:17 99:9,15,17 117:13 154:24 means (12) 63:2,8
223:15 229:3 162:21 177:17 102:8 115:18 188:16 64:4 95:12 114:3
lender’s (3) 137:13 lines (7) 43:2 51:8 197:19,25 198:3 119:13 123:19 manager (4) 89:2 121:10 133:10
161:2 220:23 54:25 55:1 58:5 201:6,7 212:13 125:14 128:15,16 177:5 181:7 228:11 143:3 172:12 197:4
lenders (23) 2:21 111:5 113:21 213:2 215:23 216:1 146:23,25 150:1,13 managers (1) 159:23 223:25 231:5
66:15 68:2 133:1 link (2) 57:21 59:1 226:18 234:7,7 152:18 160:2 174:8 managing (1) 192:8 meant (8) 71:17 83:7
143:20 145:10 LinkedIn (1) 116:25 looked (8) 28:8 50:13 177:8 179:13,15 mandate (7) 60:9 146:23,25 196:14
155:20 158:12 list (5) 20:20 112:25 67:17 82:23 121:17 182:1 183:14,22 159:3 169:18 196:16 200:21
165:3 167:12 146:15 207:10 130:25 178:23 190:12 196:16,25 177:15 201:6 224:12
181:23 182:3,8,21 237:20 191:11 197:9 202:11 218:4 202:22,24 measure (2) 73:20
187:8 188:21 listed (2) 227:6 looking (24) 41:23 221:1 230:16 233:3 manifested (1) 180:17 163:18
207:15,20 214:25 228:19 55:15,16 56:7 233:21 234:2 236:8 map (1) 58:19 measured (1) 127:19
215:3 220:21 221:5 listen (6) 6:12 44:18 68:19 72:11 78:20 236:12 237:6 March (4) 1:1 173:23 medium (1) 64:23
222:8 112:9 125:3 149:15 100:15 111:5 Lordship’s (7) 17:1 173:23 242:12 meet (2) 166:3 220:23
lenders’ (1) 196:4 196:8 115:15 127:13 92:24 111:13 margin (1) 178:14 meeting (3) 170:7
lending (10) 2:23 listing (1) 228:7 132:24 133:12 127:21 132:2 230:7 marginalising (1) 23:2 172:20 186:1
42:12 140:1 153:1 literally (2) 32:5 153:6 154:23 156:6 234:23 Marginally (1) 51:7 memoranda (2) 91:1
156:18 158:6,13 237:20 185:21 202:15 lorry (3) 94:7 114:6 Marine (2) 184:2 91:21
164:13 166:5 literate (1) 16:16 206:21,22 210:24 118:16 225:15 memorandum (64)
187:24 little (16) 65:6 113:13 212:19 221:7,8 lose (3) 103:1 127:6 mark (2) 55:20,22 2:18,20 5:10,19 6:3
length (1) 65:25 146:10,20 147:18 looks (29) 13:11,14 155:15 marked (1) 181:20 6:17,20 7:17 9:14
lengths (1) 75:2 147:22 152:17 14:15 17:10 18:6 loss (9) 102:17 105:5 market (28) 8:16 9:18 10:14 14:4,22
lent (3) 40:25 166:8 160:23 173:8 24:3 26:19,25 55:3 107:17 134:8,14 73:20 85:10,14 16:2,10,19 17:4
195:6 180:15 186:11 55:11 56:9,11 135:10,15,21 136:6 86:3 87:13,17 98:7 18:25 19:9,18 20:7
lesser (1) 196:19 205:19 208:13 66:19 73:14 80:7 losses (3) 167:22 103:24 120:23 24:9 26:11 27:8
let’s (14) 4:6 32:16 209:11 221:9 240:4 80:22 81:2 86:1 168:14,14 159:13,21 187:15 28:8,13,22 35:21
37:19 78:8 94:15 live (1) 202:7 106:24 129:11 lost (4) 27:16 154:9 197:22 198:9,15,19 37:16 38:5,10
95:19 104:16 lively (1) 61:21 150:14 156:16 161:23 219:7 198:24 199:24 45:24 46:10,13
105:11 120:22 LiveNote (1) 64:8 178:16 186:4 225:4 lot (24) 9:4 33:13 44:6 200:7,15,22 201:3 48:25 49:16 73:11
162:21,22 166:23 LLC (11) 20:16 23:19 225:10,23 226:5 44:13 45:19,19 201:25 202:7,7 75:1 78:14 79:11
166:25 228:3 23:23 24:13,18,25 228:14 50:22 64:20 65:7 209:7 220:17 79:25 88:22 122:25
letter (19) 169:18,25 146:8 147:17 184:8 loop (4) 54:15 55:10 73:22,24 89:16 markets (3) 32:8 40:8 123:17 142:10,25
192:16,21 193:3,4 184:9,10 55:13,20 100:22 146:20 40:11 144:23 148:10,17
194:19 195:4 loading (1) 68:12 looped (1) 57:23 147:23 150:7 165:7 mass (1) 230:19 151:4 159:20 160:3
199:18 200:12 loan (16) 138:20 loosely (1) 33:8 165:18 181:8 massive (1) 230:6 160:19 162:20
201:6 202:23 203:8 139:8 140:4,18 Lord (127) 2:9,10,11 207:14 208:9 214:8 material (18) 45:15 168:16 170:13
204:8,9,15,20 144:14 155:25 5:9 35:15 41:2,15 230:1 233:14 49:16 50:8 73:17 174:25 176:15
205:3 212:24 166:10 170:3 47:24 48:5,5,8,10 lots (3) 113:13 114:14 73:18 98:21 129:6 177:11,13 178:18
letters (1) 171:21 191:10 201:16 48:13,23 49:11 222:17 168:23 174:10 179:14,17 182:2
level (17) 96:13 98:3 202:1,7 210:4 53:4,11,11,16 54:3 loud (1) 29:1 207:19 234:21,25 memory (15) 16:4,5
100:23 101:6 215:1,18 221:9 54:3,6,10 56:15 low (4) 11:17 86:10 235:2,4,25 236:18 45:21 47:15 55:23
103:17 108:21 loaned (1) 143:21 58:13,15 62:22 93:23 200:21 236:20,24 57:10,20 103:6
132:17 136:11,14 loans (10) 11:14 63:1,10,11 64:5,5 lower (2) 94:9 105:8 materially (2) 49:24 126:11 139:6
138:1 139:3 140:16 164:16 195:7 64:15 71:9 75:14 lowered (2) 41:11 160:3 140:17 148:5
201:25 220:10,17 201:24 202:13,13 79:4,8,21,23 82:1,1 110:25 materials (2) 90:19 173:19 179:24
223:5,10 202:14 215:19,22 82:4 84:12 108:23 LPN (3) 217:8,15,17 91:17 213:8
leverage (9) 111:8,17 219:22 108:24 109:3 LPNs (2) 210:18 mathematical (1) 73:4 men (2) 38:12 100:4
111:19,20 132:20 local (1) 74:3 110:12,19 111:2,2 211:15 mathematically (3) mention (1) 156:1
137:13,15 164:10 location (1) 11:17 115:9 119:3,3,6 lucky (1) 224:1 12:4 29:10 91:2 mentioned (9) 20:24
186:5 logic (2) 73:4 149:12 124:19 126:2,2,20 ludicrous (1) 103:20 mathematics (1) 91:3 32:4 124:8 161:11
leveraging (1) 186:15 logistical (1) 238:17 126:20 127:25 Luncheon (1) 128:13 Matt (1) 199:5 161:11 190:11
lie (1) 184:13 London (1) 231:6 128:15,20,20 129:9 lurking (1) 241:20 matter (9) 127:9 205:15 221:6 240:2
life (3) 40:10 71:1 long (12) 4:15 31:3 129:25 130:9,12,23 197:22 198:9,16 merely (4) 4:20 67:13
115:12 64:23 111:18 131:10,10,13,19,19 M 200:6 202:10 210:6 164:15 211:3
light (11) 16:11 32:24 118:17 127:17 132:4,4,6 133:17 MacDonald (1) 199:5 230:20 236:11 message (3) 224:8,15
35:23 40:22 43:18 142:15 165:13 155:4 175:17,18,22 matters (7) 4:25 30:18 233:3
Macpherson (2)
82:16 84:10 85:21 199:10 215:20 178:2,2,4,7 183:1,7 30:20 116:20 metal (3) 45:14 50:3
192:19 194:23
86:4 139:5 241:20 231:2 235:22 183:7,11,11,16,21 129:21 174:19 72:14

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

252

March 2, 2016 Day 20

methodology (3) minus (3) 135:10,16 168:1 169:10,11
77:14,22 89:11 135:18 186:20 187:4
metre (2) 77:18 88:9 minute (4) 100:15 188:22 189:9,11
metres (16) 51:12 122:15 156:15 193:15 194:1,3,7
52:20 55:8,8 56:1,1 165:1 196:3,5,12,18,18
74:15,15,16 76:6,6 minutes (15) 21:4,9 196:20,23 197:1,14
76:7,8 77:19 90:8 22:3 24:23 85:24 197:17
113:9 89:10 120:1 123:14 modelled (2) 71:10
mid-2008 (2) 47:15 126:3 138:25 168:9
137:5 148:20 230:9,9,14 modelling (10) 43:7,9
mid-October (1) 192:4 231:2 62:4 66:9 68:19
mid-point (1) 171:9 mis (1) 126:11 119:14,25 124:19
middle (3) 68:9 misinformation (1) 126:21 133:15
154:10 204:25 145:11 models (4) 66:25 67:4
mild (1) 111:20 misleading (2) 12:15 183:13 197:1
mile (1) 58:2 150:15 modern (3) 89:10,11
miles (1) 89:25 misquote (1) 146:2 89:14
million (176) 2:24 4:6 missed (2) 24:3 82:8 modified (1) 239:23
4:7,8,9 7:4,12 8:4,9 mistake (1) 82:8 modify (1) 31:25
8:19 9:3 10:2,12 mistaken (2) 147:6 moment (11) 14:25
12:3 13:15 16:23 148:7 18:3 27:15 76:17
18:1,10,18 26:20 mistakes (1) 161:2 94:13 98:24 115:12
26:21 27:3,7,7 misunderstanding (1) 125:6 198:6 230:21
28:13,14,20,21 204:14 239:6
29:5,6,7,9,13 32:16 misunderstood (1) moments (1) 86:19
33:24 35:19,20 154:18 money (46) 3:13 4:14
36:6 38:13,14 mitigation (1) 199:9 30:19 37:7 71:8
39:23 41:5 43:5,22 Mitsui (1) 186:17 91:13 101:5 108:25
78:4 80:24 94:20 mixture (3) 41:8 113:7 110:23 111:15
94:21,21 95:24,24 113:8 132:23 134:21
96:11 97:6,20 99:2 Mm (87) 9:12 23:20 143:21 144:2,18
99:14,14,19,20,20 24:15 25:6 26:3 149:8,19 150:6
100:9 102:16,16,25 65:22 69:16 71:12 152:1 153:1 155:8
102:25 103:4,7,12 74:24 75:4 76:11 155:12,13,15
103:14,15,19 104:1 76:18 81:1 82:19 156:14 157:5,15,17
105:3,12,19,22,23 82:21 87:14,14 158:3,13 164:5,19
105:25 106:5 107:1 88:5 92:3,22 93:3,6 164:24 165:5 166:6
107:4,4,9,10 93:12 94:25 96:5 166:7,8 167:8
109:23 111:4,10 96:15 99:1 101:11 171:19 172:8,10
123:21 134:3,8,11 101:23 102:7,11 174:15 200:16
134:12,15 135:10 105:4 117:21,25 204:1,17 215:11
135:16,18 137:2,15 119:15 123:2 monies (1) 165:6
137:16,22 138:20 132:12,19 133:24 month (16) 81:21
139:8 140:13,13 134:2 135:23 84:3 86:22,24,25
141:4,8,17 142:14 136:19 138:9 141:2 87:3 106:15 173:19
142:16,21 143:1,7 142:20,23 143:12 200:21 201:2 207:6
143:8,14,24 145:3 143:23 144:3 149:4 207:9 208:15,22
145:4,8,10,12,20 158:7 163:5 167:3 209:3 215:7
145:23 146:17 167:6,11 175:25 monthly (1) 206:16
148:2,12,18,21 176:11,19,24 months (5) 76:1
149:2,8,10,14,19 177:25 179:3,7,11 173:22,24 208:23
150:14 151:5,8 181:25 185:4,23 239:25
155:6,11,14 156:8 188:20 189:19 moral (1) 156:18
156:10,11,14 192:18 193:12,19 morning (21) 1:4 28:9
164:15 174:16 194:2 198:13 40:7 64:1 102:3
176:4,5,10,21,22 199:22 203:10 146:16 148:13
177:22,23 178:8 205:25 206:18 151:12 158:24
180:7,8,8,18 190:3 207:24 211:14,16 162:13 167:25
195:6 202:4,5 216:4 218:20 219:2 184:1,14 190:11
205:12,17 206:4,7 222:14 223:7 205:15 221:6
206:10 207:5 225:22 228:16 231:25 233:20
208:16,21 209:9 mode (1) 167:16 234:5 235:1 236:5
211:22,24,25 212:2 model (80) 43:11,14 mouth (2) 34:24
219:12 220:19 61:11 65:12 67:1,2 37:17
221:5 67:6,9,9,14,19 69:3 move (7) 58:15 89:19
million-odd (1) 69:10 70:1 94:18 108:17 110:22
178:17 95:17,17 98:24 137:8 242:4,8
million-worth (1) 99:10,12,12 100:7 movement (2) 109:11
152:15 101:10,19 104:12 109:11
millions (2) 167:4 104:20,21,21 106:3 moving (4) 43:24
178:14 118:24 119:7,8,8 89:17 127:18 180:9
mind (16) 5:14 10:7 119:16 120:11,14 MSC (1) 113:3
31:8 41:3 55:9 121:5 123:3,12,24 Mtg (1) 186:18
62:22 75:8 80:17 124:2,6,11,20 mud (6) 44:6,13,17
82:4 112:15 147:2 125:11,14 126:6,16 45:19 50:22 146:20
147:3 157:13 171:3 126:18 133:17,23 multi-dimensional (1)
185:21 197:7 135:4,9 136:1 67:11
minimal (1) 115:20 137:9 161:20 multi-dimensions (1)
ministry (1) 34:3 162:22 167:21 96:22

multi-lateral (2)

201:13 202:16 multilateral (1)

201:19

Multilaterals (1)

193:17

multiple (2) 108:3 110:13

multiplying (1) 197:15 Mundra (1) 91:11 muster (3) 32:12

38:24 39:1

mustn’t (2) 103:3

128:8

mutually (2) 212:3

215:21

N

name (7) 21:2,8,12,13 22:3 151:1 240:1
names (1) 22:4 narrow (1) 160:13 Natalia (1) 213:9 nature (4) 34:10 50:9

95:10 222:10

Nazarov (12) 233:16 234:24 235:7 236:4 236:11 237:9 238:3 239:3,25 240:6,15 241:8

Nazarov’s (3) 234:3,15

241:14

NDAs (1) 182:10 near (1) 69:1

nearer (2) 87:4 123:9 nearly (1) 218:11 necessarily (14) 3:6

3:17 41:22 43:8 59:5 68:21,21 154:19 156:22 164:12 165:22 167:15 171:13 216:17

necessary (7) 1:11 59:19,23 199:10 237:1 241:16,17

need (35) 16:4 43:12 59:13 61:17 69:2 89:16 94:1,6 127:5 141:8,18 146:4 153:17 182:16 193:15 195:13,25 196:6,12,24 197:23 198:10 201:12 202:14 213:7 229:24 230:4,9 231:2,4,11,22 233:13 234:1 239:11

needed (11) 15:16 43:4 141:7,12 160:20 209:1,4 216:7 223:13 235:6 235:7

needs (2) 231:23 236:21

negate (1) 214:4 negative (1) 213:25 negatively (3) 216:8

216:19,25 negotiating (2) 37:20

158:19 negotiation (2)
144:24 152:24 net (1) 99:17 network (1) 76:13 Neutralis (1) 82:15 never (14) 14:4 66:22

79:16 82:14,15 oath (5) 3:18 23:21 210:14 211:6
104:13 192:3,5,11 84:21 86:7 95:16 212:17 214:3
203:6 204:16 225:1 object (2) 128:20 216:10 218:5
228:12 229:21 129:22 221:11 222:23
nevertheless (1) objecting (1) 62:21 223:2,6,10 225:3,5
127:3 obliged (1) 35:12 225:20,25 226:1,19
new (13) 50:5,25 51:3 obtain (2) 59:23 154:6 226:23,24 227:2,3
51:3 52:2 65:10 obvious (1) 70:24 227:13,16,20 228:9
69:12 77:11 140:11 obviously (17) 30:12 228:10 229:4
165:23 166:10 63:22 85:11 110:2 OMG’s (1) 151:17
167:17 181:10 129:18,20 130:8 OMGP (4) 11:10 20:18
nice (2) 51:2 64:3 138:21 150:25 25:16 149:18
nicest (1) 194:11 200:6 213:15 223:8 omission (1) 49:20
night (1) 231:6 229:25 234:20 once (15) 16:8 37:19
nightmare (1) 32:8 239:15,20 242:2 42:19 49:4 69:1
no-go (2) 97:1 98:6 occasion (2) 61:22 94:15 97:19 100:10
nominal (3) 22:14,21 240:1 134:13 135:22,24
99:6 Occasionally (1) 79:5 168:7 170:12
non (1) 144:20 October (25) 6:10 182:24 241:14
non-international (1) 16:18 17:4,10 one’s (1) 223:13
190:25 46:19,22 47:5,20 one-month (1) 53:25
non-recourse (3) 47:24 48:7 49:7,9 one-page (1) 27:19
132:23 133:6 137:8 49:11 75:18 147:9 Onega (6) 167:16
nonsense (1) 78:7 172:16 179:6 185:5 180:23 181:5,9,19
nonsensical (4) 85:17 185:10 186:4 187:9 211:19
118:8,9 123:22 203:5,5 205:1 ones (8) 77:20 112:19
Nordea (1) 188:12 237:12 112:23 113:7
normal (3) 67:15 odd (1) 222:2 114:25 115:1
98:19 197:25 offer (6) 137:3 174:1 178:25 227:9
normally (2) 19:4 195:22 201:11 OOO (1) 22:15
188:11 203:17 204:8 open (7) 75:9 79:10
north (4) 53:15 57:4 offered (1) 221:3 101:12,17 130:8,10
58:2,9 offering (1) 195:23 178:20
north-east (1) 58:10 offices (6) 50:25 51:1 operating (4) 69:8,10
Norwood (1) 225:19 51:3 52:3,9 84:10 158:18 230:4
note (15) 17:1 20:3,4 official (2) 33:21 43:5 operation (6) 33:10
67:6 92:24 180:14 officially (1) 225:20 70:9 111:22 118:3
210:4 217:1,3,10 offshore (1) 111:17 121:9 122:18
217:21,22 218:4,8 oh (5) 17:17 46:20 operational (4) 64:9
225:19 161:10 191:10 69:19 166:3,18
notebook (1) 45:10 223:25 operations (1) 64:24
noted (1) 85:7 oil (1) 43:12 operator (2) 89:2,21
notes (2) 21:16 45:6 okay (19) 37:20,21 opinion (3) 90:13
notice (2) 129:7 162:2 46:22 81:12 99:18 141:4 157:18
noticed (4) 64:1 105:16,22,25 opportunity (2) 66:22
112:23 161:18 106:14 107:9,17 192:11
228:12 109:15 113:9 opposite (1) 113:22
notion (2) 152:11 120:22 121:15 optimistic (1) 170:2
190:17 124:8 212:23 213:3 Optimistically (1)
notwithstanding (2) 223:21 171:6
70:19 207:8 old (1) 45:2 optimum (1) 71:6
noughts (1) 83:3 OMG (113) 2:14 3:20 option (2) 137:10
November (3) 147:9 7:11 8:3,8 9:13 203:9
205:4 215:8 10:11,11 12:18,20 options (2) 36:8
NPV (2) 94:20 99:17 14:8,21 18:9,17 208:14
nuclear (2) 161:13 19:24 20:17 25:10 order (20) 9:16 15:16
163:1 25:11 36:16 43:2 34:2 39:19 42:15
number (29) 6:7 9:23 52:14 75:20 82:14 43:9 98:7 141:22
33:18 39:10 49:7 111:7,13 132:21 148:6 154:6 160:19
65:24 78:10 79:5 136:25,25 138:2,8 165:5 193:9 195:13
84:8 85:17 86:10 138:21 139:4,16 208:7 222:20 231:5
86:23 96:6 116:9 140:10 141:23 234:12 237:11
123:23 128:25 142:14 143:14 240:24
167:19 176:1 144:15,21 145:3,13 ordered (1) 238:4
180:12 188:7,21 145:25 147:11 ordinarily (1) 235:17
192:24 195:24 149:6,18 150:10 organisations (1)
200:13 210:14 151:6 160:20 59:13
212:14 216:5 163:19 164:7,17,19 organised (1) 174:21
221:20,22 167:7 169:6,23 organising (1) 210:23
numbers (16) 32:25 172:12,16 173:12 orientate (2) 17:7
33:3 102:15 106:12 175:1 176:4,7 80:18
106:17,18,21 177:1,22 178:11 original (3) 71:19
125:15,19 155:21 179:20 180:5 181:2 76:25 88:2
156:24 179:18 186:7 188:14,17 originally (3) 49:14
180:3 187:3 197:16 193:23 194:4 132:16 134:1
212:1 198:15,21 202:23 orthodox (3) 88:12
205:11,12 206:8,14 169:10,11
O 207:4,16,17,20 Oslo (2) 184:2 225:15
208:14,19 209:25 ought (1) 9:6

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

253

March 2, 2016 Day 20

outcomes (1) 38:22 output (1) 76:19 outright (1) 221:15 outside (3) 52:13,18

53:8

outstanding (2)

137:23 174:21 overall (2) 44:10

171:24 overheads (1) 100:4 overlapped (1) 140:7 overnight (3) 158:12

231:24 232:12

overwhelming (1)

151:13 owned (8) 11:11

65:15 146:8 184:10 184:14,15 189:24 216:23

owner (4) 150:5 155:7 156:13 161:9

owners (1) 154:14 ownership (2) 159:12

184:5

owns (2) 56:15 75:23

Oxus (14) 2:17 9:15 19:7 80:5 82:15 159:17 162:15 163:15 177:1 196:3 199:3 217:10,14,17

Oxus’ (1) 219:4

Oxus/OMG (1) 217:16

P

P&L (2) 197:12,18 pace (1) 158:11 pack (1) 241:11 page (105) 1:20,25

6:24,25 9:10 11:5 12:13 13:1,4 17:6,7 17:24 18:5 20:12 21:21 22:11 23:16 25:2 26:9 28:9,24 29:15,15,17,18,22 29:22,24,24 30:3,7 30:8,11,12,22,24 31:1,1,9 47:5,24 49:7 54:14 72:18 73:3,5 74:8,13 75:9 78:25 79:13 80:7 80:11,23 81:14,15 81:15 82:1 85:4 87:9,10 88:4,7 92:23 93:15 101:13 106:22,24 112:24 114:21 117:2 118:25 135:20 138:16 142:11,11 156:6 175:13,24 176:1 178:20,22 179:8,13 183:18 184:4 187:3,18,19 188:7,12 193:5 195:11,24,24 197:20 201:9 203:7 206:19 217:23 219:8 220:16 224:25 225:10 243:2

pages (7) 9:8,9 29:19 80:25 114:17 118:11 119:3

paid (12) 3:2,20 4:18 39:11,19 42:2,15 137:22 155:3 169:16 173:20 201:1

pair (1) 192:10

pale (1) 56:9 153:23 persuasion (1) 70:25 117:22 119:1,6 20:17 25:10,11 premises (1) 45:8
Panorama (1) 34:5 participation (2) persuasive (2) 66:17 122:12,12 128:15 89:16 92:21 115:4 preparation (2) 2:17
paper (8) 62:15 63:2 192:13 210:4 152:7 132:9 133:15,20,21 115:5,6 116:12 235:20
73:2 77:24 129:22 particular (12) 13:22 Pessimistically (1) 135:5,6,20 136:8 posing (1) 9:16 prepare (4) 37:22
130:20 184:16 70:4 123:4 129:22 171:7 136:18 138:7 142:8 positing (4) 38:16 148:7 233:13 242:1
229:21 145:17 156:19 Petersburg (17) 8:17 148:9 150:2 155:11 75:5 98:16 99:4 prepared (11) 1:16,20
papers (1) 184:3 167:14 208:1 11:12 65:3 70:17 171:11 174:24 position (18) 34:14 5:10,16 15:14
paperwork (1) 32:1 218:18 222:19 74:1 85:10 87:12 175:1 176:1,12 35:2 38:4 128:20 62:14 63:7 78:2
para (1) 176:2 227:22 240:5 113:14,22,24 177:18 178:9,20,21 155:14 165:8 130:3 196:3 203:24
paragraph (90) 5:22 particularly (3) 20:9 114:19 116:1 179:8 180:19,20 166:14 186:2,12 preparing (3) 9:17
6:25 7:9,17,21 13:1 93:23 224:22 118:21,21 121:1,3 181:21 183:23 193:2,10 235:6 14:22 130:3
15:1,12,15 18:14 parties (1) 124:9 172:24 184:22 185:1 236:3,15,20 237:8 prescribe (1) 13:2
46:4 59:11,15 partly (1) 11:13 Petroles (1) 225:19 188:19 192:12,15 237:24 238:1 present (1) 99:17
64:15 66:23 72:7,9 partner (1) 117:16 phase (9) 32:5 37:23 194:19 196:17 positions (1) 153:12 presentations (1)
72:18 74:12,20 Partners (1) 158:18 68:10 98:6,20 202:6 203:7 205:2 positive (2) 170:8 173:1
75:22 82:2,22 85:1 party (5) 3:3,12 33:8 101:7,7 193:6,14 210:1 212:13 217:4 186:13 presented (1) 159:24
85:5 87:7,10 92:22 203:19 235:11 phases (4) 75:25 223:2,16 225:18,19 possible (13) 27:16 presenting (1) 223:9
94:24 111:25 pass (2) 38:24,25 96:24,25 97:1 pledged (3) 133:11 38:22 63:21 65:19 press (1) 83:7
115:14 116:2 126:4 passive (1) 232:25 phenomenally (2) 137:7 220:23 68:11 78:3 110:4 pressed (3) 28:11
126:6 132:11 passport (1) 223:24 209:19,21 pledges (1) 223:5 129:13 159:17 133:21 160:18
136:20 138:18 path (1) 160:14 philosophical (3) pledging (1) 219:21 161:2 194:11 pressing (6) 32:3
140:22,25 141:1 pause (5) 31:11 58:11 153:20 207:22 plot (12) 13:22 52:14 209:15 216:5 150:23 160:16
145:22 146:4,22,24 64:10 180:10 208:5 52:19,19,22 56:16 possibly (4) 145:18 162:7 208:6,6
147:4,5,10,15,20 218:14 photocopied (1) 56:19 57:7 59:7 179:4 194:10 pressure (1) 203:3
147:21 158:22,23 pay (19) 3:15 109:5,9 119:4 62:6 65:24 68:20 209:24 presumably (10) 6:16
159:16 161:18 114:13 143:8 144:8 photograph (5) 51:15 plots (1) 12:24 post (1) 128:23 46:6 51:6 116:15
169:12 172:19,21 148:22 164:20,22 54:18,22 55:15,16 plug (1) 168:7 post-dated (1) 179:4 126:18 150:5,10
176:17 177:19 164:25 165:5 166:1 photographs (9) plugged (1) 61:15 postdated (1) 16:19 166:8 187:5 204:14
178:7 180:19,22 166:16 167:8,13 44:21 45:5,14 plus (2) 53:14 151:21 postpone (1) 98:18 presume (1) 41:22
181:21 182:18,19 206:16 207:10 48:17 51:13 54:11 pm (9) 126:25 128:11 pot (1) 145:13 pretty (10) 53:18 56:1
189:7,18,21,23 208:22 227:12 54:12 56:3,5 128:12,14 183:8,10 potential (38) 2:21 57:11 58:22 111:20
190:8 191:13 paying (2) 105:11 phrase (2) 27:17 231:14,16 242:10 3:5 4:16 7:18,22,22 190:22 202:7,17
195:21 196:1,9 209:3 152:10 point (47) 23:7 35:25 8:11 11:18 18:13 213:9 240:1
197:10 198:3,4,7 payment (1) 43:4 physical (4) 44:4,5 36:21 45:18 55:17 23:12 36:8 37:10 prevail (1) 66:18
198:12 199:20,20 payments (22) 29:4 77:8 227:10 61:16 67:22 68:18 39:10 42:3 68:2 prevailed (1) 66:13
203:8,11 204:15 31:14,16 33:19,21 physically (2) 44:7,8 79:16 85:23,23 72:20 76:25 89:8 prevailing (1) 100:8
205:9 206:20 210:2 34:9 37:8,9 38:15 pick (8) 113:17 114:7 87:24 90:12 97:21 97:16 142:25 143:6 prevent (1) 131:2
210:3,6 222:3 39:18,25 40:18,21 126:20 128:15 104:5,13,13 109:4 153:24 154:13 previously (1) 17:23
paragraphs (5) 72:6 41:16,16,19 42:1 140:23 159:15 109:6 112:12 155:5 159:4 164:15 price (11) 11:15 14:16
78:14 81:16 112:4 42:15 43:9 165:17 171:2 195:24 119:21 121:11 165:4,15 166:16 19:2 36:6 41:4
195:10 166:4,19 picked (2) 118:15 128:6 130:23 132:2 181:23 182:3 187:6 52:15 65:7 147:23
parallel (4) 34:18 pears (2) 108:22 158:1 132:13 139:11 187:20 206:15 151:14 184:11
210:9 218:23 114:20 picks (1) 142:10 142:10,24 143:20 209:21 210:20 207:5
219:14 pecking (1) 222:20 picture (2) 55:20 58:3 145:19 147:14 220:23 222:8 Pricewaterhouse (1)
pardon (9) 5:7 44:12 penultimate (1) piece (5) 3:4,14 7:25 155:4,22 157:3 potentiality (1) 153:8 194:7
48:3,4,6 124:25 175:17 129:22 130:20 159:22 162:14 potentially (6) 38:8 print (1) 183:16
125:10 188:17 people (12) 3:8,9 74:4 pieces (1) 171:2 166:2 171:12 39:5 207:4 216:9 priorities (1) 207:10
212:21 84:15 110:12 pink (1) 175:18 172:12 183:3 216:12 221:12 priority (4) 197:22
parent (7) 23:13 114:10 162:2,11 place (5) 98:2 110:24 184:16 201:5 203:6 pounds (1) 4:1 198:9,16 222:8
142:21 149:1,17 173:4 179:19 213:5 156:12 231:24 204:16 209:11 powers (2) 66:17 private (1) 181:24
151:6 155:5 156:14 239:21 238:9 215:20 152:8 privilege (3) 238:7,8
Paribas (24) 38:18 peoples’ (1) 90:20 plain (1) 204:6 pointed (1) 54:15 practically (2) 111:16 239:12
189:20 190:12 percentage (2) 86:3 plainly (1) 68:18 pointing (4) 52:5,18 137:6 privileged (1) 234:15
192:12,16,21,25 87:12 plan (1) 104:10 92:22 124:16 practice (9) 15:20 privy (1) 225:4
193:8 194:23 perfect (1) 119:10 planned (2) 65:25 points (8) 48:25 94:23 88:15 111:21 probably (45) 18:5
195:16,25 196:11 perfectly (7) 68:11 141:6 127:11 128:16 189:12 195:7 199:1 26:17 33:13 37:20
197:2 198:19 91:2 98:18 130:17 plans (4) 7:9 59:14 129:15 155:18 199:13 200:19 41:1,14 43:23
200:14 202:23 186:22 197:17,25 169:14 173:1 174:24 236:12 222:6 46:18 48:3 49:9
203:15,22 204:6,16 perform (1) 65:15 plant (1) 167:18 poor (2) 65:5 147:17 pragmatic (1) 235:24 51:1 55:17 70:1
209:10 214:5,10 performance (4) play (2) 109:24 164:9 Popov (3) 92:19,24 pre-tax (5) 168:13,14 77:16 82:10 83:21
215:6 23:13 154:12 playing (1) 124:11 112:18 176:4,22 177:23 86:20 87:20 99:7
Paris (1) 79:20 237:10 240:10 plays (1) 212:5 port (42) 3:11 11:10 precise (1) 47:15 113:11 115:1
parked (1) 58:4 performing (1) 203:14 please (110) 1:3,7,14 11:12,15 25:15 precisely (1) 42:25 124:18 128:7
Parker (12) 138:8,18 perimeter (1) 52:18 5:17 6:20,22 7:7 44:11 61:2 62:5,11 predated (1) 179:6 143:17 148:21
146:14 192:8,17 period (4) 84:14 110:3 9:6,23 10:24 12:8 64:24 68:6,20 predates (1) 158:1 160:24 161:16
213:5,20 216:3 116:15 171:15 12:25 17:20 18:13 69:10 75:2 77:9 predicated (2) 70:7,23 163:23,25 180:14
217:7 224:7 225:2 perjuring (1) 227:17 19:20 20:2 21:1,16 90:18 91:5,11,13 predicating (1) 75:1 183:4 185:11,13
225:13 permission (1) 127:21 22:13 23:8 24:12 91:16,17,20,23,25 predicted (1) 134:3 187:2 188:10 190:6
part (25) 8:16 14:2,21 permissions (1) 60:5 24:22 28:1,1,24 92:10 96:23 106:25 predicting (1) 69:22 203:1 205:19 208:3
47:12,12 48:19 permits (2) 59:23 29:1,14,18,19 30:3 108:17 111:16 prediction (1) 134:12 209:8 211:10,22
49:3,20 56:19,23 60:10 30:7,9,15,22 31:10 114:11 116:19 preference (3) 70:11 214:16 217:18
59:9 62:9,9 68:1 persisted (1) 71:5 44:3 51:15 54:14 117:3,8,11,13,16 71:6 233:12 235:1
83:12 84:23 86:20 person (4) 3:15 67:15 59:10 60:11 64:16 117:18 118:22 preliminary (5) 195:12 probative (1) 131:20
94:1 135:3 141:22 88:23 230:1 73:9 74:7 75:8,10 158:18 166:25 195:18 196:5,12,23 problem (9) 40:23
151:2 159:5 203:23 personal (1) 220:12 75:10 78:15 81:12 184:1 211:17 Premina (2) 12:17 94:1 104:18 108:22
215:7 223:3 personally (2) 8:22 81:13 84:25 88:2 Port-Evo (3) 117:4,7,8 22:8 221:12 231:8
partially (2) 56:11 93:24 92:12 95:15 101:13 portfolio (3) 225:15 premise (2) 76:19 238:17 239:1
148:22 perspective (1) 38:6 101:17 106:22,24 225:19 229:11 77:8 241:15
participate (2) 63:23 persuading (1) 182:5 111:23 116:25 ports (11) 12:18,20 premised (1) 134:21 problems (2) 109:8

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

254

March 2, 2016 Day 20

168:25 198:25 199:9,10,25
procedure (1) 186:22 200:2,11,22 202:6
procedures (1) 162:25 203:18 204:1,18
proceed (1) 217:16 205:7 206:9 207:8
proceeded (3) 168:1 208:8,8,10,19
233:7 241:18 209:19 210:16,23
proceedings (6) 2:12 211:13 223:4
4:25 10:21 25:4 projected (4) 60:12,15
27:25 28:5 69:12 87:11
process (10) 35:16 projecting (2) 65:16
37:19 42:2,4 60:8 85:7
159:8 160:20 196:7 projection (1) 132:10
201:22 234:21 projections (3) 69:4
procuring (1) 41:9 70:15 159:14
produce (4) 15:16 projects (7) 26:17
91:20 184:21 40:7 157:17 210:9
240:25 212:6 217:16,18
produced (7) 1:11 promulgated (3)
115:24 124:20 103:5 125:14
128:2,18 185:12 205:10
190:10 promulgating (1) 90:3
produces (1) 130:5 prone (1) 180:13
Production (1) 184:9 pronounce (1) 177:3
productive (1) 94:6 proof (2) 130:1
productivity (1) 93:10 159:12
professional (3) 159:7 proper (1) 162:18
159:22 162:17 properly (1) 129:20
profile (2) 116:25 property (17) 3:24
145:4 8:16 16:22 19:2,5
profit (17) 100:19 32:12 39:15 43:16
102:18,20 105:25 51:9 55:4 146:9
107:17 109:14 151:1,15,22 153:7
134:3,11,14 168:14 159:12 162:6
175:1 176:2,5,17 proportions (1) 76:14
176:22 177:23 proposal (4) 159:25
178:9 195:1 199:21 210:4
profit/loss (1) 101:2 proposed (9) 44:3
profitability (3) 95:23 48:21 49:1,3
132:10 168:8 140:24 189:6
profitable (11) 70:13 210:10,18 220:19
70:18 100:13 proposing (7) 216:17
107:20 108:20,21 230:11,12,13
109:12,17,21 234:23 235:9,24
135:24 209:19 proposition (4)
programme (1) 34:5 100:16,17 133:13
project (127) 2:13,25 165:3
3:4 4:5,8,15,16 7:8 propositions (1) 63:15
20:8 23:10,25 prospect (2) 43:20
24:16 31:21 34:23 154:11
35:17 37:1,11 39:9 prospective (1) 187:8
39:16 40:20 41:24 proved (3) 112:7
42:10 43:7,20 44:2 117:15 120:8
56:19 59:9,22,24 provenance (2) 78:19
60:12,19,21 66:25 117:19
69:23 71:11 74:10 provide (12) 95:11
92:6,8,13 95:10 128:4 129:14 159:9
96:13 97:12,18,25 174:9,10,23 186:12
98:4 99:9 100:10 187:7 193:7 203:18
100:24 101:21,25 204:1
104:5,14 107:18 provided (8) 8:1
108:1,3,10 109:20 169:24 173:13
126:14 132:10,14 176:7 220:20 238:5
132:17 133:7 134:1 238:14,16
134:6 136:2 137:9 Providers (1) 187:20
137:12,25 139:2,19 providing (2) 152:20
139:22 140:24 196:3
141:21 142:1 144:7 provision (1) 156:5
144:16 145:24 proximity (2) 3:10
151:11 152:5 53:25
153:24 155:15 prurient (1) 157:12
160:5 161:15 PSA (1) 113:3
162:10 163:9 164:6 PSC (3) 191:25 206:24
164:11 170:10 208:7
171:13,24 172:13 public (3) 73:23 74:6
181:7 182:6 184:1 181:23
185:20 186:16 purchase (16) 11:15
188:16 191:25 12:9 13:11,14,22
192:14 193:10,15 14:4,16 19:2,4
194:1,17 195:15 22:14,21 26:6

35:20 36:6 41:4 151:14

purchased (5) 10:2,12 11:10 146:7 180:23

purdah (1) 232:21 pure (2) 113:8 115:12 purely (3) 118:12

166:21 191:8 purpose (6) 2:20

97:14 99:10 143:21 184:24 215:17

purposes (7) 2:3 9:17 15:10,10 26:10 104:9 122:5

pursue (1) 207:6 put (64) 8:7,9 14:10

16:9 20:18 25:2 26:22 33:22 43:15 51:2,3 53:3,20 59:1 83:4,15 84:8 89:19 103:18 105:14 109:3,18 113:18,25 114:1 118:15 120:5 122:22,25 124:14 126:23 131:5 142:21 148:13 149:1,13,18 150:19 152:17 154:15,24 155:6,8,12,14 156:14,23 159:21 160:2,4 161:21 163:2 166:13,14 171:3,21 180:15 186:9 188:25 192:7 195:8 201:4 207:20 222:11

Putin (1) 34:6

puts (2) 101:2 236:8 putting (13) 27:12

34:24 37:17 50:8 61:25 90:14 97:18 109:6 121:7 149:25 154:6 179:16 201:24

puzzled (1) 141:25 puzzling (2) 209:16,18

Q

qualify (1) 127:5 quality (2) 48:18 56:6 quarter (3) 99:14

171:6,7

quasi (1) 129:14 quay (3) 77:18 88:9

146:20 quays (1) 77:19 queried (2) 41:6

189:24 queries (1) 14:15 query (1) 197:6

querying (5) 21:5 23:5 138:25 197:12 200:10

question (71) 6:12 8:13 9:24 10:9 19:6 21:24 26:14 28:11 30:12 33:6 34:16 36:12 42:6,7,8,9,19 45:3 53:1,2 62:3,15 62:18 63:1,8 68:16 70:6 83:10 91:24 95:22 104:10 105:16,19 107:16 111:2 112:9 115:8 116:7 121:22 124:10 125:4,8 127:7 130:5,6 131:25 136:5,6

137:19,21 149:16 151:24 163:13,20 164:9 165:9,11,12 165:12 166:11,13 172:7 176:1 196:8 200:9 202:10 204:4 204:5,22 229:2 235:16

questionable (1)

129:10 questioning (1) 28:17 questions (39) 2:9 9:7

9:13,15 10:6 14:11 27:12 28:7 30:24 31:22 33:18 40:4 41:3 44:18 80:17 83:22 124:14 127:4 129:21 131:14,16 139:24 146:15 175:5,8,10 177:3 186:20,23,25 216:2 230:8,19 231:5 233:23 235:3,7 236:24 241:1

quick (1) 201:7 quickly (5) 13:19

70:18 89:20 114:23 218:13

quid (1) 155:11

quite (36) 32:18 36:12 45:17 50:21 61:22 64:20 65:7 71:3 79:19 83:7,10,18 89:23 110:22,23 126:2 127:11 130:23 131:1 145:12,14 147:23 165:18 183:16 188:7 191:3 194:6 194:7,14 200:9 204:4 233:8,14 235:15 238:10 241:6

quiz (1) 194:8 quizzing (1) 157:23 quoted (1) 228:5

R

race (1) 144:1 rail (3) 59:1 76:13
89:19

railway (38) 51:8,20 51:24 52:7,13,17 52:21 53:20 54:1 54:11,16,19,20,24 55:4,6,11,13,17,23 55:25 56:8,14 57:8 57:11,13,21,22 58:5,6,9,23 59:6,8 113:21 114:2,9 118:16

raise (13) 3:3 4:6,8,14 20:8 141:11,17 142:14 171:12,19 208:15 211:22 215:11

raised (13) 14:15 29:7 35:12 43:21 49:4 91:13 92:13 128:16 143:7 151:9 174:15 219:12 236:12

raising (8) 23:24 39:16 132:23 169:6 199:10 211:19 214:14,17

ran (5) 51:9,12 54:20 55:4 61:22

range (2) 122:23,25

rate (4) 11:21 12:5 realms (1) 77:18 224:3
123:9,12 reason (18) 34:13 referable (1) 20:3
rates (10) 109:25 78:2 93:20 108:5 reference (20) 5:17
114:20 117:24 125:20 127:15 12:23 15:24 19:9
122:10,15,23 123:8 133:5 165:25 166:7 23:18,22,23 24:7
199:24 200:22 166:15 174:8 24:18 25:3,9 46:10
201:3 175:11 189:3 47:23 49:12 84:2
ratio (1) 138:21 196:13 208:6 86:16 93:1 127:17
rationale (1) 221:24 215:10 228:17 131:3 139:11
rationalisation (2) 241:21 references (4) 13:23
128:23 129:15 reasonably (1) 187:7 18:4 24:24 77:24
re-examination (4) reasons (4) 65:20 referred (5) 134:24
130:10 131:4 230:7 128:22 224:9,16 141:15 146:16
231:24 reassurance (2) 179:25 222:7
re-examined (2) 154:14 232:15 referring (8) 13:9
106:23 129:20 reassure (2) 155:19 19:25 27:21 55:1,1
re-examining (1) 156:25 136:23 163:11
131:2 recall (11) 22:2,3 45:9 217:21
re-read (2) 231:22,23 50:17 65:7 147:23 refers (1) 128:25
reached (1) 208:14 171:22 177:5 refinance (9) 141:13
reaction (1) 191:22 191:15 198:23 141:20,23 144:14
read (33) 10:5,19 214:18 144:20 145:3,5,9
21:15 24:6 25:2 receipt (2) 16:20 164:7
26:9,12 29:1,14,17 25:20 refinanced (1) 140:21
29:21 30:1,4,11,14 received (10) 8:20 9:5 refinancing (4) 143:15
30:25 32:1 60:1 16:21 17:16 151:4 172:13 207:6
85:5 130:18 146:24 174:2 185:19 209:15
148:5 150:22 199:18 229:10 reflect (1) 71:17
158:22 163:4,9,15 233:3 reflective (1) 187:11
184:6 199:1 218:15 receptive (1) 237:6 refreshed (1) 139:5
233:20 234:21 reckon (1) 114:22 regard (3) 83:18
236:21 reckoned (1) 200:21 202:15 240:8
reader (5) 128:24 reclaim (2) 98:21,22 regarded (3) 199:25
143:13 145:22,23 reclaimed (1) 57:5 200:2,11
148:24 reclamation (1) 59:3 regarding (1) 217:10
reading (7) 13:19 recognise (4) 13:23 regularly (1) 94:10
19:15 31:8 95:13 23:5 51:18 148:7 regulatory (1) 122:6
140:20 143:11 recognised (2) 190:10 reject (1) 84:1
242:5 191:2 rejections (1) 188:10
ready (2) 16:3 103:23 recollection (7) 48:16 related (5) 20:10
real (11) 39:11 43:20 54:20 55:3,13,14 193:14 197:21
54:1 123:8 131:20 192:7 226:8 198:8 199:9
159:13 169:6 recommend (1) relation (15) 2:24 4:25
189:24 190:2 222:12 23:24 37:7,10
227:15,22 reconcile (1) 32:6 40:20 45:7 85:14
realised (1) 170:12 reconciliation (3) 92:7 116:19 129:21
realistic (8) 83:23 159:11,18 177:7 144:19 163:8
86:22 89:7 94:14 reconsider (2) 85:16 173:12 218:17
94:16 126:14 168:7 139:4 relationship (1)
240:14 Reconstruction (1) 174:22
realistically (4) 152:4 210:19 relative (2) 65:6
171:8,8 239:18 reconvene (2) 126:25 147:22
reality (4) 69:18 99:8 127:22 relatively (5) 44:11
122:10 196:18 record (3) 49:19 85:6 77:13 125:18
really (76) 9:20 17:7 126:23 146:10,19
32:22 43:17 45:3 recorded (2) 49:16 relevance (5) 44:15
47:4 49:25 50:7,9 182:20 84:11 87:23 124:15
53:17 61:9,12,14 rectangles (1) 53:17 239:12
62:17 66:7 68:17 rectangular (1) 57:4 relevant (20) 3:14
68:18 71:20,21 red (12) 35:12 41:12 4:21,22 8:10 14:4
77:12 83:19,22 54:23 55:20,22 23:10,14 34:3
84:8 91:6 92:23,23 56:7 57:18,19 39:17,21,24 41:10
107:12,21 129:5,11 106:10 125:15 73:18 108:15
129:12,17 130:18 164:22 187:3 178:22 180:2
130:19 131:22,25 redevelopment (1) 183:18 223:8
135:6 136:22 181:19 224:22 234:19
138:17 144:6,20 redid (1) 189:8 reliability (1) 190:25
145:16 148:5 161:1 reduce (7) 94:19,20 reliable (3) 32:15 64:4
161:2,12 163:18 97:4,13,14 99:17 169:22
165:14 166:13 100:4 reliant (4) 116:12
186:16 197:13 reduced (6) 51:5 154:13 163:18
200:1,4 208:14,14 101:6 102:15 181:2
208:16,17 214:25 123:25 124:17 relied (4) 16:25 64:23
219:23 225:12 126:7 74:3 130:1
227:9 230:5 232:20 reducing (2) 96:3 relinquish (1) 221:15
235:18 236:10,10 189:9 rely (10) 90:5 151:17
236:14,15,22,23 refer (9) 5:22 14:24 177:12,13 190:9,14
237:20 238:21,25 15:1 72:7 95:2 190:20 198:18,19
239:2 240:13 242:4 182:7 210:6 217:1 208:11

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

255

March 2, 2016 Day 20

relying (4) 88:23 150:6 226:2 135:8 141:23 149:9
90:12,20 163:11 respectful (1) 111:8 149:16 151:16
remember (22) 17:16 responses (1) 14:12 153:4,25 154:21
19:15 26:16 46:25 rest (2) 82:14 164:1 157:2,7 158:5
48:20 84:19 137:2 restore (1) 63:21 161:12 163:4 164:4
140:20 147:7 restructuring (1) 165:21 166:4
150:22 174:14 214:11 167:12 170:21
175:23 178:25 result (3) 35:3 125:17 181:1 182:15
179:2 187:1 189:5 235:3 184:25 185:6 186:2
205:15 211:23 retail (1) 70:12 186:5 187:16,20
212:3 218:8 230:22 retained (1) 101:2 188:7,9,21 189:10
239:1 retainer (6) 169:17 195:19 198:6
remind (2) 138:17 173:14,18 174:3 199:14 200:8 202:4
184:18 189:6 206:16 202:20 203:22
reminded (1) 50:24 return (3) 153:8,12 204:2,5 205:18,22
reminding (2) 110:12 154:17 206:7,17 207:7
110:18 returning (1) 241:16 210:13,25 211:25
removed (3) 67:18,20 returns (1) 111:11 212:20 213:3,4
126:7 revalued (1) 19:3 216:22 222:3,15,23
removing (1) 189:9 revealed (1) 169:1 223:3,6 224:19,21
remunerated (1) revenue (23) 44:8 226:11 230:11,15
174:19 50:3,6,11 60:16 230:16 231:9
repaid (2) 156:10 61:4 70:12 96:3 233:11 238:10,15
166:7 97:10 99:18 103:2 239:9 241:6,23
repay (6) 137:3,16 104:24 107:3 right-hand (2) 93:9
142:16 143:2 121:11 166:3,18 106:8
148:18,22 167:17,18 172:4,5 rightly (2) 48:20 49:1
repayment (1) 154:11 187:6 194:15 rights (1) 29:5
repeat (4) 81:9 85:17 197:12 rigorous (3) 158:12
147:14 167:15 reverse (2) 109:14 207:15,18
repeated (1) 239:25 201:23 ring (1) 212:1
replace (2) 108:7 review (8) 193:16 ringfenced (9) 132:14
140:14 196:5,23 232:9 132:23 133:6
replicate (2) 17:22 234:16,25 239:11 134:20 135:24
196:18 240:22 142:1 144:7 164:6
replied (1) 177:2 reviewed (2) 193:15 164:11
reply (1) 225:2 239:9 ringfencing (2) 100:15
replying (1) 27:20 reviewing (2) 38:5 144:16
report (12) 85:25 196:2 ringing (1) 218:8
92:19 115:24 revise (2) 31:20,25 rise (1) 230:13
118:19,22 121:5,20 revisit (2) 86:6 235:7 risk (11) 42:17 145:4
122:8 126:24 revive (1) 205:6 154:6 155:8 159:22
182:14 187:8 191:1 rework (2) 78:5 189:14 193:21
reports (2) 115:24 125:20 199:8 200:22 207:2
121:2 Rhine (1) 115:2 207:25
representation (1) right (179) 6:6 7:25 risks (1) 193:14
53:18 10:14 11:24 12:5 road (11) 51:23 54:19
represented (2) 8:18 12:18 13:10 14:2 55:12,17 57:10,16
27:8 22:19 25:5 26:19 57:18,20 58:22
representing (2) 85:9 29:25 31:11,12 89:19 114:1
142:25 32:18 33:22 34:20 roadshows (1) 173:2
represents (2) 85:15 37:9,13 38:13 Robin (3) 1:8 213:17
203:16 39:13 41:15 42:23 243:3
reputable (3) 39:18 42:23 43:1,17 45:4 rocket (2) 52:24 191:9
160:6 169:1 45:6,12,23 46:5,20 roof (1) 57:19
reputation (3) 159:7 47:17 48:14 49:21 roofed (1) 51:24
159:22 164:2 50:13 52:21 54:23 Rotterdam (2) 93:4
request (6) 124:21 55:24 56:4,15 115:15
125:12 126:8 226:1 57:14,25 58:20,20 roubles (6) 11:21,23
226:24 232:2 59:21 60:21,24 13:12 14:17 25:22
requesting (1) 169:17 61:8,8,17 62:3,4 26:2
require (3) 42:1 159:9 66:10,11,12,23 rough (2) 99:11
162:5 67:5,24 68:5 72:16 146:12
required (5) 114:16 75:3 78:8,11 79:19 roughly (10) 11:23
145:5 206:14,16 79:23 80:1 82:25 45:21 53:11 76:8
240:16 83:4 85:15 86:25 94:16 96:11 103:2
requirement (7) 122:6 90:17 92:9,21 103:7 178:16
135:3 142:7,12 95:18 96:18 97:1 205:13
156:1,6 220:23 100:18 102:6,15 round (15) 18:21
requirements (2) 103:3 104:23,25 19:10 44:8 55:18
193:8 196:4 105:11,21 106:8,9 57:23 61:22,25
research (1) 77:6 106:11 107:15,25 62:1 68:12 69:6
reserve (3) 235:5 108:9 116:8,13,18 70:14 71:3 148:12
236:3,20 116:24 117:10,17 225:23 226:4
resistant (1) 63:16 118:14,24 119:16 route (3) 113:25
resources (3) 149:13 121:16 123:11,21 206:21 214:11
172:16 203:18 124:3 125:22 126:9 routes (2) 206:21
respect (6) 19:1 80:15 126:13 129:17 220:1
109:24 131:21 133:25 134:10 routine (1) 202:10

row (1) 106:15 RPC (1) 233:19
RUB (4) 11:16 137:18 140:14 190:2

rude (1) 153:5

rules (3) 59:25 129:17 131:4

run (13) 46:1 51:11 68:17 70:14 73:4,7 84:13,15 109:13 111:14 114:16 125:11 194:1

rundown (1) 44:14 rung (2) 224:8,15 running (5) 50:21

70:11 100:18 111:3 219:13

runs (1) 74:19 Russia (9) 32:7 62:2

92:20 122:6 157:17 187:22,24 188:8 190:23

Russian (35) 11:21,23 13:20 14:17 21:10 22:6,7,10,16,17,19 22:25 26:2 32:11 33:20 34:3 43:5 52:1 53:6,7 54:21 55:2 60:1 61:24 70:20 76:13 140:16 141:20 150:25 163:4,7,10,15,24 190:1

S

S (2) 70:2,2

S-curve (2) 106:12,14

Sachs (4) 38:17

153:15 155:13 162:9

sacked (1) 190:17 safe (1) 232:1 safeguard (1) 159:6 sake (2) 95:19 230:25 sale (7) 13:3 20:24

21:3,8,13,25

184:13 sat (1) 3:25

satisfactory (1) 237:19 satisfied (1) 237:15 save (6) 140:20

205:12 206:9 207:4 208:15,21

saved (1) 140:19 saving (2) 105:7

205:18 savings (3) 98:15

103:9,11

saw (13) 14:4 22:2 23:16,17 26:13 49:25 50:1 52:23 64:21 82:14,15 181:18 187:2

saying (45) 4:16 14:2 15:11 21:15 32:22 33:5,7 37:6,8 38:13 56:8 61:12 73:4 81:23 83:6 90:12 103:9 105:10,13 107:13,14 112:10 115:9,16,25 121:24 130:6 137:21,22 140:1 145:17 146:19 147:25 157:13 162:3,24 172:3,5 198:14 200:11 206:7 214:19 217:9 228:6

234:9 6:22,25 7:5,7,9,14 seeks (1) 196:18
says (21) 6:21 10:1 7:16,19 8:5 9:9,11 seen (13) 13:19 27:13
11:8 18:16 20:15 9:23 10:3 11:1,4,6 49:23 82:18 148:10
22:16 45:24 48:21 11:19 12:1,3,5,10 149:21 178:24
76:2 80:4 117:11 12:21,23 13:2,3,11 185:9 212:14
130:22 138:18,19 14:24 15:1,6 16:18 214:20 216:25
186:17,19 188:12 17:1,5,21,24 18:1,6 218:10 237:19
193:13 201:11 18:7,13,19 19:20 self-financing (1)
225:5 236:6 20:3,4,12,13,20,23 133:8
scale (1) 57:2 21:17,20,22,23 seller (1) 12:17
scan (1) 238:18 22:8,10,22 24:13 semicircular (3) 56:12
Scandinavia (5) 20:16 24:24 25:9,14,17 57:6 58:4
21:6 23:18 25:10 25:21,22 26:1 28:5 send (2) 193:3 194:14
184:10 28:9,15,22,23 sending (3) 33:14
Scandinavia’ (1) 15:4 29:11 30:23 31:13 213:20,21
scanned (1) 238:22 31:14,14,24 32:2 sense (16) 36:21 68:9
scant (1) 74:5 32:11 33:8 39:8 71:4 77:8,11 98:19
scenario (5) 70:5 42:13 43:11,14 101:8 107:19,20
124:8,12,25 168:15 44:15 45:16,23 131:21 148:21
scenarios (1) 194:15 46:2,9,18 47:8,14 152:1 154:5 191:24
schedule (16) 171:13 48:12,18 51:8,22 213:25 235:15
171:24 223:3 51:22,24 52:2,2,4 sensible (2) 62:12
224:24 225:7,14,25 56:10 57:1,17 58:5 93:21
226:12,13,18 58:22 59:10,15 sensitive (1) 74:2
227:14,23 228:10 61:16,24 63:24 sensitivity (3) 67:14
228:19 229:4,16 64:2,2,6 65:21 67:2 106:19 125:16
science (2) 39:22 69:3,18 72:2 74:7 sent (20) 6:7,18 10:23
52:24 74:12,17,23 75:17 17:14 18:24 45:16
Scott (3) 77:20 90:3 75:20,24 76:2,3,10 168:16 178:4 182:3
199:5 77:24 78:13,16 182:5,11,24 204:20
scratch (1) 44:12 79:13,24 80:4,22 213:16 217:7 224:6
screen (24) 1:10,17,19 80:25 81:15,16,17 226:11,23 229:7
5:23 11:1 28:4 81:22 83:24 84:9 233:19
29:20 30:9 31:4,6 84:10 87:13,23 sentence (6) 88:7
75:10,21 78:19 88:3,7 93:2,5,9,11 149:17 150:1
92:17 101:13 93:14 103:16 165:10 172:21
122:13 123:25 106:12,16 107:10 201:10
178:21 212:22,25 112:15 115:19 Sep (1) 225:15
213:2 224:1,3 117:1,4 118:18 separate (3) 210:20
226:16 119:13 122:18 211:7 226:9
scroll (4) 116:25 119:9 125:18 126:17,19 September (45) 6:14
119:11,12 128:2 131:11 16:6 18:22 19:11
scrolled (1) 1:23 132:14,17 133:4 67:2,19 119:7,8
scruffy (1) 50:20 134:22 135:11 123:24 124:1,5,20
sea (5) 3:10 51:10,11 138:16 139:10 125:11 126:6,17
51:12 113:25 141:14,16 142:12 135:4,9 136:1
sea-change (1) 158:14 142:18,19 144:13 138:11 139:2
searches (1) 238:24 145:7 147:15,19 157:19 158:5 160:6
seaside (1) 89:21 149:3 155:16 173:5 160:7 179:2 189:8
second (35) 7:9 13:1 174:8 175:4,5,21 192:19 194:20
20:22 37:12 73:3 176:15,18,23 195:17 217:17
75:21 78:13 79:13 177:19,20,24 223:19 224:6 225:2
80:20 81:7 82:2 178:10,10,13,15 225:13,24 226:5,9
98:17,18 102:21 179:9,10,12 181:24 226:19 227:3,8
103:25 127:10 182:23 183:2 185:5 228:10,18 229:5,18
138:18 152:19 185:24 186:2 237:12
155:22 171:7 187:25 190:4 191:7 September/October…
172:21 175:19,24 191:20 192:16,19 238:5
184:16 193:5 196:1 193:5,11 196:1,9 sequence (2) 80:1
201:8 203:7,11 198:7,12 199:12 208:3
205:9 217:23 220:7 202:8 203:4,8,11 series (5) 9:15 129:12
220:8 222:3 227:6 203:20 204:9 205:4 131:22 187:21
seconds (3) 72:1 80:6 205:9,14 206:19 216:1
91:9 208:12 210:11 serious (11) 27:5
secretly (1) 122:7 213:12,13,16,17 40:14 42:17 168:17
section (7) 7:21 8:10 216:20 217:5,12,19 168:19,20,22 206:2
20:3 47:2 85:25 217:24 218:2 219:1 215:3 216:10,12
142:9 220:8 219:3,5,15 220:14 seriously (2) 33:21
sections (1) 193:7 220:24 221:20 100:25
sectors (1) 181:24 223:19 224:6,10,23 seriousness (1) 150:8
secure (4) 34:2 43:10 224:25 225:8,10,21 served (2) 76:13
60:10 152:21 226:15 229:7 129:4
secured (1) 11:14 238:19 service (13) 95:6,12
security (12) 4:13 seeing (2) 19:17 70:16 96:14,17 97:8
153:2,7 218:24 seek (3) 35:13 156:25 101:6 107:9,11
219:23,24 220:7,10 222:24 115:20 165:6,16
220:17,19 221:2 seeking (4) 138:3 166:19 189:15
223:15 142:14 161:22 serviceable (1) 136:14
see (262) 1:16,19 5:5 169:23 services (6) 113:13

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

256
March 2, 2016 Day 20

173:13 191:25 sign (4) 150:7 165:20 slip (1) 86:5 Soyuz (1) 225:19 200:19 204:7,15 storing (1) 109:8 101:21 104:17

195:22 202:24 199:24 203:4 slips (1) 175:18 space (12) 51:5 60:25 234:13 237:22 straight (9) 119:17 120:4,4,9,13
203:14 signature (1) 1:24 slow (1) 232:7 61:2,14 65:14 68:6 239:2 120:17,21 121:13 126:12 140:10
servicing (1) 134:5 signed (4) 169:17 slowly (1) 180:16 68:7,20 69:2 72:25 standing (12) 44:6 121:18 122:20,24 149:6 160:9 164:17
set (21) 9:7 19:8 182:10 203:1 small (2) 89:25 102:18 76:20 89:16 45:17,20,22 47:9 123:13,25 166:17 167:21
20:12 21:18,19 204:19 smell (1) 33:22 spanking (1) 181:10 47:13 48:11 49:3 straightforward (2) 168:1,25 169:21,22
25:18 36:9 72:19 significant (9) 46:11 software (1) 89:11 speak (8) 22:25 50:8 76:12 102:4 197:17 201:21 197:21 198:8
74:8 80:1 93:13 47:18 77:13 95:7,9 sold (3) 12:22,23,24 113:23 163:4,7,9 108:13 strategy (2) 199:9 200:12 208:12
117:23 192:24 105:1 195:12,17 solution (1) 235:24 221:11 236:25 stands (1) 129:6 201:12 214:1
203:9 214:2 215:3 222:5 somebody (9) 10:11 240:24 standstill (1) 192:4 strayed (1) 160:23 suggested (7) 14:14
227:14,23 229:11 significantly (3) 87:22 18:22 45:1 82:7 speaking (2) 71:23 star (1) 173:3 stream (3) 99:18 37:12 54:16 112:5
229:16 234:5 89:24 141:6 116:16 138:10 138:1 start (14) 29:2 68:13 187:6 197:12 112:6 191:16 222:1
sets (3) 92:20,25 93:4 signified (1) 202:17 151:21 206:1 speaks (1) 240:6 98:4 103:22,22,24 streams (2) 68:17 suggesting (24) 26:24
setting (2) 88:11 signify (1) 187:23 214:10 special (2) 201:25 154:22 158:11 194:16 27:14 37:14,15
222:18 signs (1) 170:4 somewhat (1) 122:10 202:1 160:20 172:4,5 strength (1) 221:5 43:3 48:13 53:22
seven (2) 26:16 147:5 silly (3) 48:9 70:6 soon (3) 83:18 171:17 specialists (1) 117:2 196:2 222:12 233:9 strides (1) 77:13 72:21 97:11,19
sevens (1) 223:22 109:25 237:20 specific (3) 237:11 start-up (4) 165:22 stripped (1) 67:6 98:2,14 99:13
shade (1) 39:14 similar (4) 18:6 38:4 sooner (1) 239:20 238:4 239:8 166:23 167:16,19 Stroilov (51) 1:3,5,7 102:10 104:19
shades (2) 4:11 55:6 80:22 153:11 sorry (87) 1:18,22 5:3 specifically (1) 60:9 started (8) 44:16 1:13,14 2:8 22:18 119:24 123:20
shape (1) 232:6 simple (4) 53:21 21:2,5,21 22:9 31:2 speculation (1) 46:25 47:14 71:19 63:19 64:6,12 156:16 162:20
share (8) 12:20 13:3 62:24 70:25 106:25 31:7,9 36:12 41:2 196:17 88:21 101:25 79:15,21,22 129:25 193:20 195:25
22:14,21 85:14 simplistic (4) 61:5 44:18 46:3 47:22 speech (1) 198:3 115:12 164:10 131:2,15 184:19 196:11 209:12
86:4 87:12,17 96:19 98:3,13 48:5,9,12 50:24 speed-read (1) 218:13 starting (3) 102:4 229:24 230:16,18 214:1
shared (1) 213:18 simply (8) 124:16 52:5,6 56:22 58:14 speedily (1) 242:8 167:19 233:8 230:24 231:10,13 suggestion (9) 63:17
shares (6) 11:10 12:15 125:4 130:11,13 58:18 61:7 63:19 spent (3) 106:25 state (7) 59:12 65:5 231:18 233:12,16 68:1 139:1 170:19
12:22 20:19 21:14 160:10 233:12 63:22 64:14 79:8 162:9 181:9 69:11 98:7 104:5 234:4,9,16 236:6 191:23 234:14
25:12 237:21 239:3 79:15,21,21 81:25 sphere (1) 188:3 147:17 209:22 237:8,14,16,18 236:4 241:3,7
sharper (1) 33:13 sincerely (1) 36:20 82:1 84:12 86:15 spiel (1) 204:7 stated (2) 16:22 28:12 238:6,8,12,16,21 suggests (1) 166:2
shed (1) 241:20 Singapore (2) 89:1 87:6,9 92:16,17 spilt (1) 71:25 statement (52) 1:16 239:10,13,15,18 suit (2) 100:7 101:8
sheet (20) 4:1 32:6 91:12 101:16 102:22 split (1) 152:18 1:20 2:2,5 5:22 240:12,17 241:2,12 suitable (2) 50:15,16
36:25 37:3,21,25 single (2) 36:24 103:21 107:7,12 spoke (1) 163:15 10:18,20 11:2 241:22,24 242:2 sum (3) 8:3 18:17
43:15 79:14 89:12 111:16 115:8,9,22 126:10 Sponsor (1) 203:18 13:13 14:25 26:5 243:4 33:23
119:11 133:1 sir (20) 5:7 57:15 132:6,7,7,8 133:15 Sponsor’s (1) 203:13 28:12 32:4 59:16 stronger (1) 192:7 Sumitomo (1) 186:17
155:24,25 156:4 58:10 109:2 110:16 133:17 136:6,8 sporadic (1) 63:25 63:13,17 64:16 struck (3) 9:4 172:22 summarise (1) 12:14
158:20 159:12,19 113:6 114:20 142:11,11 151:23 spotted (1) 169:3 66:24 72:7 94:23 222:2 summary (16) 48:21
227:19 228:8 128:10 152:23 152:21 153:5 154:9 spread (3) 112:21,22 111:25 115:14,17 structure (7) 7:18 49:1 66:16 74:9
229:20 153:9,15,25 154:3 157:24 160:25 201:18 126:5 132:11 136:8 18:13 167:8 195:14 101:12,17 106:24
sheets (1) 62:15 154:9 156:2 184:16 163:7,13 164:24 spreadsheet (6) 101:9 136:17 140:22 195:23 197:13,19 117:11 126:19
ship (3) 113:17,18 191:4 201:23 176:12 182:15,16 101:12,15 133:19 146:1,3 147:9,25 structurer (1) 203:24 133:18,21 135:5
118:13 202:19 231:8 182:18 198:2 200:9 183:17 197:4 148:4,17 150:15,19 structures (1) 194:15 183:12 184:1
shipping (3) 61:19 sit (3) 1:9 162:10,15 201:8 202:21 spreadsheets (1) 157:3 158:21 structuring (3) 195:1 222:21,22
123:9 166:24 site (22) 7:18,22 8:12 204:22 206:2 183:12 161:21 169:12 195:22 202:24 summer/autumn (1)
ships (7) 76:7 94:7,10 11:11 18:14 44:16 210:22 213:3,10 spur (3) 52:24 56:21 172:19 179:1,9 struggling (3) 14:7 211:8
113:10,13 167:17 44:19 45:6 50:1,20 219:7 223:20 234:5 76:13 182:12 185:18 176:9 209:14 sums (2) 40:1 42:2
211:19 51:8,16 53:9,12,16 238:10,11 242:8 square (4) 51:2 56:8 188:19 199:19 stuck (3) 127:17,24 Sunday (5) 234:3
short (17) 54:4,8 53:23 54:1 56:25 sort (46) 3:3 9:20 70:12 80:24 210:2 212:5,11 177:10 236:19,19 238:15
63:12 66:20 73:8 76:15 89:9 90:4,7 38:19,21,21 42:25 squared (1) 24:3 217:2 239:5 studied (1) 99:10 238:17
128:9,16 130:13 sits (1) 91:23 43:10 47:2 51:23 St (17) 8:17 11:12 statements (5) 14:21 stuffing (1) 113:19 sunk (4) 149:7 150:7
141:13 142:16 sitting (2) 38:12 56:9 57:1,13 70:13 65:3 70:17 74:1 19:23 21:17 23:17 subject (6) 90:24 151:5 155:8
143:2,16 148:18 239:21 83:20 91:5 99:15 85:10 87:12 113:14 159:10 129:16 207:23 supplemental (1) 63:2
156:9 161:7 183:9 situation (15) 42:25 113:16 117:6 113:22,24 114:19 statistics (3) 88:4,8 225:14 230:18 supplementary (1)
231:15 101:3 109:13 147:6 124:15 128:22 116:1 118:21,21 92:20 238:7 130:24
shortage (1) 120:25 157:25 164:18 129:14 133:8,12 121:1,3 172:24 status (10) 128:17 subjective (1) 161:5 suppliers (1) 133:5
shortfall (1) 29:13 192:3 207:4 219:4 144:22 149:12 stack (3) 89:11 113:17 133:1 182:8,12,21 submission (3) 111:8 supply (1) 111:17
shorthand (2) 71:20 219:6 221:8 223:13 150:18 153:2 156:3 118:13 185:2,10,22 187:7 130:9 131:19 support (2) 11:3
183:4 240:7,11 241:17 161:3,4,12 169:22 stacking (1) 90:9 209:25 submit (3) 80:16 140:10
shortly (3) 125:25 six (10) 17:17 69:20 172:1 173:12 177:6 staff (3) 8:23 163:8 stay (3) 86:7 232:5 105:15 129:9 supported (1) 126:24
126:2 199:18 100:1 106:18 179:22 180:10 182:25 242:9 subsequently (1) suppose (2) 41:1,4
show (10) 19:1,4 109:20 125:19 198:3 200:4 207:18 stage (24) 38:7 46:21 stays (1) 118:17 122:5 supposition (3) 24:10
58:20 114:15 157:24 173:24 208:25 214:14 73:24 77:13 88:23 steel (1) 48:17 subsidiary (1) 23:18 24:20 108:16
118:20 150:3,5 208:23 215:7 219:23 220:13 90:18 103:13 129:6 step (2) 50:7 142:24 substantial (3) 151:25 sure (24) 16:9 22:17
209:20 222:19 sixes (1) 223:22 222:13,16 157:16 172:17 steps (2) 148:16 180:25 197:7 50:21 56:4 57:11
223:10 sixth (1) 81:15 sorts (10) 32:23 39:25 178:23 180:14 192:25 substantially (4) 62:17 71:13 75:19
showed (7) 20:25 size (7) 65:24 71:17 40:1 42:1,2,15 182:11 186:13 Stevedoring (5) 15:3 152:16 196:6,13,24 76:23 83:10 104:14
21:4,9,12 167:21 71:19 72:3 138:20 61:25 109:24 114:5 195:13 196:25 20:16 21:6 23:19 succeed (1) 201:1 106:6 135:19
181:11 184:13 174:13 201:16 160:8 197:5 200:3 202:8 25:11 success (3) 173:14,25 143:19 152:6 191:3
showing (2) 17:18 skeletons (1) 162:16 sought (9) 34:18 204:3 206:15 stick (1) 52:16 174:12 200:9 205:16 213:8
85:25 skeletons’ (1) 159:8 141:22 150:6 207:12 208:1 stipulated (1) 13:15 successful (1) 197:18 213:9 224:21 225:3
shown (25) 1:14 9:6 skin (5) 152:11 154:5 207:25 211:21 226:25 Stividoyna (1) 184:10 suckered (1) 154:16 230:7 232:22
10:17,24 12:8 154:15,19 186:11 218:24 220:8,10 stages (3) 19:6 116:14 Stockholm (1) 113:15 suddenly (3) 38:13 surely (3) 4:19 15:10
14:18 21:11 26:6,7 Sklyarevsky (3) 225:24 211:6 stood (1) 235:18 78:25 162:9 166:5
28:2,21 30:3,7,15 233:13 237:3 242:4 sound (1) 11:24 stand (8) 2:2 12:4 stop (4) 38:23 130:9 suffer (1) 221:22 surmise (1) 49:6
32:2 33:25 36:7 sledgehammer (1) sounds (2) 22:19 32:12 39:9 46:8,9 203:6 204:25 suffered (1) 108:14 surname (1) 177:4
58:17 73:9 138:7 208:25 45:19 125:9 194:18 stopped (1) 162:25 sufficient (6) 65:14 surprise (2) 219:17
179:13,14 185:1 slide (2) 135:20,21 source (3) 10:13 standalone (1) 133:12 stops (2) 57:10 58:22 68:14 166:3,18 235:23
192:15 205:2 slight (2) 72:2,4 131:17 234:20 standard (13) 72:13 storage (7) 66:5 73:6 220:21 221:4 surprised (4) 27:10
side (9) 25:21 51:9,25 slightly (5) 54:13 sources (3) 129:1,2 187:13 189:12 76:12 90:8,10 94:6 suggest (31) 35:1 39:4 138:24 219:12,20
54:20 55:4,14 93:9 138:24 141:25 222:17 190:23 195:7 181:11 40:17 43:18 54:18 survey (2) 198:24
185:25 232:1 208:24 212:5 South (1) 187:13 198:25 199:13 storey (1) 50:25 78:1,6 83:19 89:5 209:7

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

257

March 2, 2016 Day 20

survived (2) 134:18

134:18 suspect (8) 27:16

69:25 70:3,17 131:5 161:23 163:23 185:13

suspected (1) 95:22 sustain (1) 140:15 sustainable (2) 108:7

111:6

sustaining (1) 100:13 Sutcliffe (11) 88:24 91:4 112:5,11

116:3,13,19 117:15 119:19 123:19 126:13

Sutcliffe’s (4) 78:10 90:13 117:11 168:11

SV-15 (5) 13:24 68:12 69:7 98:4 102:4 SV-16 (6) 13:25 48:19 52:1 68:13 69:8

98:8

SV-17 (4) 57:12,21 58:22,23

sworn (3) 1:7,8 243:3 sympathetic (1) 240:4 sympathy (3) 239:23

240:4,13 syndicate (4) 140:3,5

170:2 195:7 syndicated (2) 201:24

202:13 syndication (7) 195:9

201:4,17,20 202:1 202:7,18

system (2) 32:2 181:12

systems (1) 89:14

T

tab (14) 75:13 79:2,3 79:5 85:3,4 87:6 92:16 101:17 119:12 142:9 175:4 175:20 176:13

table (6) 25:17 78:2 92:25 122:18 170:7 178:11

tabs (2) 106:7 178:1 tabular (1) 62:24 take (65) 3:23 4:3

16:20 19:6 20:6 27:23 31:3 34:10 34:21 44:21 64:8 67:4 69:9,14 77:18 82:17 98:2 102:20 104:5,12 109:4,5 110:24 111:7 112:11 113:3,4,8 113:14 114:12 116:5,22 126:14 130:11,23 132:2,6 135:7 148:16 177:8 182:1,10 190:12 194:7,8,10 196:25 200:14 202:5,18 206:14 212:14 220:8 221:1 222:11 226:2 229:25 230:8 230:10,20 231:2,24 235:1 236:2,22

taken (25) 13:14 17:23 30:21 51:16 71:6,7 78:4 79:12 83:2 86:2 107:22 114:16 120:14

123:3 134:5,13 31:21 34:23 35:17 64:13,14,14 71:24 194:24 201:8 140:11 147:11,16 transcribers (1) 183:3
135:22,25 144:25 37:7 41:17 43:2,20 110:16 115:7 119:5 202:19,23 203:1,5 162:9 164:20 transcript (10) 1:17
148:22 152:7 44:2,4 45:15,25 120:14 132:6 205:3,22 206:4 169:20 170:25 27:25 30:3,8,15
167:22 189:16 46:12 47:3,19 133:20 150:17 207:21 211:20,21 173:8,16 180:18 33:25 163:6 231:22
200:12 235:22 49:17,23 50:4,13 171:11 175:13 211:23 213:5 183:2 194:24 231:23 232:9
takes (2) 61:19 73:22 50:21 51:16 52:11 178:3 179:3 183:7 214:18 215:8 216:5 201:23 202:18 transferred (1) 216:20
talk (3) 77:15 172:9 52:19,22,25 53:8 183:15,19 184:25 217:1,2,2,21 206:3 207:18,25 transgressed (1)
199:21 53:12 55:7 56:16 222:23 229:23 218:16 219:24,25 211:22 214:8 215:5 184:22
talked (2) 34:17 56:23 57:9 59:7,8 Thanks (1) 225:7 221:22 224:1 225:2 216:10 218:10 transgressing (1)
184:17 59:21 60:12,16,19 THC (4) 118:11 119:18 225:11 226:8,10,11 220:2 225:23 228:2 183:23
talking (30) 5:24 6:4 60:22,24 61:2,18 121:2,5 226:12,12,13 231:4 233:9,13 transhipment (24)
51:20 67:10 77:20 64:25 65:5,5,15,15 THCs (1) 168:10 227:17,21 228:17 235:22 236:1 239:2 64:22 65:9,18
91:25 92:2 94:2 66:25 67:21 69:8 theme (1) 159:15 229:2,24 230:6 240:19 241:15 66:10 69:11 94:3,4
122:19 124:22 69:18 70:14,15 thereabouts (2) 104:3 231:20,21 232:2,8 242:1 94:5,8,12 112:12
133:4 139:8,16,18 71:1,11 73:6,12 194:21 233:17,22 234:9 times (4) 44:20 112:17,20 113:1,8
140:6,6,9 155:1 74:9,21 75:20 79:6 thin (2) 57:25 73:23 236:8 239:3,19 109:20 205:24 114:22,24 115:10
157:20 161:1,3,5 79:17 84:16 86:12 thing (13) 20:25 56:10 240:19 241:3,3 226:8 115:12,16 119:23
161:10 168:13 89:20,21,21,22,23 57:19 127:10 thinking (2) 140:1 timetable (1) 237:2 120:2,19 127:15
171:25 172:8,9 90:2 91:14,18 92:6 155:20 157:10 227:20 timing (1) 233:4 transient (1) 64:22
189:12,20 211:18 92:7,8 94:3,8,15 161:4 184:19 third (11) 74:12 81:12 title (1) 151:22 transitional (1) 68:10
tangent (1) 210:25 98:10,25 99:7 190:15 200:1 98:16,20,22 124:9 today (25) 23:21 26:6 translated (4) 163:24
tank (3) 45:14 48:17 103:23 113:4,5 208:25 212:21 127:25 171:6,7 26:7,22 27:4 34:1 164:3 236:21 240:6
50:4 117:23 118:12 214:9 199:23 206:20 36:7 67:5 80:16 translation (10) 12:9
tariff (1) 122:6 119:2 120:6,11 things (19) 9:17 14:9 thirdly (1) 156:13 99:11 128:18 148:7 21:11 22:13 27:17
tariffs (4) 61:25 70:21 132:24 137:12,25 16:5 40:11 50:3 thought (26) 8:10 163:3 175:22 163:12,21,23 190:5
126:8 189:9 139:2 140:24 51:4 66:21 78:10 46:6 48:8 55:16 178:25 198:5 228:4 190:5,7
tarmacked (1) 181:11 141:21 142:8,15,17 96:6 114:6,18 60:4 66:7,14 87:16 230:2,15 234:10 transparency (1)
task (2) 239:20,21 143:2,3,18,25 127:1 170:25 107:3 116:3,8 235:4 236:13,21 215:15
taster (2) 144:22,23 144:19,20 145:6,15 195:25 203:2 230:1 119:21,24 125:8,21 237:18 242:5 transparently (1)
tax (6) 107:17 110:2,5 145:24 146:8,9,13 232:7 236:9 237:3 132:16 141:8 told (36) 10:10 22:16 222:19
110:8,14 221:22 147:17,17 148:2,19 think (221) 4:11,23 146:19 148:1 30:18,20 31:13,16 transpired (1) 121:20
team (5) 82:14 154:24 148:23 150:14 5:10,14,21 6:12 9:2 157:20 180:11 32:11 36:4 40:6 transport (2) 114:1,3
163:14 229:25 151:6 163:9 164:6 9:7,9,14 12:21 14:7 186:7 209:18,23 41:6 86:18 89:10 transshipped (1)
240:22 164:14 169:7,15,23 14:20,24 16:21 215:1 219:22 120:1 123:22 143:6 115:1
technical (4) 79:16 170:18 172:13 18:4,5 19:10,23 thousand (1) 93:10 143:13 144:6,10 transshipping (1)
197:24 198:11 175:3 181:20 182:6 20:18 22:7,11 thousands (1) 25:22 145:8 147:1 148:25 113:23
199:2 184:7,8 188:18 24:23 26:9,13,14 thread (2) 129:13 149:11 151:5 travelling (1) 172:25
techniques (1) 89:17 190:2 192:6 204:18 26:15 28:11 29:23 131:23 152:14,15 154:1 tread (1) 160:13
technology (1) 77:21 205:7 206:9 207:14 32:1,4,22,25 33:10 three (28) 26:17 69:4 156:7,9,13 157:10 treated (1) 130:14
telephone (2) 170:6 210:16 211:13,24 34:14 35:4 41:13 74:15 75:2,25 76:6 170:13 203:6 trial (5) 1:16,21 2:3
233:1 212:7 214:13,17,24 41:13 42:19 44:7 76:21 85:23 96:24 204:25 208:21 11:4 129:23
tell (15) 35:6 95:15 220:20 221:3,4,13 44:24 45:21 47:14 96:25 109:10 230:19 238:3 tried (3) 23:4 80:1
99:9,15 146:23,25 221:16 223:4 48:3,8,10,13,19 167:17 175:14 tomorrow (11) 230:12 121:8
150:1 154:8 158:17 terminals (12) 44:12 49:11,15,18,20,21 184:8,15 193:25 230:23 231:25 trip (1) 40:12
180:2 196:15,16 65:2 69:21 74:1 50:11 51:1,13 54:1 195:10 200:16 232:5 233:9 234:25 tripped (1) 125:1
197:6 238:2 240:10 89:13 90:23 93:2,7 54:13,15,23,25 208:22 210:20 236:5,8,18 241:9 trouble (4) 27:11 78:5
tell-tale (1) 170:4 114:24 115:16,25 55:5,17,19 56:3,24 211:7,10,11,20 242:9 165:20 221:23
telling (15) 7:21 13:21 118:23 61:5,9,11,17 62:15 218:18,22 226:8,9 tonnes (2) 65:17 76:9 trucks (2) 51:22 58:3
40:15 84:21 104:23 terms (12) 50:11 74:9 62:22 63:1,19 throughput (16) 62:11 top (21) 17:17 18:8 true (13) 2:5,7 27:1
124:11 145:19,22 76:20 77:14 86:3 65:13 66:17,23,24 68:22 69:5 71:10 22:10,13 46:4 33:16 34:21 111:10
145:23 149:5,17 94:22 99:11 109:6 71:14 72:21 73:14 73:25 76:20 87:19 48:11 54:23 55:18 123:8,9 129:3
155:4,6 164:24 128:25 131:17 74:8 75:17 79:5,12 89:15 97:2 102:9 55:19,22 57:2 70:3 160:10 181:6
195:17 141:4 161:14 84:22 86:16,18 103:5,17 104:2 78:14 91:23 92:25 187:25 190:18
template (1) 193:3 terribly (3) 79:15 88:6 91:8 92:9,25 105:9,24 106:19 102:5 156:15,15 trust (3) 157:5,6
ten (1) 110:1 225:1 230:4 94:1,1,23 95:16 Thursday (2) 242:4,12 178:11 185:5 183:11
tend (3) 41:18,20 94:5 test (4) 129:5 131:1 96:25 97:11 98:3 ticket (2) 202:4,5 225:10 truth (1) 152:3
tends (2) 71:3 215:3 185:21 207:3 101:21 103:6 tie-up (1) 117:6 top-dollar (1) 32:16 truthful (1) 85:12
term (19) 37:21 64:23 testing (1) 104:4 104:23 105:14,18 timber (24) 44:8 topic (3) 43:25 126:21 try (14) 42:8 78:5
66:20 111:18 TEU (23) 66:2,5 71:20 110:11,17 116:3 50:16 61:22,25 140:23 105:18 124:13
141:13 142:15,16 72:1 77:17 80:13 121:8,14 124:13,24 62:1 64:21,21 65:8 topline (1) 102:13 127:4 137:11 158:4
143:2,16 148:19 81:10,16 82:5 127:19 128:20 65:9,12,17 66:8,14 torpedo (1) 98:21 160:19 166:14
152:20 153:14 83:14 86:12,24,24 130:8 131:2,15 68:6,8,12 69:7 torpedoing (1) 220:4 220:1 229:3 230:25
155:24,25 156:4,9 88:1 104:2,12 133:10,22 136:22 70:14,19 71:3 85:2 total (5) 41:5 51:1 236:17 237:4
158:19 161:7 112:2 113:11 137:6 138:10,25 87:8 92:4 147:24 102:5 149:11 trying (27) 3:3 4:23
199:10 115:21,22 118:21 140:17,19 146:1,4 time (79) 11:9 13:18 211:21 23:1 41:17 46:18
term-sheet (1) 193:16 126:13,17 147:14 149:24 15:21 16:6,21 totally (4) 84:1 107:7 47:2 112:13 127:8
terminal (202) 2:13,24 TEUs (27) 69:15 71:14 150:23 153:11 26:18,23 30:9 121:4 219:19 141:11 150:3 157:4
3:3,21 5:16 7:4 8:8 71:21 72:8,20 154:4 156:21 33:10 37:22 40:8 touch (1) 198:5 157:21 158:3 162:7
8:12,25 9:13 10:2 74:22 75:5 76:25 157:18 162:18 40:23 41:6,11 touted (1) 139:21 174:12 189:5 198:4
10:11,25 11:5,11 78:4,16 84:14 85:8 163:3,3 168:19,21 43:14,21 45:5 54:3 trace (1) 192:13 204:11,11 205:6
11:12,13,15 12:2 85:13 86:2,18 169:8 170:11,19,24 57:1 61:6,19 63:9 track (3) 54:24 55:4 207:3 209:11 215:2
12:10,16,16,21 87:11 88:8,9,13 170:25 173:17,19 65:4 66:15,18 127:7 215:11,14 219:23
13:16 17:3 20:8,10 89:6,6 93:17,22 174:14 176:21 68:18 87:20 90:13 tracks (2) 51:25 52:21 219:25
20:11,22,23 21:6,8 94:14 99:4,15 178:10,13,19,23 90:25 91:20 94:11 trading (2) 134:3,11 tunnel (1) 59:2
21:22 22:15,16,22 107:2 179:1,15 180:8 101:24 102:20 traffic (3) 70:16 77:12 turn (6) 9:8,9 56:5
23:3,4,6,11,19,23 text (2) 80:23 213:15 181:9 182:12,15 112:7 116:11 121:3 77:17 79:13 122:12,13
23:24 24:7,8,13,18 thank (31) 1:12 2:8 184:12 185:8,9,9 121:6 122:4,7 train (1) 53:7 turned (1) 23:16
24:24 25:5,14,15 5:8 8:18 25:9 31:7 188:13,16 189:7,20 126:1 131:25 132:6 trains (1) 94:11 turnover (40) 60:12
25:25 27:2 30:20 53:4,19 54:6 58:12 189:23 190:5,16 137:5,24 139:1 trans (1) 113:6 60:15 61:14,15

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

258

March 2, 2016 Day 20

62:4,9 65:8 67:7,20 72:20 75:5 83:23 89:8 91:5 92:2 93:22 95:2,18,25 96:7 99:4,13 100:11 102:5 103:4 109:17,23 112:1 147:24 168:2 175:1 176:2,4,17,21 177:22 178:8,13 180:7,18

turns (3) 22:22 99:14 107:2

twice (1) 42:20 twin (1) 58:5

two (48) 13:25 22:2 26:17 38:22 44:11 50:25 53:17 66:25 68:17 69:6 70:11 72:1 77:10,19 78:14 80:6,9,25 81:11,15 83:3,14 83:15 89:3,12 90:10 94:2 96:21 96:24 100:1,18 109:10 126:3 133:4 134:17 138:25 140:7 153:18 155:18 161:17 167:1,23 168:13 183:13 210:8,25 219:13 220:11

two-thirds (1) 73:5 type (1) 39:18 typed (5) 82:17 84:8

84:21 86:1 131:22 typed-up (1) 129:12 types (1) 94:3 typical (1) 169:1 typing (2) 82:10 83:21 typo (9) 80:12,14 81:9

81:18,19,23,23 82:7 83:6
typographical (10)

81:10 83:8,12 84:22 85:12,20,24 86:8,10,20

U

U (1) 57:11

U-loop (1) 51:25 UK (1) 192:8 ultimately (4) 64:18

65:11 166:6 193:10 unattractive (1)

152:10 uncertainty (1) 42:3 unclear (2) 163:13

237:10

uncomfortable (1)

43:13 undercut (1) 123:8 undergrowth (1)

161:24

underlay (1) 14:3 underlying (5) 15:16

15:25 23:13 155:20 156:25

undermine (2) 41:18 41:20

underpinning (1)

131:9 underpinnings (1)

130:25 understand (40)

10:15,15,23 16:14 23:13 32:1 36:12 41:25 60:11 61:17

72:5 90:21 104:22 105:17 108:2 112:16 121:11,12 128:10,24 129:5 130:7 131:1 132:4 151:23 153:19 167:10 170:4 175:15 183:22 185:14,18 190:16 196:14 202:12 207:9 215:23 221:24 229:11,15

understanding (15)

14:1 35:8 48:16 53:5 59:20,25 60:2 67:19 73:21 95:8 114:22 130:13 137:23 149:20 186:22

understands (3) 230:1

232:22,25

understatement (1)

227:25

understood (18)

47:19 53:11 61:12 63:14,16 65:8 66:6 122:9 126:5 141:10 141:21 146:6 153:21 154:2 192:2 195:16 215:17 233:3

undertake (1) 159:5 undertaken (8) 98:15 180:24 181:5

189:25 197:22 198:9,15 200:13

underway (2) 47:12

47:13

Underwriting/arran…

201:11

unencumbered (2)

216:24 223:14 unfortunate (1)

161:21 unfortunately (1)

59:25

Union (1) 118:22 unit (12) 72:11,13 112:5,6 116:4 118:2 120:11

121:11,19 123:1 124:2 125:22

units (7) 66:2 71:15 95:19 96:4,6 97:20 100:11

unknown (1) 165:7 unloaded (2) 50:18

114:11 unloading (1) 68:11 unprepared (1)

190:14 unravel (1) 130:21

unrealistic (2) 159:24 168:2

unrealistically (1)

125:22

unreliable (3) 85:22

117:15 228:5

unsatisfactory (1)

237:23 untoward (4) 199:1

200:19,23 202:8 untrue (5) 151:7

156:11,12,16 160:2 untruth (1) 161:13 untruths (5) 156:17

160:8 161:6 162:2 162:19

unusual (4) 62:8

136:2 220:12 231:18

unwise (1) 232:8 up-to-date (1) 14:8 update (1) 233:17 updated (7) 6:10 88:15 182:24

224:24 225:7,18,24 upgrade (3) 68:13

77:23 142:15 uplift (1) 120:20 upside (2) 154:6

208:13 upwards (1) 212:2 urgent (1) 239:21 US$150 (1) 211:25 US$18 (1) 207:5

US$300 (3) 99:2 100:9 103:15

US$500 (2) 211:22 212:2

use (23) 3:11 5:14 68:20 98:21 108:18 114:20 119:24 121:21 128:7 143:18 144:8,14,20 153:2 163:1 170:5 184:20 186:10 191:3 218:25 220:4 220:12 221:20

useful (1) 15:21 uses (1) 222:5

usual (3) 131:4 194:14 196:4

usually (1) 152:12 utterly (5) 84:1 107:7

121:4 200:19 214:4

V

vacations (1) 239:19 Valencia (1) 93:5 valid (3) 13:22 227:15

228:2 valuable (1) 67:21

valuation (14) 16:22 27:19,21 32:11 39:15 43:13 152:24 162:6 189:24 190:9 190:14,21 191:11 191:15

value (33) 3:8,9 7:18 7:22 8:11,16 18:14 25:19 41:17,18,21 42:9 43:15 49:24 49:25 50:1 62:2 99:18 108:1,3,11 109:19,19 111:4 121:10 131:20 151:1,14 153:7,24 191:18 192:6 209:23

valued (2) 190:1,25 valuer (4) 190:1,10 191:2 192:5

valuers (1) 41:21 values (1) 25:17 valuing (2) 42:13

110:12 variables (1) 69:24 variety (1) 160:13 various (15) 29:5

30:18 34:3 44:9 59:12,18 79:10 93:13 98:15 101:21 101:22 126:21 179:19 199:15 200:5

variously (1) 127:13

vary (1) 127:14 verbatim (1) 184:6 verification (2) 60:8

181:4 verified (2) 129:3

194:4

verify (2) 18:23 159:3 version (37) 5:21 6:3 6:7,9,17 16:18 17:4

17:10,18,21 18:7 22:10,20 46:19 47:1 49:9 73:11 74:25 75:11,12,18 75:19 76:16,16 77:3,5 78:13 124:5 176:20 177:17 178:4 179:4,6 185:2,8,17 226:18

versions (3) 80:9 175:14 185:12 versus (1) 161:7 vessel (1) 113:12

viability (11) 31:21 43:6,6 60:18 68:20 95:17 104:4 107:5 109:7 136:11 137:12

viable (7) 100:10,12 100:16 107:18,20 108:10 110:20

vibes (1) 170:8 videolink (4) 63:19,23

230:3 237:1 view (13) 19:17

112:19 124:15 130:16 151:12 157:12 182:5 194:17 196:12 208:18 219:4,6 220:11

viewed (3) 130:24 216:8,19

viewpoint (1) 192:2 views (1) 78:10 vindicate (1) 121:24 vindicated (1) 121:4 visit (1) 44:19

visits (2) 45:6 181:9 Vitaly (36) 32:11

61:21 64:18,20 65:4,9,11,16,18 82:13 88:19 141:5 141:10,17 146:6 147:16 150:24 162:7 169:14 171:22 172:22 174:22 180:12 181:6 182:24 186:12 191:17 192:10 203:3 204:19,19 207:23 208:5 217:10 219:25 221:14

volition (2) 67:8 162:8 volume (3) 72:14

89:15 115:20 volumes (1) 65:16 vouching (1) 145:16

Vozrozhdenie (1)

11:14

Vyborg (15) 11:10,15 25:15 139:15,21 140:2 155:23 156:1 167:16 198:25 210:24 211:17 212:9 218:23 219:13

W

wagon (2) 114:2

118:16 wait (5) 113:17

137:19 142:16 156:15 230:13 waiting (4) 94:7,11 113:20 114:6

waiver (1) 238:8 walk (1) 156:21 want (62) 10:5,19

23:12 30:25 31:19 31:23,24 33:15,17 35:1 36:1 40:1,2 41:2 45:3 58:15 69:17 71:9 85:15 86:6,7 92:4 106:22 114:10 122:17 127:12 129:19 136:9 139:4 143:16 143:20,24 144:1 145:20 146:2 151:10 153:20 154:22 155:16 158:21 160:10,12 174:25 185:20 189:13 192:12,13 193:20,25 194:3,13 198:14 212:13 215:16 223:2 226:2 230:25 233:23,24 238:1 241:13,14

wanted (21) 39:5 61:10,11 65:9 112:16 132:9 179:21 186:10 190:9,19,20 192:3 196:19 197:19 199:2,4 200:20 201:1,15 214:9 223:4

wanting (2) 77:7 197:13

wants (2) 36:13 160:14

warm (3) 170:5,9,11 warmth (1) 170:14 warned (2) 232:5

233:4

warning (1) 232:15 warnings (1) 240:1 wasn’t (63) 2:21 14:6 21:8 32:14,15,18 42:6 44:14 46:24 53:1,2,22,22,23

55:1 56:19,23 68:2 68:16,16 77:1 86:5 98:13 121:25 123:1 124:10 135:10,15 135:21 137:1,5,9 139:10 140:12 142:2 143:13 149:15 157:24 158:14,15 160:24 165:9,13 181:13 186:12 192:22 198:2 202:24 203:1 204:4,4 207:10 208:17 209:16 221:10 224:21 228:15,22 230:3,3 233:8 235:9 242:3

watch (1) 173:4 watched (1) 34:5 water (1) 1:10 watertight (1) 160:24 way (37) 10:6 13:16

33:22 73:5,7 78:8

82:6 100:10 103:20 106:25 113:25 119:13 127:19 129:5 130:16 131:3 131:5 163:2 180:10 186:9 189:3,4 191:12 194:11 197:14 200:13 203:2,15 221:25 222:18 232:22 233:1,6,24 235:21 237:3,19

ways (5) 23:1 83:24 97:13,17 237:1 we’re (2) 194:6 212:4

we’ve (2) 142:2 168:21

web (1) 114:16 website (1) 116:22 Wednesday (1) 1:1 wee (1) 58:8 week (6) 182:24

202:3,5,6 217:6 236:13

week’s (1) 90:8 weeks (7) 28:18 34:6

81:11 83:14 194:20 215:7 222:11

weeks’ (2) 83:15 90:10

weight (4) 76:9 131:8 132:3 191:19

Welcome (1) 64:11 well-connected (1)

172:23 well-regarded (1)

172:23

went (7) 6:10,13 24:1 40:9 45:10 112:6 159:20

weren’t (25) 15:8 40:15 51:10 83:19 83:22 88:11 90:25 101:24,25 170:1 186:15,23 187:24 197:12 198:16,21 200:25 209:14 211:9,11 213:24 226:23 229:8,13,18

west (20) 20:22 21:6 21:8,22 22:16,17 22:22,24 23:2,4,6 23:11,19,23 24:7 24:13,24 25:25 53:15 58:3

western (168) 2:13,24 3:3,20 5:15 7:2,4 8:3,8,12,24 9:13,25 10:2,11,25 11:5,11 11:12,13,15 12:2,9 12:16,20 13:16 17:3 18:17 20:8,10 20:11,22 22:23 23:3,11,23 24:7,18 25:5,14,15 27:2 30:20 31:21 34:23 35:17 37:7 41:17 43:2,20 44:2,4 45:15,25 47:3,19 49:17,23 50:4,21 51:16 52:11,19,22 53:8,12 56:16,23 57:9 59:7,8,14,21 60:12,16,19,24 61:2 65:5,15 66:25 71:11 73:12 74:4,9 74:14 75:20,23 76:5 79:6,17 85:7 91:14 92:8 94:15

98:25 117:23 119:2 120:6,11 132:24 137:12,25 139:2,15 140:24 141:12,21 142:8 143:3,25 144:19,20 145:6,24 146:7,8,13 147:17 148:1 150:14,24 151:1,6 163:9 164:6,14 169:7,15 169:23 172:13 175:3 181:20 182:6 184:5,7,8,8,9,14 188:18 189:25 190:19,20,21 192:6 204:18 205:7,12 206:9 207:14 208:19 209:24 210:16,23 211:13 211:24 212:7,12 214:13,17 217:16 220:3,20 221:3,13 221:16 223:4

westwards (1) 57:4 what-if (3) 124:8,12

124:25 wheels (1) 43:12

whilst (7) 68:12 69:7 100:24 129:18 181:16 215:1 234:10

white (5) 54:25 55:1,2 56:10 57:6

wholeheartedly (1)

126:15

Wilson (3) 77:20 90:3 199:5

wind (1) 214:14 winning (1) 61:18 wish (2) 233:9 242:1 wishing (1) 40:6 withdrawn (1) 41:14 witness (53) 1:7,15,20

2:2 5:22 10:18,20 11:2 13:13 14:24 26:5 28:12 32:4 59:15 63:13,17 64:16 66:24 72:6 82:4 94:23 115:14 126:5 128:18,23 129:18 130:2 132:11 136:8,17 140:22 146:1,2 157:3 158:21 169:12 179:1 182:12 183:1 185:18 188:19 199:19 210:2 212:5 212:11 217:2 230:14 231:20 232:16 234:18 235:12,18 241:21

witness’s (1) 230:25 witnesses (1) 183:14 wonder (12) 10:17 27:25 28:1 30:10 30:15,24 146:11

152:18 153:4 180:9 183:2 232:10

wondered (1) 202:14 woodwork (1) 237:6 word (5) 22:25 49:13 49:13 152:19 163:1

worded (1) 148:21 words (17) 11:22 26:2

34:24 35:18 37:17 41:19 60:16 86:5 89:6 131:12 158:25 197:8 198:18

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

259

March 2, 2016 Day 20

207:17 210:16 214:13 221:3

work (43) 2:16 14:22 15:21 34:23 38:23 40:3,12 46:21,22 46:24 47:8,11,11 49:22 77:17 102:3 102:13 106:1 118:4 136:24 151:19 155:16 171:14,20 173:3,16 190:16 192:10 200:17 201:2,25 202:2 203:6 209:2,4,9 210:9,15 211:2 215:24 222:13 223:4 239:16

worked (10) 59:22 74:4 93:14 94:19 95:21 118:1 180:12 181:12 203:2 221:19

working (10) 34:17 62:5,10,12 77:14 157:14 163:8,14 204:25 211:7

works (13) 46:11,14 47:17,18 48:14 49:16,25 141:5,12 180:24 181:4 195:13,18

world (8) 4:4 89:17 104:7 111:16 155:9 158:5 173:2 200:18

worried (6) 186:15,23 200:25,25 202:9 215:18

worry (2) 162:21 172:18

worse (1) 168:8 Worst (1) 168:15 worth (5) 4:2 16:22

40:2 83:16 209:9 would-be (1) 155:19 wouldn’t (51) 3:13 4:4 4:10,21,22 10:7

24:16 40:1 50:7,9 52:24 59:3 61:4,6 82:4 83:15 86:11 90:5 97:5 128:7 144:16 145:11 151:17,19 157:11 162:2,12 164:10,11 166:8 168:11 170:1 170:17 171:12 179:6 186:14 193:23 194:4 204:3 205:20 206:3 209:16 214:25 215:10,12,15 219:18 221:13 223:9,11 235:1

write (1) 194:23 writers (1) 183:4 writing (8) 14:12

27:12 32:20 52:1 53:6,7 54:21 55:3

written (3) 204:13 227:18 229:20

wrong (16) 22:18 35:9 80:14 84:8 85:21 86:15 120:4 123:22 127:19 150:19 154:7 156:23 185:7 202:19 205:23 206:1

wrote (4) 82:7 147:4,5 147:25

X

X (2) 4:1,3

Y

year (44) 4:7,9 8:9 15:4 19:24 62:11 65:17 66:3 68:15 69:22 72:22 86:12 88:1 93:11,17,22 95:19,23 97:20 99:5,15 100:12 101:1,25 102:16 103:6 105:3,12 107:4,14 108:15 109:10 133:25 135:25 168:3 179:10 205:18,21 206:10 207:5 208:16,21 237:12 238:5

year’s (1) 109:22 year-on-year (1)

102:12

years (30) 3:25 4:1 26:16 37:1 69:4,6,9 69:12,14,15,20 70:7 84:5 90:22 110:1,2 134:17 136:7 147:5 148:3 157:24 165:23 167:1,23,23 168:13 168:14 170:3 171:4 218:11

yellow (1) 58:24 yesterday (3) 234:4

238:19 242:3

Z

Zapadny (4) 12:16

22:15,17 23:4

0

0.1 (1) 85:10

069,600 (1) 26:1

1

1 (21) 11:16 13:7,12 14:17 73:13 79:9 79:11,14 80:3,9 88:3,9 174:14 176:1,2 177:19 205:11 208:2 218:23 243:3,4

1,000 (2) 88:9 112:22

1,200 (1) 77:17

1,600 (2) 77:17,21

1.069 (1) 26:2

1.08 (1) 128:12

1.3 (1) 13:1

1.4 (1) 203:8

1.6 (1) 72:1

1.8 (1) 134:3

10 (21) 5:18 52:20 75:14 117:23 142:9 142:11 146:4,22,24 147:10 177:18 178:2 180:19 185:5 185:10 186:4 187:9 230:8,9,13 231:2

10-minute (1) 229:24

10.0 (4) 1:2 233:8,10 241:25
10.30 (5) 233:12 242:1,7,9,11
10.9.08 (1) 186:18

100 (12) 12:22 80:24 102:25,25 143:25

153:25,25 184:11 20,000 (1) 173:19
187:11 208:4 200 (7) 74:16 76:7
227:18 228:6 94:20 143:24 145:4
100-and-what-millio… 145:23 164:15
102:24 2002 (1) 57:1
100,000 (1) 200:24 2005 (1) 180:23
101 (1) 102:16 2007 (27) 7:2,11 8:3
11 (5) 17:2 28:1,5 9:3 11:10,22 12:2
135:18 142:11 12:11 15:4 18:9,17
11.18 (1) 54:7 19:24 20:16 45:25
11.29 (1) 54:9 54:18 69:19 142:17
11.849 (1) 134:8 143:3 145:15 146:7
110 (7) 124:2,17 148:19 176:4,21
126:17 127:13 177:23 178:22
168:10,10,11 179:10 195:5
1101 (1) 226:14 2008 (75) 5:19 6:8,10
12 (7) 9:23 135:10 6:14 9:10 17:4
140:18 175:24 18:22 19:11 40:16
180:22 192:19 45:11 47:10,20
203:5 70:17 75:12 80:4
12,000 (1) 113:11 98:5 101:19,25
120 (10) 112:6 115:23 102:13 123:3 124:1
116:4 119:20 124:5 125:11
120:11 123:21 133:22 134:1 135:4
124:2 126:13,17 135:9,10 136:1
168:12 138:11 139:2
13 (4) 9:10 30:22 147:12 157:16,19
51:14 172:19 157:25 158:5 160:7
13,000 (1) 113:11 164:20 172:16
140 (10) 142:21 149:2 173:16,17 178:5
149:8,14,19 151:5 181:22 182:1 185:5
155:6,14 156:14 185:10 186:4 187:9
161:9 189:8 192:19
15 (7) 12:10 52:20 194:20 195:17
70:4 157:19 158:5 205:4 210:5,13
160:6,7 211:8 213:4 217:6
150 (5) 94:20 95:24 217:25 218:6 221:2
96:11 107:4 211:24 223:19 224:6 225:2
154 (3) 102:16 103:3 225:13,16,24 226:5
103:4 226:19 227:3,8
16 (1) 113:9 228:10,18 229:5,18
160 (7) 29:9,13 33:24 2009 (6) 102:14
43:5,22 121:18 118:19 134:10
190:3 135:15 158:20
161 (3) 118:5,5 123:1 171:7
165 (3) 118:2,5,11 2010 (8) 102:14
17 (3) 5:22 28:9 120:14 135:18
205:17 170:25 171:7,8,9
170 (4) 74:15 76:6 172:2
99:20 121:18 2011 (4) 65:17 102:14
173 (2) 118:5 123:1 135:22 170:25
175 (3) 205:19,20,22 2012 (5) 102:14,16
18 (8) 67:1 132:11 105:3,20 171:5
136:20 206:4,7,10 2013 (1) 239:3
208:16,21 2015 (3) 33:13 40:15
180 (1) 99:20 57:1
19 (1) 224:6 2016 (2) 1:1 242:12
194 (3) 30:22,24 31:1 20X (2) 4:2,3
197 (2) 31:1,9 21 (8) 30:11 31:1,10
114:17 118:10
2 134:11 212:18
2 (17) 1:1 30:5 78:13 213:4
210 (12) 74:15 76:6
78:22,23 79:2,3,9
112:6 119:17 121:5
80:9,20 81:3 84:18
123:4,10,13 124:2
101:7 174:15
124:17 125:22
195:24 218:24
127:13
243:5
22 (6) 87:10 140:18
2,500 (1) 77:21
158:22,23 206:11
2.05 (3) 126:25
226:5
128:11,14
220 (34) 4:7 7:4,12
2.5 (1) 90:8
8:4,9,19 9:3 10:2
20 (9) 3:25 4:1 29:5
10:12 16:23 18:1
70:4 85:4 123:18
18:10,18 26:21
140:17 206:11
27:7,20 28:14,21
225:2
32:16 35:20 36:6
20-foot (3) 66:2 71:14
36:14 38:13 41:5
72:11
121:2 141:8,18
20-foot-long (1) 72:14
146:17 147:3 148:2

149:11 156:8 161:7 190:7

23 (3) 112:24,25 114:21

231 (1) 243:6

24 (5) 11:22,23 29:23 59:11,15

24/7 (1) 239:16 240,000 (1) 89:6

25 (13) 11:22,23 140:22,25 141:1 154:24 174:1 194:20 225:13 227:3,8 228:10 229:18

25,000 (9) 200:21,23 201:2 206:17 207:6 207:9 208:15,22 209:3

250 (4) 112:5 138:20 139:8 140:3

250,000 (3) 94:17 95:20 100:11

257 (1) 118:21

26.25 (1) 134:12

27 (5) 128:3 205:4 217:6,25 218:6

27,000 (2) 93:17,22

29 (1) 188:13

3

3 (20) 9:10 29:15,21 29:22,24 53:14 56:24 57:5 58:25 83:3 86:14 89:25 92:13 101:7 175:3 176:22 187:18 218:25 221:20 242:12

3,000 (1) 51:2

3.22 (1) 183:8

3.30 (1) 183:10

30 (7) 37:1 55:8,25 76:1 154:25 170:3 178:17

30-year (1) 92:14

30,000 (3) 88:8 89:6 94:16

30.4 (1) 178:15

300 (28) 2:24 4:6,8 39:23 94:21 97:6 103:14 104:1 105:23 107:1 111:4 137:16 140:13 141:4,17 142:14 143:1,7,24 144:8 145:20 155:11 164:16 195:6 205:12 211:24 220:19 221:5

300,000 (5) 74:21 75:6 77:1 81:22 82:23

31 (3) 15:4 19:24 179:10

32 (2) 15:1,12

320 (2) 176:21 180:8

33 (11) 72:6,7 105:12 105:19 107:10 111:10 159:16 177:23 178:8 179:16 221:17

34 (4) 111:25 112:4 115:14 178:14

35 (2) 112:4 116:2

35,000 (8) 81:17,23 82:8 86:14,15,18 86:22 87:3

350 (1) 99:19
36 (6) 64:19,19,19
103:12 106:15
147:21
364 (1) 205:22
365 (1) 205:24
37 (7) 47:5,24 64:15
64:19 65:11 72:6
72:18
370 (1) 116:1
38 (1) 94:24
39 (4) 66:23 106:15
126:4 189:7
3A (1) 175:18

3Q09 (1) 206:23

4

4 (11) 29:21 30:5 66:4 81:13 86:16,17 87:7 89:25 137:18 138:11 175:19

4.35 (1) 231:14

4.45 (1) 231:11

4.46 (1) 231:16

4.5 (1) 176:5

4.8 (2) 140:14 190:2

40 (22) 4:9 12:3 13:15 26:20 27:3,7 28:13 28:20 29:6 35:19 36:6,14 38:14 56:1 145:10 148:12 150:14 151:8 156:8 156:12 161:7,8

40-foot (1) 72:1

400 (1) 77:19

400,000 (2) 65:17 87:4
41 (1) 181:21

42 (1) 182:18

43 (2) 189:18 191:13

434,000 (1) 103:6

45 (1) 107:9

450 (1) 118:18

46 (1) 105:25

5

5 (7) 29:11 30:12 55:8 56:1 134:15 176:13 179:8

5.00 (1) 242:10

50 (4) 51:12 106:16 202:4,5

50,000 (4) 140:20 205:13,24 206:25

500 (8) 69:24 103:19 105:22 118:18 176:4,10 180:7 187:3

500,000 (16) 66:2,5

69:15 71:21,21
72:22 77:5,19,23
84:13 88:1 94:17
95:18 99:4 100:12
104:2
52 (1) 28:9
54 (1) 199:20
57 (5) 28:24 29:15,20
29:22,24
58 (4) 29:15,20,22,24

6

6 (3) 29:11,14 174:16

6,000 (1) 112:23

6.19 (1) 20:4

60 (5) 29:7 30:3 45:21 149:10 169:12

600 (1) 187:3

62 (2) 210:2,6

65 (2) 30:7,11

66 (2) 30:8,12

69,350,000 (1) 13:9

7

7 (1) 83:4

7,000 (14) 76:9 78:15 80:13 81:5,10,23 82:24 83:14 84:18 85:8,13 86:2,12,25

70 (2) 111:19 113:1

75 (11) 103:7,8 105:3 106:5 107:4 109:12 109:18,23 163:23 174:2 219:12

753 (1) 81:25 753/6 (1) 82:1

8

8 (11) 32:16 44:9,10 45:20 65:14 66:4 84:13,14 87:25 176:13,15

8-hectare (6) 52:19 53:16 68:20 72:25 90:4,7

8.1 (2) 11:11 75:23

8.5 (2) 7:17 18:14

80 (13) 95:24 96:11 99:7 103:8 111:19 137:2,15,22 140:13 141:19 152:15 156:10 161:7

80,000 (1) 87:2

85 (1) 99:7

88 (6) 177:22 178:8 178:16 179:16,25 180:8

88.8 (2) 178:13 180:18

9

9 (4) 6:24 21:21 30:25 135:16
9-10 (1) 76:8

90 (13) 142:16 143:1 143:8,14 144:8 145:3,8,12,24 148:18,21 156:11 161:8

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900