Day 24

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

Day 24

March 8, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 Tuesday, 8 March 2016

2 (10.30 am)

3 (Proceedings delayed)

4 (10.53 am)

5 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good morning.

7 MR VLADIMIR ALEXANDROVICH SKLYAREVSKY (Continued)

8 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV (Continued)

9 MR STROILOV: Good morning, Mr Sklyarevsky. May I come back

10 briefly to the Antonenko project. I think you said it

11 was successfully completed about what time? When was it

12 that the project was completed?

13 A. It doesn’t work, the translation.

14 Q. Ah, I beg your pardon.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Apparently there is no signal in

16 the witness box. This is the interpreter speaking.

17 Pause.

18 A. Yes, it is all working now, thank you very much.

19 MR STROILOV: Thank you. So when was the Antonenko project

20 completed?

21 A. It was completed by SKIF, if my memory doesn’t fail me,

22 in 2012, and the total project was completed by Renord,

23 I think it was in 2014.

24 Q. So on what — could you explain, again, how — you may

25 have explained, but I didn’t quite understand it well,

1 transaction, it was paid for, and it was my first time

2 in my life when I came across a freezing order, and for

3 me and my lawyers, it was quite difficult to understand

4 the situation. In 2011, as I mentioned on Friday, we

5 decided to leave the Antonenko project and we moved

6 it — we transferred it to Five Star, the company, and

7 accordingly the transaction was planned for 2011/2012.

8 When we received the freezing order from the BVI it

9 was quite unclear for us — that legal situation was

10 unclear for us with regard to whether to stop the

11 transaction or carry on the transaction. As you can

12 appreciate, that was a loan. I was paying interest on

13 it, so naturally I wanted to transfer the loan to the

14 Five Star company and, accordingly, my lawyers have

15 filed, I’m not quite sure whether that is a claim or

16 some demand, saying that freezing order caused me

17 overpaying the interest. That has no relation to us

18 thinking something up with someone; that was real losses

19 and real interest overpaid by SKIF.

20 Q. Did SKIF try to go back to BVI court and try to obtain

21 permission for that transaction as an exception from the

22 freezing order?

23 A. No. As far as I recall, we stopped these attempts.

24 I do not recall when it happened. It was in 2012 or

25 2013. My lawyers informed me that the proceedings with

1 3

1 why was it at the final stage SKIF wasn’t involved?

2 A. Because SKIF has many telecommunications projects, and

3 this is what we concentrated on, and I closed all my

4 developer projects, most of them. That was my decision,

5 because I focused on a different business.

6 Q. Right. Could this document be handed to the bench and

7 to the witness and to the translators. (Handed).

8 Now, Mr Sklyarevsky, that seems to be an affidavit

9 which you made in the BVI proceedings, claiming damages

10 from the freezing order made against SKIF; do you recall

11 that?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. And if you go to paragraph 7, you explain that

14 in September 2011 SKIF decided to transfer its rights

15 under the co-investment agreement to Five Star and to

16 abandon the investment project, and then there is

17 a preliminary agreement, which you describe. Then you

18 say that you were prevented from withdrawing from the

19 project by the freezing order.

20 A. Yes, that happened, indeed.

21 Q. So isn’t it the case that this transaction was invented

22 by you and Renord ex post facto to justify this claim

23 for damages under the freezing order?

24 A. No. It wasn’t invented because that was a real

25 transaction. There was consideration under the

1 regard to Mr Arkhangelsky’s case will be held in London,

2 and in their opinion it was futile to independently try

3 carrying on some BVI proceedings. We stopped that.

4 Q. Well, from looking at this affidavit, it looks really

5 that the freezing order was a bit of a disaster for your

6 business, wasn’t it?

7 A. No, it wasn’t a disaster, but it was my first time when

8 I came across that type of order in my life. We had

9 a serious legal discussion as to how that would be

10 effective in the Russian Federation, whether it has to

11 be enforced, whether it has to be complied with, or

12 whether we should collaborate with the BVI court in some

13 way, because in the Russian Federation any decision of

14 a foreign court has to be approved by a Russian court.

15 On the one hand, we had the understanding that that

16 freezing order is not effective in the Russian

17 Federation, but on the other hand, we didn’t want to

18 breach it. Therefore, as far as I recall, the Five Star

19 company and I, we decided to suspend the transaction, so

20 I had to overpay the interest on the loan for several

21 quarters, and subsequently when the freezing order was

22 abolished I closed the transaction, and the interest

23 overpaid by us, we tried to claim it against

24 Mr Arkhangelsky, but however we were then informed that

25 the proceedings have moved to London with regard to

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 this, and we left it. That’s the way I recall the

2 situation.

3 Q. How much, to your recollection, did SKIF spend on legal

4 costs in the BVI proceedings?

5 A. I do not recall exactly. It must be some tens of

6 thousands of euros. Tens of thousands of euros, yes.

7 I do not recall exactly.

8 Q. Did you say tens of thousands of euro? Because I note

9 that the interpreter…

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Because I think you said yesterday, you indicated

12 yesterday, that you hardly remembered the BVI

13 litigation?

14 A. That’s the way it was. A team of lawyers was involved

15 in this, and I wasn’t involved enough in

16 the proceedings. I was interested in getting rid of

17 the freezing order, no more than that. But the actual

18 proceedings, how it was held, sir, you asked me

19 yesterday about why we hired the same lawyers, and

20 I said that I wasn’t involved in these proceedings and

21 I wouldn’t be able to, therefore, to help you, in answer

22 to your question.

23 Q. Thank you. Do I understand correctly that you are

24 a Russian lawyer by education? You have a law degree

25 from a Russian university?

1 A. If I recall exactly, Mrs Arkhangelskaya’s claim, it was

2 about her husband, Mr Arkhangelsky, being the director

3 general of OMG group ports, has abused his rights and

4 sold the shares without approving that with her.

5 I don’t know whether they live together or whether

6 they’ve communicated, but that’s the way the claim was

7 structured: Mrs Arkhangelskaya allegedly did not know

8 what her husband was doing, and her husband abused his

9 right, and did the transaction against her will. That’s

10 the way I recall that claim, and subsequently, the claim

11 developed with regard to Article 10 of the Russian

12 Federation Civil Code, which concerns abuse of rights.

13 Why I used the word «elegant», because prior

14 to June 2009, in the Russian Federation legal practice

15 with regard to Article 10, there was no legal practice,

16 there was no precedent, and basically that configuration

17 of the decision, as mentioned in Mrs Arkhangelskaya’s

18 claim, that was unique, that was the first one in the

19 Russian Federation. That was a big thing to do, and

20 I would like to state then, again, the decision was not

21 aimed at declaring the transactions invalid, but

22 declaring them null and void. That was the elegance of

23 the solution. That was done for the first time in

24 Russia, that’s firstly, and, secondly, that was a legal

25 precedent, to declare the transactions null and void,

5 7

1 A. I don’t have a law degree. I have an economics degree.

2 I have graduated in the speciality of law in

3 the university. However, I am not a practising lawyer.

4 Q. Right. I think also in your statement you mentioned

5 that SKIF has quite a strong legal team. I don’t

6 remember whether it was in the witness statement or in

7 cross-examination, but you said you have a very strong

8 legal team.

9 Could we look at the transcript of Day 22, page 42.

10 {Day22/42:1}. Could, perhaps, we have on the same

11 screen the next page, or as much as of it as will fit

12 {Day22/43:1}.

13 If you could just look and recall what exactly you

14 said. (Pause).

15 Now, especially what I am looking at, so if you look

16 at {Day22/43:2} you comment that Mr Arkhangelsky’s

17 lawyers came up with an elegant solution. When you used

18 the word «elegant», did you mean it sarcastically or

19 seriously?

20 A. I used it seriously. It wasn’t a sarcastic comment. It

21 was a very strong legal solution.

22 Q. It seems to be the burden of your evidence that

23 a premise of Mrs Arkhangelskaya’s claims was a pretence

24 that she was estranged, or separated, from

25 Mr Arkhangelsky; isn’t that what you were suggesting?

1 but not invalid.

2 Q. I will come back to that. If we could look at

3 {D122/1954/1} on one screen, and I think the Russian

4 version will be at {D122/1954/5} of the same. So that

5 is the decision of the first instance court in

6 Mrs Arkhangelskaya’s claim against Sevzapalians, isn’t

7 it?

8 A. We need to look until the end of the decision, but

9 apparently, yes.

10 Q. Yes, we will. And you can see the date 25 June, so is

11 that the judgment which, as you told the court on

12 Friday, I think, you and Mrs Malysheva were worried

13 about, that it was coming and expecting difficulties

14 around the same time, and were planning various steps

15 and leases and this kind of thing; is that what you

16 meant, to your recollection?

17 A. I can only see the title page. The answer is: yes,

18 based on the dates, but we would need to have a look at

19 the totality of this document. There were several

20 claims there, on the part of Mrs Arkhangelskaya, so

21 whether that was put forward on this basis or some other

22 basis, I would not be able to tell that based on the

23 claim number — on the case number, because there are

24 several claims. There was a claim pertaining to absence

25 of approval of a major transaction on the part of OMG,

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 that’s a separate claim. That’s as far as I recall.

2 There was also another claim due to the abuse of

3 right. I am not sure whether that decision is

4 pertaining to the first claim or the second claim.

5 Q. We will look at it in a second. If you could scroll

6 down one page on each screen {D122/1954/2},

7 {D122/1954/6}. Just to go through the most material

8 parts, you can see at the top, after the end of

9 the paragraph continuing from the previous page, you can

10 see the words:

11 «In support of her claims, the plaintiff refers to

12 the fact that the contentious transaction conceals

13 a gift agreement and that the contentious transaction

14 results in a considerable damage for Oslo Marine Group

15 Ports…»

16 Can you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Then skipping the next paragraph, then you can see that

19 Sevzapalians was arguing a certain point of law.

20 Then in the next paragraph:

21 «At the hearing, the plaintiff’s representative …»

22 That sets out essentially what the positions of

23 the parties were, and you can see that OMG Ports

24 recognised, admitted the claim, and then there were two

25 representatives of Western Terminal appointed by old

1 the grounds for this claim with regard to

2 the transaction in the shares is a sham transaction

3 because it covers the gift agreement, and therefore the

4 second item of article 66 of the Civil Code is being

5 applied, about the transaction which is null and void.

6 I do not recall exactly, but it is not this claim, and

7 the claim I meant, if we could please go back to

8 the title page of the document, I might be able to

9 suggest it.

10 Q. Okay. Perhaps we could, yes.

11 A. Right. This is the claim, using the consequences of

12 a null and void transaction, this is the claim that was

13 initiated by Mrs Arkhangelskaya, but then subsequently,

14 in the course of the hearings, she added a claim because

15 Mr Arkhangelsky had abused his right, and this claim was

16 then — and that was the first time that

17 Mrs Justice Izotova relied upon section 10 of

18 the Russian Civil Code that I mentioned a few moments

19 ago, with respect to the abuse of right committed by

20 Mr Arkhangelsky and Mr Arkhangelsky’s lawyers, the ones

21 who acted for him, did confirm that Mr Arkhangelsky was

22 not aware — I think, I remember it was Mr Erokhin, the

23 lawyer who was acting for Mr Arkhangelsky, he said that

24 Mrs Julia Arkhangelskaya was not aware about the

25 transactions conducted by her husband with respect to

9

1 management and new management, and they disagreed as

2 well.

3 Then in the English text, on the English page, I am

4 looking at the third and second paragraphs from the

5 bottom, which corresponds — which will be in just the

6 lower half of the Russian text. I think you can find

7 something starting with the words «(Russian words) …»

8 and so on. Have you found that?

9 A. Sir, would you like me to have a look at the English or

10 the Russian version?

11 Q. Well, whatever is more convenient for you. I thought

12 you would prefer Russian. So then it will be — the

13 paragraph I am looking at starts from the words in the

14 English version:

15 «The plaintiff brought the present case …»

16 And in the Russian version:

17 «(Russian words)… »

18 It’s kind of just a little lower.

19 A. Yes, I can see that one, sir.

20 Q. And then if you read these two paragraphs, and then when

21 you have read that …

22 So that’s the nullity claim, that’s what you called

23 «elegant», judging by —

24 A. No, no. There was a series of claims there and a series

25 of grounds for them. As far as I can see in the text,

11

1 Oslo Marine Group and the probability that

2 Mr Arkhangelsky had abused his inherent right, and

3 I think there was a ruling somewhere, whether it was

4 here or in the other judgment I don’t recall, so this

5 claim had quite a history, and so they relied on

6 section 10 of the Russian Civil Code, and that’s why

7 I called it an elegant — it was a trailblazing first

8 ever claim filed in the Russian Federation, based on

9 that cause of action. That’s why I called it elegant.

10 It was the first ever in the Russian legal history

11 where a party relied upon section 10 of the Russian

12 Civil Code, ie abuse of rights, you can actually run

13 a search of the database of Russian courts, you will see

14 that that was the first ever, and we lost the first two

15 claims in the first two instances, and I think we

16 prevailed only in the cassational appeal instance,

17 precisely because of that, and that is the reason that

18 Mrs Malysheva was quite upset and frustrated; that we

19 had lost in those two instances.

20 Q. Yes, I think we will come, if we continue reading, to

21 article 10, the abuse of right point.

22 If we could now scroll down two pages on each screen

23 {D122/1954/3}, {D122/1954/7}, and if you look at the

24 second paragraph from the top in the Russian text, and

25 in the English text it is the large paragraph in

10 12
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 the upper half of the page, starting with the words: 1 Now, based on what you have just shown to me, it
2 «At the same time, it follows …» 2 would appear that Sevzapalians used the pretext of
3 So if you could read this through. (Pause). 3 an instance of abuse of right that had been committed by
4 Just say when you have finished. 4 the other party by entering into that transaction, and
5 A. Yes, I am done, thank you. 5 that other party was the DG, the COO of OMG group ports,
6 Q. And then skipping the next paragraph, there is 6 and that was Mr Arkhangelsky.
7 a reference to the sale for RUB 9,900. Then there is 7 Q. Now, just for completeness, if we could scroll down both
8 a reference to an extract from a valuation — from 8 screens to the end of the judgment, just for
9 a report, it doesn’t say what, but a report 9 completeness. I am not really asking to read it, unless
10 dated December 29. Was that meant to be a valuation 10 you want to, {D122/1954/4}, {D122/1954/8}, I just don’t
11 report, Mr Sklyarevsky? 11 want to break just before the last page.
12 A. Do you really expect me to recall all this? Possibly. 12 Mr Sklyarevsky, wouldn’t you agree from what you
13 Maybe it was a valuation report, but I am not sure. 13 have just seen, that the claim in terms of facts and
14 Maybe. Just maybe. 14 evidence, it was a very simple claim, wasn’t it?
15 Q. And then the next paragraph, starting from the words, 15 A. On the whole, yes.
16 «It follows …», that is where abuse of rights comes 16 Q. So the sole issue was the — the sole factual issue, at
17 in. I hope … and in Russian it starts from «(Russian 17 least, was whether the shares were sold for a nominal
18 words) …» 18 consideration as opposed to full and proper
19 A. Yes. Yes. It relies upon article 10, paragraph 1 of 19 consideration.
20 the Civil Code, which says that individuals are not 20 A. Well, I think you are generalising to a large extent,
21 allowed to abuse their right; that’s exactly the point 21 but, speaking as a layman, maybe you are right, yes.
22 that I was referring to, section 10 of the Russian Civil 22 Yes.
23 Code, abuse of right. 23 Q. Isn’t it clear from this judgment that the claim does
24 Q. Yes, then you can see the next paragraph as well, which 24 not depend on whether Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky are
25 is the bottom paragraph on this page. (Pause). 25 divorced or otherwise?
13 15

1 So isn’t it the case that the decision refers to

2 a claim based on abuse of right by Sevzapalians, but not

3 by Mr Arkhangelsky?

4 A. No. This is not what this is all about. No.

5 Q. So do you think you were mistaken in saying that, or

6 should we look for some other claim where that

7 allegation was made?

8 A. So far as I recall, back from my college days, abuse of

9 right refers to the right on the part of the two parties

10 to enter into a transaction, so maybe they meant that

11 Sevzapalians avail itself of the fact that the general

12 director of OMG group ports had abused his right, and

13 sold the shares in Western Terminal at a huge

14 undervalue.

15 Then Sevzapalians used that pretext. This is

16 perhaps what the learned judge means in her judgment,

17 but mind you, this was many, many years ago, and to be

18 honest, it would be good if we could read the

19 cassational court judgment, because it overturned quite

20 a few decisions and clarified quite a few legal points

21 here.

22 So it’s really difficult to go by the first

23 instance, the trial court judgment, without knowing what

24 happened later, because there are quite a few subsequent

25 documents that we would need to go through.

1 A. No, it does not depend on that, but any court

2 proceeding, any trial, or any judgment, is not just

3 based on the claim itself. There is a whole trial in

4 the course of which the lawyers adduce evidence; they

5 provide proof of their cause of action. Now, the claim

6 with respect to the invalidation of the contract of gift

7 was dead in the water, and that’s what the judge

8 actually refers to, but in the course of the hearings,

9 Mr Arkhangelsky’s lawyers adduced additional evidence

10 and additional documents which then impelled the judge

11 to rely on section 10 of the Russian Civil Code, ie the

12 abuse of right, and that’s the claim I’m referring to,

13 ie the one where the judge referred to the invalidity of

14 the transaction that had been ruled null and void

15 ab initio. That was a very elegant decision.

16 Mr Arkhangelsky initiated proceedings and the cause

17 of action was that the major transaction decisions had

18 not been complied with. Had this just been that, that

19 would have been not sufficient, but if you look at this

20 together with the criminal case, and also bearing in

21 mind the fact that the lawyers tried to adduce all the

22 additional evidence to the Russian court to prove that

23 Mr Arkhangelsky was not aware that he was entering into

24 this transaction, that he had abused his right, together

25 with Sevzapalians by buying these shares at

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 a considerable undervalue, Mrs Justice Izotova did raise

2 questions in the course of the hearing as to whether or

3 not they were separated or whether they were living

4 together, and how it so happened that the wife was not

5 aware of the financial transactions her husband was

6 entering into.

7 So that discussion did take place in the course of

8 the hearings, and based on that, the learned judge

9 decided that this transaction needs to be ruled invalid.

10 Now, the invalidity under Russian law, invalidity

11 means that it has no legal consequences as of the time

12 that it was entered into, and that’s why I mentioned the

13 criminal cases that had also been opened.

14 What I would encourage you to do, if I may, if we

15 are discussing legal hearings, or court proceedings, we

16 need to read the final judgment, because it’s very

17 difficult to look at various interim decisions or lower

18 court or trial court judgments, because the evidential

19 base kept changing and it’s necessary, really, to look

20 the final instance judgment, ie the cassational court.

21 It’s very difficult to look at the trial court judgment

22 and then try to draw some conclusions from this, because

23 that would be incomplete.

24 MR LORD: My Lord, I hesitate to interrupt, but we are

25 obviously on a protracted period about these court

1 that was a first ever in Russian case law. That was the

2 first time ever people relied on section 10 of

3 the criminal code as their cause of action.

4 Q. Now, Mr Sklyarevsky, I understand that

5 Mrs Arkhangelskaya’s lawyers did not explain the factual

6 context in their claim. They didn’t explain all about

7 the repo transaction and all that, did they?

8 A. Well, as a matter of fact, I seem to recall that this

9 information was provided to the judge, except that the

10 memorandum, the repo transactions are not legal

11 documents under Russian law, and they were not accepted

12 by the court.

13 But Mr Erokhin did adduce those materials. At least

14 he showed those materials. He turned them up, he handed

15 them up to the judge.

16 Q. Thanks. Now, if we could go to {D131/2151/1}, and

17 I think {D131/2151/6} is the Russian version.

18 So that is the appeal decision in the same case,

19 isn’t it?

20 A. Correct. Or possibly. Possibly. Sorry, let me just

21 double-check the number of the case file. If it’s the

22 same case file number, then it’s the same case.

23 Q. Well, it is —

24 A. Down at the bottom here, if you can just double-check

25 that.

17

1 decisions. There are other decisions. There are two

2 further levels of court consideration.

3 MR STROILOV: I will come to that. Let me indicate that

4 now. I will come to that. Thank you.

5 Now, Mr Sklyarevsky, I think the explanation you

6 have given is not what the judgment says, but we will

7 move on to the appeal decisions, as you have seen.

8 Now, contrary to what you have just indicated,

9 Mr Sklyarevsky, in Russian legal practice a claim of

10 this kind, based on a nullity and abuse of rights, is

11 the most typical way of challenging a sale at a nominal

12 price; isn’t that so? There are hundreds, probably

13 thousands, of claims of this kind.

14 A. I think you are confusing sham transaction with the

15 nullity of a transaction based on an abuse of right.

16 If I remember correctly, the claim, relying on

17 section 10 — and you would need to double-check that,

18 but speaking from memory I believe that this kind of

19 claims, including this particular claim, made it to the

20 decision by the Supreme Arbitrazh Court with respect to

21 case law related to section 10 of the Russian Civil

22 Code. I do not want to go into the details. I am not

23 a professional advocate or a lawyer, for that matter,

24 but as of June 2009, for me and for my lawyers, for the

25 various attorneys and lawyers who were acting for us,

19

1 Q. Are you talking about the case number at the top on the

2 right?

3 A. No. No. It says:

4 «Having heard the claim … »

5 There has to be a reference, A56/18840/2009, Justice

6 Izotova. If this is the same case number that

7 Mr Stroilov has just turned up, then this is an appeal

8 against the prior court judgment.

9 Q. I have just checked it. The numbers match.

10 Now, if we could scroll down one page on each screen

11 {D131/2151/2}, {D131/2151/7}. Now, it sets out the

12 background, and I will just ask you to scan through this

13 until I would — the paragraphs I would like to draw

14 your attention to are, again, the third and the second

15 paragraphs from the bottom. In the Russian version

16 I think we need to scroll down again {D131/2151/8}.

17 A. Is this page 2?

18 Q. It is on page 2 of the English text, and the Russian

19 text, if we could scroll down. So in the Russian text,

20 it will be the second complete paragraph from the top,

21 starting from «(Russian words) Sevzapalians …», so

22 these two paragraphs.

23 So that indicates that your side sought to adduce

24 new evidence in the appellate court.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It appears that Western Terminal

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 intervened, as it were, as did the Federal Tax Service

2 Inter-District; is that right?

3 MR STROILOV: I think the Federal Tax Service was added as

4 a party by the court but didn’t participate, and the

5 Western Terminal, let me see …

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s on the first main paragraph on

7 the page we are on:

8 «Third persons without independent claims have been

9 called to the case …»

10 MR STROILOV: That’s right, I’m just trying to check whether

11 it was the same situation as in first instance.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And who appeared for Western Terminal?

13 MR STROILOV: If we could scroll down the English version

14 for a moment, I think that must be there.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you scroll up, perhaps.

16 MR STROILOV: Yes.

17 A. I think we need to go to page 1. {D131/2151/1}.

18 MR STROILOV: Yes, so for the second — as you can see, the

19 second third person, so to speak, is named as

20 Zapadny Terminal, and then in the paragraph starting:

21 «In the presence of …»

22 You can see that for the third person, first the

23 representative is absent, second the representative is

24 Mrs Goncharuk, so that’s obviously the new management

25 representative.

1 instance that Mr Stroilov was talking about, and on

2 your Lordship’s current question, «In the presence

3 of …» I think there is a list of representatives there

4 in the middle of the page; can your Lordship see? It is

5 Mrs Arkhangelskaya, Sevzapalians by representative

6 Poroshina; OMGP, it is represented by Abarina, which

7 I think — it is obviously OMGP, we think that is

8 Dr Arkhangelsky’s lawyers; then Zapadny Terminal,

9 Western Terminal, Ms Goncharuk. Does your Lordship see?

10 And then Mr Vasiliev?

11 So it does look as though there was a cornucopia of

12 representation there and this witness is right to say

13 that there was an OMGP representative, I think he is

14 saying Dr Arkhangelsky’s, effectively, lawyer, and

15 a different Western Terminal one, certainly at the first

16 instance hearing.

17 MR STROILOV: Yes, I am grateful. I think I mentioned it

18 when I was putting questions about this decision.

19 Perhaps while we are here, could we scroll down,

20 because there is, I think, a summary of the positions

21 presented by both lawyers. If we could scroll down

22 {D122/1954/2}.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sorry to …

24 MR STROILOV: Yes, so if we see the biggest paragraph in

25 the middle, then there is starting:

21 23

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, but then Western Terminal control

2 had changed?

3 MR STROILOV: That’s right, so it was the new management of

4 Western Terminal —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

6 MR STROILOV: — who sent a representative. So if we could,

7 again, scroll down —

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So they came in to support the

9 transaction?

10 MR STROILOV: They did, yes.

11 A. Well, as a matter of fact, I would like to clarify, if

12 I may, that in the first instance, in the trial court,

13 and in the second instance, in the appellate court,

14 there were two groups of lawyers that were acting for

15 Western Terminal: one from the new management and the

16 other from the old management, and the judge actually

17 allowed both to appear because the judge did not know

18 which should be acting, so both the old management’s

19 lawyers and the lawyers instructed by the new management

20 were actually attending the hearings.

21 MR LORD: I think it is fair to the witness and to

22 your Lordship to see {D122/1954/1}.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. So we missed it when we went

24 to …

25 MR LORD: Yes, I think Mr Stroilov did — this was the first

1 «At the hearing, the plaintiff …»

2 You can see that the position of each party is set

3 out, including the position of Western Terminal team

4 number 1 and Western Terminal team number 2.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But by the time of the Court of

6 Cassation, the Court of Appeal, there was only one

7 representative for Western Terminal; is that right?

8 MR STROILOV: So it appears, perhaps. Perhaps

9 Mr Sklyarevsky remembers more about it. One can assume

10 that, perhaps, the appellate court actually made

11 a decision whom to recognise the representative of

12 Western Terminal, or perhaps the Western Terminal, and

13 then OMG team, didn’t attend for whatever reason and it

14 was simply —

15 A. I understand your question. To be honest, I do not

16 recall when exactly the lawyers acting for Mr Vinarsky

17 stopped attending the hearings. There was a power of

18 attorney issued by Mr Vinarsky, the previous, the old

19 CEO of the Western Terminal, and then there was a power

20 of attorney issued by Maslennikov, the new CEO, and

21 based on those two different sets of powers of attorney,

22 different sets of lawyers were acting.

23 At some point in time, Vinarsky’s lawyers stopped

24 attending the hearings. I don’t recall when that was.

25 I don’t think it was related to either the appellate

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 court or other court judgments. I just don’t recall

2 exactly when they discontinued acting, whereas OMG’s

3 lawyers kept attending and kept acting for their clients

4 throughout.

5 Q. Thanks. So if your Lordship has finished with the first

6 instance judgment —

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sorry, yes.

8 MR STROILOV: — if we could go back to {D131/2151/2}, this

9 is what we see on screen, and the Russian version.

10 So the point I am interested in is well, I referred

11 to it before, it is near the bottom of the page, second

12 and third paragraphs over the page, it seems to

13 Sevzapalians were trying to adduce new evidence again.

14 Well, you saw reference to it in the first instance

15 court, now there is — and it is clear from here that it

16 is a valuation report dated — I think it doesn’t give

17 the date. But do you recall that? Do you recall trying

18 to adduce valuation report?

19 A. They exchanged quite a lot of documents and Sevzapalians

20 filed an application to be allowed to adduce, to be

21 given leave to adduce documents, because under Russian

22 law, the appellate court can only have sight of

23 the documents that had previously been adduced in

24 the course of the trial court proceedings, and therefore

25 they had to file an additional application. I think,

1 the Civil Code was lawfully applied.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s the court below. The first

3 instance court lawfully applied?

4 MR STROILOV: Yes, but the appellate court finds that it was

5 lawful. Or does it? I beg your pardon. It will be

6 clear from further down.

7 A. Could I add a few words? On this page we have some

8 reference to this. If you read, and in the Russian text

9 it says that the evidence:

10 «The above-mentioned evidence…»

11 And in English I think it was translated as:

12 «The first instance court did not agree…»

13 I think this is the paragraph. So this paragraph

14 says that this evidence demonstrates —

15 Q. If I could interrupt you for a second. Could we scroll

16 down the English version, because the paragraph you are

17 reading is on the next page of the English version

18 {D131/2151/4}. So what Mr Sklyarevsky is reading from

19 is the paragraph in the lower half which starts:

20 «The above mentioned circumstances …»

21 Please go on, Mr Sklyarevsky?

22 A. Correct, absolutely:

23 «The above mentioned circumstances demonstrate bad

24 faith behaviour, ie the abuse of right on the part of

25 Sevzapalians who, while purchasing these shares, used

25

1 actually, both parties were trying to adduce additional

2 documents and additional documents, quite a few

3 subsequent documents that were adduced and added to

4 the files, and quite possibly — I do not rule out the

5 possibility of the valuation report having been adduced

6 as well, that is possible.

7 Q. Right, and if you could scroll down both screens one

8 page, and just to scan through this, just to avoid

9 interruption, I am not asking any particular questions

10 on this.

11 So, Mr Sklyarevsky, just say when you are

12 comfortable scrolling it down. I am just showing it for

13 the context. I am not asking questions on this. So the

14 Russian version goes lower, so once you are comfortable,

15 just ask to scroll down {D131/2151/9}.

16 A. I think I’m ready.

17 Q. So if the Russian version could be scrolled down, and

18 I think the English version too — no, I beg your

19 pardon. {D131/2151/10}. If we could have the English

20 version, I would like to … I beg your pardon. I think

21 I am in trouble cross-referencing, really, the Russian

22 version to English version.

23 I think the only paragraph I would just like to

24 bring to your Lordship’s attention is second to

25 the bottom. Again, it finds that article 10 of

27

1 the fact that the CEO was acting against the interests

2 of Oslo Marine Group.»

3 The CEO of the seller was Mr Arkhangelsky. This is

4 an important point that I would very much like to

5 emphasise: the CEO was Mr Arkhangelsky.

6 Q. Right. Okay. I see. So that’s what you were referring

7 to.

8 But nevertheless, what I was trying to establish is

9 that the court only found abuse of right on the part of

10 Sevzapalians rather than OMGP, isn’t that a fair reading

11 of this?

12 A. You do not understand section 10 and the abuse of right.

13 You simply have to read it, sir, in the Russian law.

14 You have to read the wording.

15 Q. Yes, and if we could now scroll down the Russian text.

16 Then I am looking at the bottom paragraph in the English

17 text, starting from:

18 «Taking into consideration …»

19 And in the Russian version it’s at the top, it

20 starts:

21 «(Russian words) …»

22 So, my Lord, just signal to me when you …

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I would like the next page when

24 everyone else wants the next page.

25 MR STROILOV: Yes, if we could scroll down the English

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 version. {D131/2151/5}.

2 When you finish that, Mr Sklyarevsky, I would like

3 you to read the paragraph in the middle of the Russian

4 page, starting from:

5 «(Russian words) …»

6 And so on, so that corresponds to the paragraph

7 starting from the extract from the report

8 of December 29, in the English version; have you read

9 that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, it looks from that that in the first instance court

12 and in the appellate court, Sevzapalians’ case was based

13 on the factual contention that RUB 9,900 was a fair

14 market price of Western Terminal; isn’t that so?

15 A. It’s not quite the case. The valuation report has

16 demonstrated that RUB 9,900, it’s quite a possible case

17 for that asset, quite a possible price for the asset,

18 and I shall explain why that is the case.

19 By the time of valuation, and by the moment of sale

20 of this date in December 2008, the land plot of

21 the Western Terminal was pledged against the

22 Vyborg Shipping Company loan in the sum of 2 point

23 something billion roubles, and the valuations previously

24 provided by Mr Arkhangelsky did not encompass the pledge

25 of the land plot, since the Western Terminal in

1 demonstrated to the court the general picture of

2 the obligations, and the fact that the stakes in

3 Western Terminal could have cost RUB 9,900, ie the

4 Justice was not provided with any other documents apart

5 from that report that would describe any other

6 obligations, and that was the valuation report.

7 Q. But 29 December is the day before the repo contract,

8 isn’t it? Mr Sklyarevsky, doesn’t this mean —

9 translation problem, can that be fixed?

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We are hearing the Russian.

11 THE INTERPRETER: My apologies.

12 MR STROILOV: Mr Sklyarevsky, doesn’t that mean that

13 Sevzapalians tried to mislead the court into believing

14 that the price was determined on the basis of

15 a valuation just before the sale, and that was a genuine

16 sale on the market; isn’t that the correct reading of

17 it?

18 A. No, this is not the case. This is not the correct

19 reading on this, because the objective of the valuers

20 was to value this stake as of the date when the court —

21 when the transaction was disputed, and the transaction

22 was disputed on 30 December 2008, and the party to

23 the case was proffering the valuation as of the date,

24 which was the previous date, and the valuer had to value

25 the asset by that particular date.

29 31
1 the Russian accounting system, a pledge of a land plot 1 So as of the date of transaction of
2 is not reflected in the accounts, in the reporting 2 30 December 2008, the RUB 9,900 could have happened,
3 information, nevertheless the valuer needs to take into 3 taking all the circumstances into consideration
4 consideration that the main assets of Western Terminal 4 concerning the obligation of the Western Terminal before
5 were pledged against other obligations, and by the time 5 Vyborg Shipping Company.
6 of valuation in court, and we are talking 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am getting lost here. Your evidence
7 about June 2009, or was it the end of 2008, the risks of 7 is, as I understand it, and you say that the record
8 Vyborg Shipping Company being in default were quite 8 supports this, that Sevzapalians’ position was that the
9 obvious. 9 RUB 9,900 was having regard to the commitments and
10 I do not recall the actual facts of the valuation 10 obligations to which the land was subject by way of
11 agreement, however, it presumed that the main assets of 11 pledge, was a fair and proper price; is that right?
12 the Western Terminal were encumbered against other 12 A. Yes, my Lord, that is the case. You are correct.
13 obligations, and in the event of risk of this — in 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So the purchaser, on paying RUB 9,900
14 the event of claim against these other obligations, the 14 ought to have its transaction of purchase upheld?
15 stake would have been valued at RUB 9,900, and the 15 A. Yes.
16 valuation report demonstrated to the court that the 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And the court below and the court here
17 previous sale and purchase agreement at the price of 17 rejected that and said: no, it’s not, or there isn’t
18 1 billion did not take into consideration that 18 sufficient evidence to support it, and the Court of
19 subsequently the main assets of Western Terminal are 19 Appeal upheld the decision below. There we are.
20 pledge against other obligations. That was the pledge 20 A. No, the decision was not connected to his valuation.
21 against a loan that unfortunately came to be later as 21 The dispute was between what Mr Arkhangelsky was
22 a negative scenario, and the land plots of 22 proving, he was trying to prove that he bought these
23 Western Terminal were sold, and Western Terminal had no 23 stakes a year ago for RUB 1 billion, and then sold it
24 other assets left. 24 for RUB 9,900, and the valuation report demonstrated
25 So in that case, the valuation ought to have 25 that the price has moved in such a way because the land
30 32
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 plot was encumbered with regard to obligation vis-a-vis

2 Vyborg Shipping Company, and what Mr Stroilov is saying

3 here and trying to tell us is related to the fact that

4 the lawyers, the SKIF lawyers, and Sevzapalians lawyers,

5 have submitted to the court of first instance not the

6 actual valuation report, but only the valuation, or the

7 different type of valuation report, the valuation

8 opinion.

9 That decision was not quite correct because the

10 valuation opinion did not bring to light all the

11 circumstances as to why the price was 9,900 how it came

12 to be.

13 In order to prove additional circumstances to

14 the court, at the Court of Appeal, the lawyers

15 endeavoured to adduce the actual report before the

16 court, and in the report, the full information was

17 provided saying that the change in the price of

18 the stakes of Western Terminal from 1 billion to

19 RUB 9,900 was exclusively connected to the fact that the

20 main asset of the Western Terminal was pledged against

21 a loan, and in the Cassation Court, the issue of price

22 was not discussed. In cassation, the issue was studied

23 as to who abused their rights in that transaction, and

24 who was involved in the transaction.

25 Unfortunately, the issue of price was not studied at

1 MR STROILOV: Mr Sklyarevsky, I don’t feel it is necessary

2 to take you to the federal appeal judgment but for

3 your Lordship’s note —

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What happened there?

5 MR STROILOV: That was overturned, both decisions we have

6 looked at were overturned.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Overturned?

8 MR STROILOV: Yes, and that’s the decision which we say had

9 resulted from political interference by Mrs Matvienko,

10 your Lordship will recall. For your Lordship’s note,

11 the reference is {D135/2235/1}.

12 As far as cross-examination is concerned, I am

13 moving onto a different subject.

14 Now, Mr Sklyarevsky, just it trying to restore the

15 chronology of the events of the first half of 2009 once

16 again, it is the case that Mr Arkhangelsky and

17 Mr Vinarsky only went to the police in May 2009; is that

18 correct?

19 A. As far as I recall, that was the case. As far as I read

20 in Mr Arkhangelsky’s witness statement, that was the

21 case. It was either at the end of April, the last days

22 of April, or the early days of May.

23 Q. And it was around the same time that OMG filed its civil

24 claims too?

25 A. Yes, as far as I recall, that was the case.

33 35

1 full, in that case, in the proceedings.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I am not sure that’s what the

3 record says, but, I mean, I can read the record in

4 English.

5 MR STROILOV: Yes.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What appears to have happened in

7 the Cassation Court is that there was another effort to

8 introduce an extract from the report. That report has

9 not been produced to the first instance court. The

10 defendants didn’t produce any evidence of

11 the impossibility to produce it, and that was that.

12 MR LORD: And then it went to another level.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am waiting to hear what happened at

14 the final level.

15 MR LORD: Yes, of course, my Lord.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What I am slightly worried about,

17 Mr Stroilov, is some of this evidence has been useful,

18 but to what extent can sort of having a symposium on

19 a decision of the Court of Appeal decision or the first

20 instance decision in Russia really advance things.

21 MR STROILOV: I am not proposing to have a symposium really,

22 and I regret the fact that it is becoming a symposium.

23 I am obviously testing what this witness told you on

24 Friday.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right.

1 Q. However, as I understand from your evidence, it was as

2 early as in March that Mrs Malysheva anticipated

3 litigation, isn’t that so?

4 A. Possibly that was at the end of March, early April, but

5 I read Mr Arkhangelsky’s evidence yesterday, his witness

6 statement, and he called that time period full of many

7 events, crammed with events, and he said he will

8 describe them not chronologically but thematically,

9 themed, grouped in themes.

10 My life was also full of events at that time and

11 it’s very difficult for me to recollect the way things

12 happened chronology-wise. As far as I recall, that

13 indeed happened at the end of March, early April, when

14 Mrs Malysheva was seriously concerned by that particular

15 borrower, about that client, and she spent a lot of time

16 on that subject, also discussing the risks of disputing

17 repo transactions.

18 Q. Yes. If we could go to your witness statement at

19 {B2/13/6}, I would like to look at paragraphs 32 and 33,

20 and if the Russian version could be found, it must be

21 towards the end, something in the region of 18 or so, if

22 you could find paragraphs 32 and 33 in that statement.

23 {B2/13/18}, {B2/13/19}.

24 So especially from paragraph 33, it is apparent

25 that, really, at that meeting everyone was anticipating

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 litigation in the future; isn’t that a fair reading of

2 it?

3 A. One second, please. (Pause).

4 Overall it was discussed that a court dispute is

5 possible. I do not recall exactly, but such an option

6 of events unfolding was discussed, indeed.

7 Q. And do you understand that Mrs Malysheva expected civil

8 litigation, or criminal, or both?

9 A. It was a shock with regard to criminal proceedings,

10 because no one anticipated any criminal cases. That

11 wasn’t even discussed.

12 Q. But it is a fair reading of your paragraph 33 that,

13 really, the premise of all the decisions taken in that

14 meeting was that civil litigation, at least, was quite

15 likely?

16 A. That was discussed. It was discussed, Mrs Malysheva was

17 very displeased with the situation, with

18 Mr Arkhangelsky. She was saying that he didn’t get in

19 touch, and the line departments of the Bank were

20 reporting to her and saying that Mr Arkhangelsky was not

21 performing his own obligations, so naturally she was

22 quite nervous about the situation with that particular

23 client, and it is quite likely, because we didn’t know

24 what scenario would be chosen by Mr Arkhangelsky, we

25 also discussed the option of potential litigation with

1 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I think I have some 15 to 20 minutes

2 left. If we need a break, now is a good moment, or

3 I can press on.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We will have a break for 10 minutes.

5 (12.07 pm)

6 (A short break)

7 (12.20 pm)

8 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.

9 Mr Sklyarevsky, it appears from your statement,

10 I think it is slightly vague on that, but that you have

11 some experience of repo transactions generally, and

12 other repo transactions in the context of banking and

13 pledges and so on; is that right?

14 A. Yes, I do have some exposure and some experience in that

15 respect, yes.

16 Q. What I would like to ask you about, about a number of

17 features of this case, so that you could indicate

18 whether, in your experience, they are normal or rather

19 unusual in general practices of repo deals in your

20 experience.

21 If we could, could we look at the memorandum at

22 {D107/1537/1} on one screen, and page 3 on the other

23 {D107/1537/3}.

24 If we could now scroll down to page 2 on each

25 document. {D107/1537/2}, {D107/1537/4}. So what I am

37 39

1 regard to a repo transaction, potential dispute.

2 Q. Yes, well, isn’t it the case that the reason why all of

3 you were expecting litigation was because you realised

4 that repo was a fraudulent transaction and that

5 Mrs Malysheva’s plan of further actions was also

6 fraudulent?

7 A. No. I completely deny that, because for Mrs Malysheva

8 I have absolutely no plan. I cannot imagine there was

9 any fraudulent transaction or any fraudulent conspiracy.

10 I cannot even imagine how that could be possible that

11 that was a fraudulent conspiracy, collusion.

12 Q. Isn’t the reason why Mr Zelenov withdrew from the

13 arrangement, isn’t the reason that he was afraid of

14 getting involved in a fraud?

15 A. No. Of course not. Mr Zelenov, as far as I recall, the

16 conversation with Mr Zelenov at that point in time, it

17 was based around the fact that I think his asset

18 management company had some project. Now, I don’t

19 recall at all what the project was about, but basically

20 he didn’t want the project very much, and he either

21 wanted to sell the company or to raise some finance

22 against the company. It probably would be best to ask

23 Mr Zelenov about that, and he was not interested in some

24 additional court proceedings. So he took a position

25 that he needed to free the company of risks.

1 looking at is clause 2, and the first words of clause 2,

2 really:

3 «After the complete fulfilment of the Group’s

4 obligations to the Bank …»

5 That is to say, not after particular loans are

6 repaid, not after particular payments are made, but

7 after all the loans are repaid, only then the shares

8 would be transferred back; is that normal in your

9 experience?

10 A. Well, to the extent that the parties have agreed so

11 much, why not, there have been no transactions in my

12 experience where the banks wanted the borrower to fully

13 repay the loan. It’s just a question of what the

14 parties have agreed upon. It’s up to them.

15 Q. Of course it is. The question is, is it normal for them

16 to agree a clause of this kind, in your experience?

17 A. You see, I do not like the term «repo» at all, as

18 a matter of fact, because in my experience, a repo is

19 a stock exchange transaction involving a standard

20 template, standard terms and conditions with certain

21 things, or commodities.

22 Now, I’ve never seen two similar repo transactions,

23 they are all unique. So someone, sometimes, parties

24 agree on lots of terms and conditions and then they

25 enter into a transaction governed by Cyprus law with the

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 deadlocks and all sorts of terms and conditions, lawyers

2 spend a lot of time drafting and looking into all the

3 minutiae of this. Alternatively, sometimes people write

4 a contract on the back of an envelope, literally over

5 a table in a restaurant.

6 So unfortunately we don’t have templates, we do not

7 have boilerplates. It’s very difficult to use the term

8 «normal» or «abnormal». This particular document is

9 a very generic document, it’s not very well structured.

10 It does not set out procedures, it does not set out

11 disputes or conflicts. So, based on that, I am not sure

12 I understand why there was no communication involving

13 this document when problems arose. You see, this is

14 a very generic document. It is very characteristic of

15 documents that govern general agreements.

16 Now, whether this is a standard or not standard

17 boilerplate, it’s very difficult to answer that

18 question. In Russia, different banks, different people,

19 different parties use widely differing approaches. Some

20 people, just to repeat myself, sometimes people do have

21 their transactions governed by English law because

22 Russian law does not always allow those transactions to

23 be enforceable, whereas some other people move into the

24 grey zone of unwritten agreements where the agreements

25 are not binding or enforceable, they are not enforceable

1 terms and conditions of the financial model or EBITDA

2 falls below a certain threshold, you no longer follow

3 the straight and narrow, you have to repay the whole

4 thing. We do not have any generalised kind of approach.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think the question may revolve

6 around this: is it, in your experience, in the context

7 of this sort of repo, not an investment repo, but

8 a security repo, if I can call it that way, is it usual

9 or unusual for the Bank to require that the repurchase

10 cannot be effected unless and until all liabilities to

11 the Bank are fulfilled, or is it more usual for the Bank

12 to specify a particular liability is in issue and once

13 that particular liability has been fulfilled, the repo

14 will take effect. Is that …?

15 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful, my Lord, yes.

16 A. Yes, you are absolutely right, my Lord. Usually banks

17 set out the liabilities that need to be performed.

18 That’s the general practice.

19 Having said that, sentences to this effect do exist,

20 and I have seen several times in my practice whereby the

21 risk profile in the eyes of the Bank are very high, and

22 if the Bank takes a very dim view of this, or it

23 believes that the risk profile is higher than would

24 otherwise be acceptable, it would require security

25 assets to be pledged before anything can be returned.

41

1 by court decision, but the parties have just agreed on

2 something.

3 Now, to answer your question whether this is par for

4 the course or not, to be honest, I have seen this,

5 I have also seen worse, but I cannot answer your

6 question as to whether this is par for the course in

7 Russia or not. Very often in Russia, as I said, people

8 write contracts literally on the back of the envelope.

9 Q. Well, Mr Sklyarevsky, with all due respect, may I ask

10 you to focus on the question. Obviously if a repo

11 transaction is entered into as a form of additional

12 security, there are certain conditions how the shares —

13 in what circumstances shares or assets or whatever is

14 subject to that transaction, is to be returned to

15 the borrower. Well, the condition of complete repayment

16 of all loans, is that anything unusual, in your

17 experience?

18 A. Well, I think this is unusual, but it does happen very

19 often indeed. Again, it’s very difficult to define the

20 term «usual» or «unusual». I have seen contracts along

21 these lines. To answer your question, they do exist.

22 Very often banks just want to get interest paid.

23 Then there are banks that do require a management

24 case scenario, a financial model to be implemented, and

25 so the Bank says to the borrower: if you comply with the

43

1 I don’t know what was the case in this instance,

2 this is something that should be asked of the Bank, but

3 this sentence «complete fulfilment of the obligations»

4 is a very generic term. It is not usual, but it does

5 happen, it does occur, and the reason, once again, is

6 that sometimes the banks see that the risk profile of

7 that particular client has suddenly, unpredictably,

8 increased. That does happen.

9 Q. Have there been many security repos in your experience

10 where the sale would take place at a nominal price, such

11 as RUB 10,000?

12 A. Yes. Such transactions are widespread and they do

13 happen often because otherwise the parties would have

14 a considerable tax exposure, and that does happen quite

15 often, because if, for instance, you have purchased

16 Western Terminal, let’s say for the sake of argument for

17 RUB 1 billion, okay, and then, say, two years later you

18 sell it for 2 billion, then you have to pay VAT and

19 increase of capital gains tax. So usually very often

20 such transactions are entered into on the basis of

21 a nominal fee or a nominal price to avoid major tax

22 implications.

23 Q. Thank you, Mr Sklyarevsky. Really what I will be

24 asking, I have a few questions along these lines, I just

25 want you to indicate, as a matter of fact, whether it is

42 44
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 usual in your experience. I am just anxious to finish

2 early enough to leave sufficient time for my learned

3 friend and for his Lordship to ask you questions.

4 So is it, in your experience, again, have you seen,

5 and how often have you seen — sorry, let me start

6 again. Is it normal for a bank to ask the borrower to

7 enter a repo transaction with a third party rather than

8 with the Bank itself?

9 A. I have seen such transactions, they do exist, and that

10 is due to the peculiarities of banking regulations in

11 Russia. So far as I know, major Russian banks do set up

12 special departments, or they bring partners on board —

13 they use different arrangements for that — they enter

14 into agreements with other parties not to reflect — not

15 to book distressed assets, but rather work with some

16 partners or authorised agencies and so on and so forth.

17 Unfortunately, banking supervision is structured in

18 such a way in Russia that banks cannot enter into repo

19 transactions using their own balance sheet without

20 reducing their equity, without reducing their capital at

21 the same time.

22 Q. And in your experience, if the borrower defaults on one

23 loan, is it normal for a bank to demand — well, to push

24 for a cross-default and demand an early repayment of all

25 other loans insofar as it is within its rights?

1 the companies is changed? Did it happen in other cases?

2 A. Well, I think on the very first day of my evidence,

3 I spent quite a lot of time saying that this situation

4 is an extraordinary situation in the sense that any

5 default situation occurs or gives rise to negotiations

6 between the Bank and the advisers, consultants, and/or

7 the borrower with or without consultants, actually.

8 Come what may, if it’s a larger corporate borrower, not

9 an individual, a large corporation, which has a legal

10 department available to it, which has finance officers

11 available to it, they enter into a protracted process of

12 negotiation, trying to find a way out of the default

13 situation. It’s a very serious piece of work, and this

14 is something that I have done on many occasions, and

15 this really takes a lot of time.

16 There have been instances where clients believe that

17 the value of the pledge was below the value of

18 the liability and refused to enter into a negotiation

19 with the Bank. That does happen, but this is extremely

20 rare.

21 As a general statement, I would say that they enter

22 into negotiations. Now, if you read this document, you

23 see that this document, unfortunately, does not set out

24 any dispute resolution arrangements. It does not say

25 what happens if, say, Mr Arkhangelsky defaults on his

45

1 A. Well, the way I understand it, and again, based on my

2 experience working on a financial market, if an issuer

3 defaults, then a cross-default usually happens. This is

4 par for the course on financial markets. If an issuer

5 is in default, say, on a bond issue, then he has — then

6 the Bank may rely on all the other covenants. So there

7 is absolutely no problem here that a bank, including

8 Bank of St Petersburg, could have been VTB or Sberbank,

9 they do not look just at Western Terminal, they look at

10 the group risk profile, their financial limits. Their

11 exposure is to a group of affiliated associated

12 entities, and if within the group there is a default in

13 one area, then the limit is immediately closed.

14 I think it’s part of international practice, if

15 I may refer to my experience working with international

16 banks.

17 So if a situation occurs where one loan, or, say,

18 the covenants of one loan are breached, then

19 a cross-default occurs. I think this is what happens on

20 international markets as well. This is part of

21 the international practice.

22 Q. Did you see happen in other cases that if shareholding

23 in companies is transferred by the borrower to someone

24 helping the bank under a repo deal and then there is

25 a default, did it happen that the management of

47

1 loan, and so on and so forth. This is a framework

2 document, as it were, and it does not set out any

3 procedures. So procedures would require subsequent

4 negotiation.

5 Now, in my practice it’s the first time that I saw

6 the borrower, Mr Arkhangelsky, and I think I know why,

7 was trying to evade negotiation. This is my personal

8 view and I am not imposing it on anyone, but I have my

9 theory. I have my theory. Unfortunately, the

10 negotiation just did not happen. It did not bear fruit.

11 Q. So is it, in your practice, something that happens, that

12 the management in companies subject to the repo

13 arrangement is changed by the Bank, is it usual or

14 unusual? Really I am asking for a one-word answer.

15 A. Now, if the top managers of a repoed company work to

16 increase the Bank’s risk profile, for instance, they

17 raise additional debt, additional loans, siphon assets

18 off of the company, they enter into a default position

19 with respect to commercial lenders, in other words, if

20 they increase the recovery and other risks to the Bank,

21 they can be changed. No bank will ever tolerate

22 a situation where the top managers act in breach of

23 the original agreement. No one will just sit on their

24 hands, relax, and look at this happening.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Would you describe that as a last

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 resort?

2 A. Yes, I would. Everyone realises and understands that

3 changing the CEO is a very conflictual kind of scenario,

4 this is a weapon of last resort, this is the last thing

5 that people would ever do.

6 MR STROILOV: Thank you, my Lord.

7 Now, Mr Sklyarevsky, when there are negotiations

8 with the borrower, in your experience does it often

9 result in the business, or a part of it, being given or

10 sold to the Bank, or to its partners, as part of

11 the compensation agreement, or as part of the deal:

12 instead of repaying the loan, you just give your

13 business or part of it; does that happen?

14 A. Yes, it does happen and I can cite a case involving the

15 same bank, by the way, at the same time, and the factual

16 matrix was very similar. Actually, the Bank had

17 a borrower, it was Peterhof company, the name of

18 the company was Peterhof, it was a confectionery

19 company, a large confectionery company. They owed a lot

20 of money to the Bank and the Bank was thinking about

21 bankrupting the factory, and also part of the factory’s

22 immovable assets had been pledged to the Bank.

23 Now, if they just sell the plant and the equipment,

24 the Bank would have probably recovered up to 25 per cent

25 of the loans. I was involved in that project, and so

1 if there are other clients of yours who are other banks,

2 would they separately give credit for the value of the

3 companies which are acquired under repo, or is it just

4 pledges?

5 A. I am not sure I understood your question, sir, could you

6 reformulate? Who is the Bank giving credit, you said?

7 Do you mean loan to?

8 Q. I mean to the borrower. Well, in the process of

9 realisation, the Bank — well, supposing it sells off

10 the assets and — well, you have sold it for half

11 a million, you reduce the indebtedness for half

12 a million, that’s what I call giving credit, right?

13 So do they count the value of the shares of

14 companies which end up in their possession as a result

15 of repo, or the value of the unpledged assets on top of

16 the actual value of pledges; does that make sense? I am

17 sorry, I am formulating it badly.

18 A. To be honest, I am not sure I understood your question,

19 but let me just clarify and try to answer your question

20 along the way, because I’m not sure I understood your

21 question very well. Unfortunately, banks are not that

22 much interested in business operations. The value of

23 shares for them is a very secondary consideration, as

24 against the value of properties, planted equipment and

25 pledges which for them is a good asset.

49

1 I did a transaction with Orkla Foods. Orkla Foods is

2 a major Norwegian private fund that invests money in

3 Russia and I had previously done lots of transactions

4 with them involving over $100 million, and together with

5 the owner of Peterhof and together with

6 Bank of St Petersburg, it just so happened that both the

7 debt was fully repaid and the owner actually got

8 an upside and the Bank got total — received total

9 recovery of the debt. It was a very good transaction

10 where the business was not torn apart. It was sold as

11 an ongoing concern with good cash flow, with a good

12 financial model, and where a good strategic investor

13 could take a good view of this.

14 So it was a good example of three parties working

15 together in concert whereby everyone achieved a good

16 financial outcome. There was nothing stopping the

17 borrower at any point in time entering into discussions

18 of the financial models or models involving the sale of

19 the business.

20 Had Mr Arkhangelsky come to Mrs Malysheva and

21 brought her a financial model or offered her a financial

22 model, I’m sure she would have tried to find a way to

23 allow this situation to be resolved.

24 Q. Now, is it normal where there is a repo and a default,

25 does the Bank, in your experience, the Bank or the banks

51

1 Now, if you are referring to the fact that

2 a corporate entity has some additional, unpledged

3 assets — did I understand your question correctly?

4 Q. That’s correct.

5 A. Right. Okay. So in that case, you need to look at the

6 specific situation on hand, and see what the exposure,

7 what the loss of the bank vis-a-vis that bank is.

8 Very often the bank’s position is that once the

9 shares have been transferred as security, they receive

10 not just a summary legal procedure that would allow them

11 to make a recovery, but some additional assets on top of

12 that, the additional assets that are available to

13 the company. So that does make sense.

14 Now, in that particular instance, the Bank obviously

15 goes by the assets which have been pledged, but —

16 but — if there is a shortfall to repay the total

17 liability outstanding, then the bank may enforce the

18 assets which have not been pledged. That is true.

19 Q. Is it consistent with your experience, again, in this

20 kind of activity, is it consistent for — is it normal

21 for a bank to assign its rights as the lender to a third

22 party or a fourth party, if there is a reference(?)?

23 A. Yes. Cession agreement is quite common in Russia. It

24 depends on a host of factors. So it could be assignment

25 to a strategic investor, it could be an assignment to

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 a party — well, I could go at length for hours about

2 it, about various factors that might be related to it,

3 so an assignment agreement is a common thing.

4 Q. Thank you. Now, if we could look at {AA2/8/73}. The

5 Russian version will be at {D153/2566/31}.

6 Mr Sklyarevsky, as you can see, this is the cover page

7 of a report by an organisation called National

8 Anti-Corruption Committee about raiding in the sphere of

9 banking, raiding by the banks, in 2009 to 2011.

10 If we could scroll down one page on each screen

11 {AA2/8/74}, {D153/2566/32} you will see a list of

12 editors, and at least some of these people, I think you

13 will agree, are quite well known and respected in

14 Russia, aren’t they?

15 A. Yes, I can see their surnames, some of them are very

16 well known and respected, but I don’t know all of them,

17 for example, Mr Vasin(?) or Mr Zaitseva. I know

18 Ms Panfilova but she is not a financier, she is not

19 a banking specialist.

20 Q. Now, having researched several dozens of cases, this

21 group of researchers have identified a number of typical

22 schemes of raiding in Russia and with this particular

23 focus of that happening with the Bank’s involvement. If

24 we could scroll down in the English version to page

25 {AA2/8/82} and in the Russian version to {D153/2566/40},

1 A. Which specific scheme, sir? The raiding scheme? No,

2 I don’t have such experience. If you are saying that

3 that was some tool, then it looks more like

4 a journalist’s article. Quite often I understand

5 creditors are extremely unhappy the way banks treat

6 them, that is natural.

7 With regard to abuse in Russia in that regard, it

8 apparently does exist, but I don’t think I am authorised

9 to a great degree, I am not a high ranking state

10 official in order to say that this is common or

11 otherwise. There are different situations, and in

12 the situation of default, there are always some parties

13 who take offence. The situations when everyone is happy

14 are extremely rare. If a default happens, that means

15 some financial model breach happened, or something

16 happened in the market, in the business, and there are

17 always people who suffered from that, and they might

18 think the bank has taken something away from them.

19 So we need to look at each individual case. I don’t

20 think we ought to generalise all this practice, because

21 many banks bear considerable losses with regard to such

22 assets, and quite often it is the case in Russia, and we

23 can, for example, have a look at the Moscow stock

24 exchange index. You quite often see assets costing

25 RUB 100 in a week or two they would cost RUB 50, and

53 55

1 you will see what they call scheme 4, their

2 classification. So once you have read to the bottom of

3 the page, just tell me, and I will ask for it to be

4 scrolled down. In the Russian version it goes over the

5 page.

6 A. I’ve read it, sir.

7 Q. Can we scroll down {D153/2566/41}.

8 And when your Lordship has reached the bottom of

9 the page, I will ask to scroll it down.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have, yes. When anyone is ready.

11 {AA2/8/83}.

12 MR STROILOV: Yes. So once you have finished the numbered

13 list and then the next sentence, Mr Sklyarevsky, just

14 tell me.

15 A. Which one, which specific phrase, sir?

16 Q. Yes, once you have read point 10, and then there is

17 a next sentence:

18 «Scheme 4 permits the lender bank to carry out

19 a kind of double recovery, provided there is a repo

20 contract and an overdue loan.»

21 Can you see that?

22 A. I’ve read it, sir.

23 Q. Yes, and I put it to you, Mr Sklyarevsky, that from what

24 you have just told the court, you have got quite a lot

25 of experience in implementing this scheme, haven’t you?

1 including such high volatility, it is very difficult for

2 the banks to register their liabilities, so they come up

3 with various ways of protecting their depositors,

4 because the money usually is used in the credit lending

5 schemes, mechanisms, so they collect money from the

6 depositors, which are individuals, and then they lend

7 the money to companies.

8 So your question, sir, about whether I am the person

9 implementing such a scheme? No, I am not such a person.

10 I worked bona fide in the financial markets, I present

11 my services to banks and my clients. There could be

12 various financial instruments and mechanisms, and I am

13 a considerable investor myself. So to tell me that that

14 repo transaction is fraudulent in any way, or is

15 criminal, you know, you can kill someone with a spade

16 but it doesn’t mean that the spade is a tool that ought

17 to be banned. It simply is a tool, an implement.

18 So if anyone had any trouble with a repo transaction

19 and that person was unhappy, obviously he would write

20 such reports that someone’s property was taken away.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think what may be being put to you

22 is that a repo, a security repo, with the

23 characteristics identified on the first page of this

24 report, looks more like a gun than a spade; would you

25 like to comment?

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 A. My Lord, I would probably agree with you. It’s a very

2 subtle tool, a subtle mechanism. There is always some

3 room for conflict there. I would not deny, I would not

4 wish to argue, because if someone pledges assets to

5 anyone, complexity is always there. It is a very fine

6 line that always needs to be discussed, or it had to be

7 extremely well spelt out in some shareholders’

8 agreements, in the terms and conditions of the sale and

9 purchase contracts, with a great number of covenants, of

10 provisions, and so that’s considerable legal work

11 involved.

12 Or if it’s something on the back of the envelope or

13 on one page, that, indeed, it is a gun and it has to be

14 treated with care, it can fire. So it needs to be

15 communicated with. The parties have to be in contact

16 all the time.

17 MR STROILOV: Mr Sklyarevsky, thank you very much indeed for

18 your answers and I am sorry to have kept you for so

19 long, and I apologise to you, my Lord, as well.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you very much.

21 Re-examination by MR LORD

22 MR LORD: Mr Sklyarevsky, could you please be shown

23 {Day22/26:8}. Mr Sklyarevsky, you can see that you were

24 asked some questions about an event, and in line 8 you

25 said:

1 version.

2 Q. Can you confirm that that is an appeal decision in

3 Mr Vinarsky’s employment claim, just that that looks as

4 if that’s what that is?

5 A. Based on what I see in the preamble, and saying it’s

6 a municipal court, it’s not the district Kirov court,

7 indeed it is the document.

8 Q. Thank you. Could you be shown {Day22/75:4}, please.

9 You said this:

10 «I could provide a wider explanation for the court

11 of the situation …»

12 I wonder, assuming it’s not going to take too long,

13 could you provide that wider explanation to the court?

14 Could you tell his Lordship what you had in mind then?

15 A. Sir, would it be possible to see a bit more context?

16 Q. Yes, if you go back to {Day22/74:1}. If you don’t

17 remember what you had in mind when you gave this bit of

18 evidence, please say, because I don’t want you to

19 speculate on what you thought you had in mind.

20 A. Sir, as far as I understood, it was a discussion about

21 a leasing agreement for Gunard, with Gunard, and a

22 possible approval by the Bank of sale and purchase

23 transaction involving SKIF.

24 Q. Sorry, Mr Sklyarevsky, if the reference to the wider

25 explanation doesn’t ring any bells, I don’t want to take

57

1 «It was either at the very end of March or the very

2 first days of April.»

3 Can you see that?

4 A. Yes, I can.

5 Q. Then, I think later on in line 18, {Day22/26:18},

6 I think you are talking about the same event, or

7 occasions, and you say 20 May of 2009. I hope I can

8 lead. If there is an objection, Mr Stroilov can object.

9 But did you mean 20 March?

10 A. Yes, most likely that was 20 March.

11 Q. I think it is obvious from the context that you

12 meant March, I just wanted to get that cleared up.

13 Could you be shown, please, {Day22/52:1}, you were

14 asked about Mr Vinarsky’s employment claim, and at the

15 foot of the page, lines 23 to 25 you referred to,

16 I think, appealed court decisions in this case.

17 Could you be shown {D138/2317/1}, please. If we

18 could have the Russian as well, which I think is

19 probably on {D138/2317/5}, I think. Thank you very

20 much.

21 Mr Sklyarevsky, can you just confirm — it’s not

22 a very good copy — but can you just, if you can, do

23 your best with the Russian or perhaps if you look at the

24 English if you can read some English, I think you can —

25 A. Sir, I’m quite happy to have a look at the English

59

1 you back.

2 Can you please be shown {Day22/100:1}. You were

3 asked some questions about the sale price of some

4 Western Terminal land at Selezneva; do you remember

5 that? You were asked some questions about … and if

6 you go to {Day22/106:7} you were asked some questions

7 about the sale price of RUB 99,000, and you said in line

8 7 that this was a composite price:

9 «It was the price and the encumbrance.»

10 Can you see that?

11 A. It was not related to the land plot at Seleznevskaya.

12 That comment related to the land plot of Scandinavia,

13 with regard to the composite price.

14 Q. Yes, that’s right, and I think you were shown

15 {D192/2920/12}, and I think it was suggested to you that

16 the RUB 99,000 was an undervalue, and I think that was

17 the context in which you gave the evidence about it

18 being a composite price. If you could be shown

19 {D192/2920/12}, the document you were shown. Perhaps

20 that could be blown up, if possible. You were taken to

21 an article, and if we could have the English on the

22 other screen, {N9/9/36}, please.

23 I would like to look at the final paragraph, please,

24 Mr Sklyarevsky, because you were taken to this article

25 by Mr Stroilov and the last paragraph of this article

58 60
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 seems to read:

2 «When such an important land plot is on sale, its

3 value is determined by the market price minus

4 encumbrances — says Egor Noskov, Managing Partner of

5 ‘Duvernois legal’. In this case, 99,000 roubles is a

6 price that the investor is ready to pay for the

7 mortgaged land plot. And the liabilities with regard to

8 the debtor-company’s debts are transferred to the new

9 owner, he adds.»

10 Is that what you are talking about, when you talk

11 about a composite price being the value of the asset

12 less the encumbrance, is that what you had in mind?

13 A. Yes, this is what I meant.

14 Q. Could you be shown {Day23/104:1}. You were asked some

15 questions about Scandinavia Insurance and you gave some

16 evidence about what you found in relation to

17 Scandinavia Insurance, the company, and the state of its

18 documents and the non-payment of the wages of employees

19 and so on, and you gave some evidence about that on

20 page 104 to 106 for his Lordship’s note.

21 Can you be shown Dr Arkhangelsky’s evidence on

22 {Day16/222:1}, please? I just want to show you

23 something that Mr Arkhangelsky said, Mr Sklyarevsky.

24 Dr Arkhangelsky claimed, when he gave evidence, if you

25 look at {Day16/222:10}, Dr Arkhangelsky said this at

1 operations. That is the point of a rating, in order for

2 the external market participants to be able to evaluate

3 reliability, the soundness of the company. If the

4 rating has been revoked it’s a negative signal for the

5 market.

6 Q. And the final question, could you be shown

7 {Day23/114:5-7}, please? You were giving evidence about

8 your efforts to engage Dr Arkhangelsky, so you were

9 describing them, and you say this in line 3:

10 «So, to be honest, the way Mr Arkhangelsky behaved

11 was completely illogical. Now, in terms of

12 the subsequent events, I think I know, I have a theory

13 as to why he behaved the way he behaved.»

14 Could you tell his Lordship what you meant by that?

15 What’s the theory you have, please?

16 A. As far as I understand, Mr Arkhangelsky, as of early

17 2009, had quite a large debt across the group. That was

18 about RUB 10 billion. I may be mistaken, but that is

19 the order of figures, and the main problem of

20 Oslo Marine Group at that time period was low cash flow.

21 As far as I understood from their accounting and

22 reporting, only 30 per cent — 30 per cent of

23 the payments for servicing that debt could have been

24 from standard operations, daily operations, and the

25 financial pyramid commences when someone would take

61

1 line 10 to 14:

2 «I think it was the end of 2008 or something like

3 that, and, just for your understanding, when I left the

4 country in June 2009, I written a letter to AM Best to

5 withdraw the rating because I am no longer in control of

6 Insurance Company Scandinavia.»

7 Can you see that? So what Dr Arkhangelsky seemed to

8 be saying was that he had applied to the rating agency

9 to have Scandinavia Insurance’s rating withdrawn; can

10 you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Two questions: are you aware of any matters to do with

13 the rating or the withdrawal of the rating of

14 Scandinavia Insurance? If you are not, just say,

15 I don’t want you to speculate. Are you aware of that

16 matter, or not?

17 A. No, I am not aware of that.

18 Q. And the second question. Assuming that Dr Arkhangelsky

19 is right and that he did take steps to remove or

20 withdraw the rating of Scandinavia Insurance, would that

21 have an affect on that company, on that business, and,

22 if so, what?

23 A. Of course, rating is the company’s ability to attract

24 funding, or to attract clients. If the rating is being

25 revoked, that would negatively impact the company’s

63

1 money borrowed and uses them to pay interest, not to pay

2 off the loan, but just to pay the interest. In that

3 case, interest is multiplied and I think that

4 Mr Arkhangelsky and Mr Berezin, who is now teaching at

5 a financial university, both of them knew full well

6 about the group’s financial position, understood that

7 full well, and the situation with the conflict with BSP

8 was a sort of indulgence paper, under which the group

9 had a default vis-a-vis VTB, Svyaz-Bank, Energomashbank,

10 someone else, all the other banks.

11 So the rhetoric, the default rhetoric was as

12 follows: BSP bank attacked us, we cannot pay. In the

13 end that was Vozrozhdenie Bank as well. That was

14 a situation of default.

15 So my theory, my version is: for Mr Arkhangelsky

16 that was a very convenient exit, a very convenient

17 explanation for quite a wide number of creditors as to

18 why he was not paying up.

19 MR LORD: Does your Lordship have some questions for this

20 witness?

21 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I do, and I will try — if I run out

23 of puff, we will have to reconvene, but otherwise let’s

24 see whether we can get it done. I am sorry it has been

25 a long haul for you.

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 Going back to the first stage, now, of your

2 cross-examination, it now seems a long time ago, you

3 stressed to me the importance of the tripartite or

4 trilateral nature of the arrangements with regard to

5 the realisation of assets, and just in case it helps you

6 recollect the context, if you were to go to

7 {Day21/140:10} onwards and over the page at

8 {Day21/141:1}, where you explain the normal situation

9 and you explain the Oslo Marine Group situation. If you

10 could have a quick scan of that. I’m sorry it is in

11 English, so take your time.

12 A. Yes.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Recollecting also our recent exchange

14 as to gun or spade, if I can put it that way, have

15 I understood correctly that amongst the threatening

16 aspects, the gun aspects of a repo transaction, is that

17 if it is followed by replacement of the board, or

18 control of the borrower company, the tripartite

19 structure is essentially destroyed and the borrowing

20 company is entirely subject to the wishes of the lender?

21 A. My Lord, you are right. If there is a forced change of

22 directors on the part of the creditor, then the

23 tripartite agreement is, of course, terminated.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And so the protection, amongst others,

25 being that the sale would be not determined by the

1 transactions happened quite often between 2007 and 2008.

2 That was not just a one-off. It was not one transaction

3 only.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: With BSP?

5 A. Yes, that was with BSP.

6 Now, repos involving securities and commercial paper

7 became quite popular in 2008 and 2009, my Lord.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But are you talking about investment

9 repos? I mean, you said you rather disliked the term

10 «repo» because to you a repo was really an investment

11 repo, and often a swap, often done on standard terms.

12 We are not really talking about that, we are talking

13 about security repos, which are much more tailor-made,

14 perhaps.

15 A. Correct. So these were security repos. They were not

16 investment repos. The property repo was by way of

17 security where the bank — and this was not just BSP —

18 they moved the property to third parties by way of

19 security collateral for other loans.

20 Now, in my practice, such transactions, the ones we

21 are discussing now, appeared only in late 2008 and early

22 2009. Before that I had not done any repo transactions

23 involving securities and commercial paper, even though

24 I knew already back in 2009 and 2010 that they did exist

25 on the market and I had heard about them and I had seen

65 67

1 lender, but have to go through the ordinary process,

2 would be undone?

3 A. Yes, if the parties agreed so.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And, of course, in the circumstances

5 we have discussed, the agreement would, in a sense, be

6 formal because the lender controls both sides of the

7 arrangement?

8 A. Well, it doesn’t de facto control them because I have

9 a separate business, but we acted for the interests of

10 the creditor. That means we had to perform the

11 creditor’s instruction, the BSP’s instruction in that

12 particular situation.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Yes thank you.

14 Can you remember, and it is difficult, because there

15 has been a lapse of time, but can you remember whether

16 before 2009, or before the middle of 2009, if you want

17 to extend it a little bit, you ever were engaged by BSP

18 in relation to a debtor who had entered into a security

19 repo in respect of its shares?

20 A. I was instructed. It was with respect to a property

21 related repo transaction, some property was involved,

22 and that was in 2007 and 2008.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that the only one that you

24 recollect?

25 A. No, there were several of them, property involving repo

1 them.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Yes.

3 On Day 22 you gave an answer which I would like to

4 clarify, {Day22/84:12} and it is after the adjournment,

5 and Mr Stroilov at line 13 is asking you questions about

6 the change of management in Western Terminal and Scan,

7 and puts to you what he suggests was the explanation, do

8 you read that, up to line 23? Sorry, again, it is in

9 English. {Day22/84:23}. You answer, if you have that

10 that logic is incorrect:

11 «Answer: The logic is incorrect because initially

12 the directors were replaced in order to control the

13 possible encumbrance of the pledges and the additional

14 creditors, and subsequently, only in June the idea came

15 about, should the court cases be lost, to do these

16 transactions. So the initial logic was different. What

17 you are saying here, sir, no, that logic wasn’t

18 present.»

19 Now, let’s see if I have this clear: there was

20 a worry that the court cases justifying the removal and

21 replacement of the directors might be lost, and the

22 further transfers — is this right — to the subsequent

23 purchasers, were undertaken, in a sense, so that the

24 loss did not matter so much; is that right? The loss of

25 the court cases did not matter so much?

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 A. Correct. Absolutely. Your understanding is correct,

2 my Lord.

3 So that was an added term and condition for the

4 protection to be provided, the way the Bank understood

5 the position, just in case we lost the trial with

6 respect to the share transfers.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So I suppose the cynic might say that

8 that was a step to end run or finesse the decision of

9 the court with respect to the initial validity of

10 the replacement; would you comment on that?

11 A. Well, most likely you are right, my Lord. Just one

12 addition that I would like to make, if I may, and that

13 is that Vyborg Shipping Company was being bankrupted at

14 the same time, and it had those assets which had been

15 pledged as collateral to Vyborg, and the Bank hoped that

16 in the course of the bankruptcy, it will reach out to

17 the Western Terminal’s assets; in other words, it will

18 be able to enforce its rights vis-a-vis that plot of

19 land. As of the June 2009, the Vyborg Shipping Company

20 had reached a stage where that was not yet possible, and

21 I was not the author, I was not behind those decisions,

22 but I understand the Bank’s logic and I asked no

23 questions about that. Their logic was to buy some time,

24 even in the event we lost the share-related trials, the

25 task, the objective was to sit and wait until such time

1 17 March, and that it might well be that Renord-Invest

2 had backdated the notices; is that right?

3 A. Yes, that is correct. I did not attend those meetings.

4 I was already working on the basis of the documents

5 available to me.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But as this was a matter, as the word

7 «we» shows, in which you were interested, did you focus

8 on whether the notices were correctly dated and,

9 therefore, correctly served before these proceedings or

10 at the time of them?

11 A. I did not very much focus on this. I did not attach

12 much importance to this, because it would have been

13 important to me if it operated to change the gist of

14 the decision made by the meeting, in a way.

15 If there is a procedural breach that can then entail

16 a change of the decision, then this is a very serious

17 and legally-flawed situation.

18 However, if a company is wholly owned by a group of

19 companies that decided to change — the director changed

20 the management, then it was absolutely immaterial as to

21 when this was decided on 6 or 7 April, when the

22 notifications were served and so on and so forth,

23 because the holder of the 100 per cent of the equity

24 stake has the right to change the director, and so I did

25 not really attach much importance to this at that time

69 71
1 as they could use their recourse, and then use the 1 and, so far as I can recall, the Russian Arbitrazh court
2 shipping company’s rights vis-a-vis Western Terminal by 2 did not attach importance to that, because if I may
3 way of recourse, and they were concerned that in case we 3 reiterate what I have just said, because the breach of
4 lost the share-related trials, Mr Arkhangelsky was going 4 the timeline, had it been material in terms of changing
5 to use some legal steps to encumber or to dispose of 5 the decision, then that would have been important to me,
6 those assets, because Western Terminal was not 6 but because — I believe maybe Renord’s lawyers did
7 a borrower vis-a-vis the Bank, it was just a pledger, 7 backdate the documents, unfortunately quite often things
8 vis-a-vis the Bank. 8 happen in a backdated way in Russia, documents are
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Just thinking about the validity of 9 backdated to the extent that this situation of having
10 what was done, can you go to {Day22/28:1}, please. You 10 documents backdated does not impinge upon the interests
11 there refer, {Day22/28:20}: 11 of third parties.
12 «… very lengthy court proceedings in Russia, and 12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s lazy of me, and I can be shown
13 we won, as far as I know…» 13 what the relevant decisions of the Russian courts
14 Who is the «we» there? «We won»; who is that? 14 concerned were, but can you remember whether the issue
15 A. In this instance I meant SKIF and my lawyers, so that’s 15 for them was whether valid notification had been given
16 «we» — we, the legal team, as it were. We acted for 16 on the one hand, or whether the fact of complete control
17 Renord and for SKIF at these hearings, at that 17 made irrelevant whether a notice had been given? Can
18 particular stage of the hearing, so that’s what «we» 18 you remember what the issue for decision was?
19 means here. 19 MR LORD: Shall I show your Lordship?
20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right, and you say in 22 and 23: 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You will be able to show me that?
21 «… all the notifications have been served in 21 MR LORD: It’s probably helpful on this point, it’s
22 accordance to the Russian law.» 22 {D138/2317/1}.
23 Now, my understanding of later evidence that you 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We may have seen it, but I just didn’t
24 gave was that you were by no means clear that the 24 pick it up.
25 notices had been given on the days shown, I think 25 MR LORD: I’m not sure whether we have, my Lord. Perhaps
70 72
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 I should have taken you to it in re-examination, because

2 this was an appeal, your Lordship will see.

3 {D138/2317/5}. Then if one scrolls down to

4 {D138/2317/2}, in the fourth paragraph:

5 «… the head of a limited liability company, who

6 has no right to take part …»

7 So it’s really debating whether or not a very tiny

8 minority shareholder can complain about the fact that

9 the notice was not valid, as it were. That’s

10 essentially what this is about.

11 Then on page 3, {D138/2317/3}, if you scroll down to

12 page 3, the court then goes on and picks up the point

13 about who has the right to complain, given who owns the

14 companies, as it were, if notice is not on all fours

15 with what it might have been. That’s essentially what

16 this court decision, I think, is dealing with. It’s one

17 of the appeal decisions of — I think it’s the last.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s not so different from English

19 law.

20 MR LORD: It is essentially saying that a majority

21 shareholder — well, we will see — it really accords

22 with what Mr Sklyarevsky is now saying.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Thank you. I am sorry to ask

24 you and listen to Mr Lord and I didn’t intend any

25 impoliteness to you.

1 a discount, and the other party is happy to run the risk

2 and buy it, then that does happen.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So what you are contemplating is not

4 so much a sale of the business but a sale of the debt at

5 an agreed discount, which the bank accepts, and the

6 purchaser takes the risk of non recovery in its place?

7 A. Right, that is one of the ways that may allow the

8 parties to extinguish the debt. We have a good example

9 involving Mechel company in Russia. Mechel is demanding

10 a discount from major Russian banks with respect to its

11 loans, and the banks are bargaining, they are

12 negotiating, they are looking at the discount rate that

13 they would perhaps be happy to offer. This is

14 information in the public domain, you can read it in

15 the Russian newspaper, so it does happen quite often

16 when the banks believe that it would not be a good idea

17 to bankrupt the company, because they will just incur

18 additional losses and they are looking to generate

19 immediate liquidity, even a large discount would be

20 preferable rather than a protracted recovery or

21 enforcement procedure or a trial.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. You gave the instance this

23 morning of a successful refinancing, I think, or sale as

24 a going concern, possibly more accurately, of a company

25 called Orkla Food, I think you indicated, and in this

73 75

1 Could you have a quick look, please, at your witness

2 statement at paragraph 24. I think in the Russian

3 version that is at {B2/13/17}, and then the English

4 version is {B2/13/5}. I just wanted to fix more clearly

5 in my mind what you meant in the second sentence:

6 «Generally speaking, there are a number of options

7 available to banks in distressed debt situations.

8 Preferably a customer would be helped either to

9 refinance, restructure or sell the business (or part of

10 it) such that the bank could be repaid in full [and then

11 these are the words which I wanted to ask you about] or

12 at an agreed discount.»

13 Could you explain what you mean by that?

14 A. Well, it so happens quite often that the bank’s position

15 is that it cannot hope to recover 100 per cent, but then

16 an investor comes in who is prepared to buy the debt at

17 95 or 80 per cent. So it’s just a risk assessment

18 decision to the part of the bank in the sense that the

19 bank — it’s their decision what the discount rate will

20 be applied, and this is par for the course, both in

21 private business and in state-owned companies, including

22 companies owned by the entities within the Russian

23 Federation.

24 If a party believes that the debt is a distressed

25 debt, a problem debt, and it’s happy to sell it at

1 paragraph, the same paragraph of your witness statement,

2 you indicate the various ways in which a bank might cope

3 with a distressed debt situation, and you were asked by

4 Mr Stroilov whether these were ranked in terms of bank

5 preference, and you explained: not really, they were

6 just there as a description of the various ways in which

7 a bank might address the situation.

8 In your arrangements, discussions, with BSP, or for

9 that matter, if any, with Renord Finance, was there ever

10 any question of a refinancing of any of these companies?

11 A. Are you referring to Mr Arkhangelsky’s companies?

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I’m sorry, yes.

13 A. No, I never discussed that until February —

14 before February 2009, I did not even know that OMG or

15 Mr Arkhangelsky existed in the universe. I mean, I had

16 heard about them, but I did not know the detail, so that

17 information really was of little relevance to me.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. But as you became, to

19 the extent you were involved, involved, was there at any

20 time any discussion about the possibility of

21 refinancing, either by the Bank or by some other entity?

22 A. Well, obviously any bank that faces a distressed or

23 problem client is trying to get rid of this one way or

24 the other, and if there is another bank, or another

25 investor, a third party investor, who is happy to

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

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 provide funding so that the Bank can achieve some

2 recovery, that’s the best way. We discussed that with

3 Mrs Malysheva, but it made little sense to discuss that

4 just between me and her.

5 I mean, for all I know, the client may not be

6 interested in my services at all. For all I know, the

7 client may have a lot of experience, or opportunities,

8 or relations with investment banks, and they will be

9 able to identify sources of funding on their own.

10 I discussed that with Malysheva, we discussed in

11 principle the existence of the problem and we discussed

12 the possibility of my pitching in, in a way, trying to

13 be of assistance, but that does not mean that we

14 discussed or agreed upon a contract. One can only

15 achieve a contract if the Bank has agreed as between the

16 Bank and the borrower with respect to a transaction

17 a deal, or a road map, whereby my involvement would be

18 of assistance in terms of working with investment banks,

19 bringing in investors, or, alternatively, they may have

20 just said to us: well, thank you very much, we are not

21 interested, we do not need your services, thanks a lot,

22 you are released.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

24 A completely different question. You explained to

25 me yesterday as to the standard meaning in your

1 documents they are fully disclosed, the number of shares

2 will then be disclosed; or, alternatively, they may be

3 held by a depository, and the depository then tracks

4 down the passage of title to the shares within the

5 depository, and the documents will just say «nominee

6 shareholder», or «depository». They can be traded on

7 a stock exchange, but the information will only be

8 disclosed once a year for the AGM, for the annual

9 meeting of shareholders.

10 For the AGM, the depository has to disclose the

11 actual names of the real owners.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But in that sort of context, am I

13 right in thinking it is really so that trading in shares

14 can, in effect, take place on a ledger system with just

15 entries being made by the depositee to signify from time

16 to time the volume of shares which are being traded and

17 who owns them on its accounts?

18 A. Absolutely. That is correct. There is a cut-off date,

19 as of which the depository has to disclose the

20 identities of the owners. For instance, say, for the

21 sake of argument, 1 April, so he discloses —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, I understand that, but the purpose

23 of the arrangement is, in effect, to facilitate trading,

24 and that so you don’t have to have the register of

25 shareholders, you just have ledger accounting?

77 79

1 perception of nominal holder; do you remember that? If

2 you need to see the reference, it’s at {Day23/65:1} and

3 {Day23/66:1}.

4 A. Yes, I do recall that.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you were asked some questions in

6 that specific respect about the company — I’m so sorry

7 about my pronunciation, but it is Lentelephonestroy, of

8 which you were the chair of the board of directors.

9 I understand that to be a pretty large company. Are its

10 shares held by lots of people, many members of the

11 public, et cetera?

12 A. Yes, the company is 74 years old, and I am the chair of

13 the board, I still am. Speaking from memory, they have

14 something like 1,500 shareholders.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. And in that sort of context,

16 I think especially Americans call it a street name, it’s

17 simply a name which means that the true owner is, as it

18 were, behind the curtain for trading purposes and that

19 sort of thing. I rather took it that that is what you

20 were saying nominee in that kind of context meant; is

21 that right?

22 A. Yes. It has to do with disclosure requirements. We

23 have two ways of registering owners of securities.

24 I think you have something similar in England and Wales.

25 Shares may be held by a registrar and then in all the

1 A. Absolutely, my Lord, yes, you are right. Yes, because

2 it is a very time-consuming thing to change the names of

3 the shareholders in the register, whereas for

4 a depository this is something that can be done very

5 easily. That’s correct.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But that logic, or rationale, would

7 not apply to a small company whose shares are sold and

8 traded, would it?

9 A. Correct. That would hardly apply.

10 Having said that, if we are speaking shares, mind

11 you, in English we just say shares. In the English

12 translation we say shares. But if we are referring to

13 some of the companies that appear in this case, they are

14 limited liability companies and they do not have shares;

15 they have participatory interests, and they cannot go to

16 a depository, because this is not a security, and that

17 can only be registered in the EGRUL that we saw

18 yesterday.

19 Now, if it’s a company limited by shares, no matter

20 whether it is a small one or a big one, closed or

21 public, private, that, the shares can go to

22 a depository. Participatory interests in an LLC cannot

23 go to a depository. Shares in a company limited by

24 shares, no matter whether it is a big or a small one,

25 can go to the depository.

78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But you have to pay a depository fee

2 so if your shares are not traded off or if it is what we

3 call a closed company with very few shareholders who

4 seldom transact business except all together, then the

5 rationale you have given as to nomineeship would not

6 really apply in those circumstances, would it? It would

7 not be a street name, it would be, as it were,

8 a personal nomineeship.

9 A. You see, it’s the owners that pay the depository for

10 their services, not the issuer. It’s the holders, those

11 who own the shares.

12 Now, the good thing about the depository arrangement

13 is that, for instance, banks who have lots of branches,

14 a large network of branches, and if you want to work

15 with Lentelephonestroy, say in the City of Omsk —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I full understand if you have traded

17 shares, but if you never trade or very seldom do and

18 it’s a closed company, there’s no point in depository

19 arrangements, is there?

20 A. Well, I do know that some people use this as a means of

21 protection, as it were. There have been instances in

22 Russia where shares registers were forged, whereas when

23 you have this both in the share register and in

24 the depository, you have an added layer of protection,

25 as it were.

1 to be honest.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I understand this was prepared by the

3 Bank and not by you, so that’s understandable.

4 The proceedings in the BVI in which you were

5 engaged, and you explained that they were rather exotic,

6 and this freezing order came, you didn’t know quite what

7 to do with it, you didn’t want to disobey it even if it

8 wasn’t enforcement, as such, in Russia, and you gave

9 an explanation as to that. Who paid for the BVI

10 proceedings on behalf of the defendants?

11 A. We’ve paid — SKIF, as far as I recall, had its own

12 agreement with the lawyers and we did pay. I do not

13 recall the amounts, but I remember we had expenses in

14 this regard.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And did you share those with the other

16 defendants?

17 A. I don’t think so. As far as I recall, then I had

18 a transaction with Salans law firm in St Petersburg, and

19 as far as I recall, I asked them to assist my legal team

20 in some way in the matter of explaining what is it and

21 how to live with it.

22 I do not recall that we shared expenses, but I know

23 that legal teams worked jointly with regard to that

24 issue, both Renord’s team and my team. Unfortunately

25 I cannot confirm or deny it now. I think only SKIF

81

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. Just a couple more

2 questions.

3 Do you remember this big sheet we were shown? Yes,

4 I don’t know whether you could be provided with a copy.

5 My reference to the transcript, which may be a little

6 inaccurate, but may not be necessary, is {Day23/74:1},

7 some time at about 2.30 in the afternoon. You were

8 asked about the meaning of founder, and as to what

9 «belonging» connoted.

10 A. I do recall that, yes.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Am I right that your evidence is that

12 the fact that the entity stated to be the person to whom

13 the relevant shares belong is the Bank, does not connote

14 that they belong to the Bank?

15 A. I am not sure I understand the rationale behind this

16 spreadsheet. If we are discussing our company, my

17 company, SKIF —

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

19 A. — OOO, or LLC, I cannot find a logical explanation for

20 the word «belonging to the Bank», I understand the word

21 «belonging», that I understand, that’s the actual owner.

22 Now, why it says «Bank» here, I have no explanation

23 for it, I have no clue. I do not want to speculate,

24 I do not want to make anything up by way of explanation.

25 I do not want to speculate, really. I just don’t know,

83

1 paid; and then what happened afterwards I don’t recall.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did the Bank pay any of these fees?

3 A. No, the Bank didn’t pay for it because, as far as

4 I understand, that was very recent — well, several

5 years ago, and I understood it as my own problem.

6 I understood that in that situation, I was landed in

7 a situation actually because of the Bank’s fault, but

8 I did not really say about some expenses, so in that

9 particular case I was following — I was supporting

10 SKIF’s interests alone.

11 So I didn’t think that the expenses were great at

12 that point in time, and, secondly, it was

13 an extraordinary event, this freezing order from the

14 BVI, so we had to sort it out ourselves without the

15 Bank’s participation. I mean, the payment.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, those are the questions I have

17 for you. Thank you very much.

18 Do those questions give rise to any further

19 questions?

20 Further cross-examination by MR STROILOV

21 MR STROILOV: Just a couple, with apologies, my Lord.

22 Mr Sklyarevsky, if we could look — just to avoid

23 any misquoting — if it can be put on the screen, the

24 very end of page 68 for today’s [draft] transcript, and

25 then most of page 69, or the whole of page 69, if

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 possible.

2 So here at the bottom of that page, of page 68,

3 I mean, and then for most of page 69, you explain that

4 you understood from the Bank that the Bank hoped to

5 reach the stage of realisation of Western Terminal

6 pledge through Vyborg Shipping bankruptcy procedure; is

7 that what you were saying there?

8 A. Apparently, yes.

9 Q. What do you mean «apparently, yes»; is that your

10 evidence?

11 A. Well, to the extent that I can read English quickly

12 enough, yes, I was saying — I was discussing

13 Vyborg Shipping Company.

14 Q. Is it, under your understanding of Russian law, possible

15 to recover a pledge from a different pledger, as part of

16 a bankruptcy proceedings —

17 MR LORD: He wasn’t saying that, my Lord. I don’t think

18 that is a fair way of putting it. He was saying that

19 various rights wouldn’t arise.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is it best to read this out, to have

21 it translated, and ask him to qualify, adopt or amend

22 his answer so that it is entirely fair to him?

23 MR LORD: Yes, thank you, my Lord.

24 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful. Let me just read what you have

25 said and we will have it translated and you will have

1 I confirm my evidence. I can clarify, if you like.

2 Q. Well, yes, clarify, please.

3 A. As far as I — in the Russian law, it is possible to

4 declare a company bankrupt only in the event of a court

5 decision with regard to the loan, to the debt. If the

6 bank has a borrower and the bank would like to declare

7 the borrower bankrupt, the bank has no such right.

8 First the bank has to go to court, to go through the

9 proceedings, to get the first court decision, the second

10 and the third decision, and the court decision has to

11 come into effect, and only then the bankruptcy can be

12 declared by the bank.

13 What I was saying in that paragraph signifies that

14 the bankruptcy of Vyborg Shipping Company took a lengthy

15 time, not even the bankruptcy per se, but the

16 proceedings, the procedure prior to the bankruptcy when

17 the Bank had to go through all these steps to discuss

18 the decisions with regard to the loan to obtain court

19 decisions, the decision would have had to come into

20 legal effect, and only after that, to initiate

21 bankruptcy proceedings vis-a-vis Vyborg Shipping Company

22 and in the Russian case law, it could take half a year

23 or longer, and accordingly the Bank was worried. One

24 needs to look at the exact dates, but the Bank was

25 worried that the bankruptcy proceedings for

85 87

1 a chance to correct it:

2 «Just one addition that I would like to make, if

3 I may, and that is that Vyborg Shipping Company was

4 being bankrupted at the same time, and it had those

5 assets which had been pledged as collateral to Vyborg,

6 and the Bank hoped that in the course of the bankruptcy

7 it will reach out to the Western Terminal’s assets; in

8 other words, it will be able to enforce its rights

9 vis-a-vis that plot of land. As of the June 2009, the

10 Vyborg Shipping Company had reached a stage where that

11 was not yet possible, and I was not the author, I was

12 not behind those decisions, but I understand the Bank’s

13 logic and I asked them questions about that, and their

14 logic was to buy some time … in the event we lost the

15 share-related trials, the task, the objective, was to

16 sit and wait until such time as they could use their

17 recourse, and then use the shipping company’s rights

18 vis-a-vis Western Terminal by way of recourse, and they

19 were concerned that in case we lost the share-related

20 trials, Mr Arkhangelsky was going to use some legal

21 steps to encumber or to dispose of those assets, because

22 Western Terminal was not a borrower vis-a-vis the Bank,

23 it was just a pledger, vis-a-vis the Bank.»

24 So would you like to clarify?

25 A. I just wanted to understand your question, sir.

1 Vyborg Shipping Company could either not commence at

2 all, or first you have to appoint the external

3 invigilator, only then it goes into actual bankruptcy

4 proceedings, or the stage won’t be the stage where the

5 Bank would be able to enforce against Western Terminal

6 as the pledger.

7 So what I clarify here is an attempt on the part of

8 the Bank to do the process in parallel, taking into

9 account the fact that Vyborg Shipping Company and its

10 bankruptcy proceedings were only just commencing and

11 being developed.

12 Q. Mr Sklyarevsky, I don’t know how much you know about

13 this, on 15 May 2009, the Bank filed a claim in

14 a district court against Vyborg Shipping for the

15 recovery of the relevant loan against the alleged

16 guarantors and against Western Terminal to enforce the

17 pledge. So once the Bank would get that judgment, it

18 could enforce the pledge. What has the bankruptcy got

19 to do with it?

20 A. The thing is, that Western Terminal is the pledger, and

21 Vyborg Shipping Company is the initial debtor. The

22 pledge can be enforced only if Vyborg Shipping Company

23 itself has no means, no funds, in order to repay the

24 debt, and that can be determined only within the

25 bankruptcy proceedings with subsequent sale of

86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 the pledge of the Western Terminal.

2 You are correct, sir, that on 15 May 2009, as you

3 just said, the claim was filed, and I suspect because it

4 was a district court and not an Arbitrazh court, because

5 the way I understand, there must have been individuals

6 involved in the proceedings, I think that the Bank — of

7 course, I don’t know, but from my experience I can say

8 that the Bank would have obtained that decision, it

9 would have taken six months or eight months and it would

10 be interesting to have a look.

11 We could have a look at the decision with regard to

12 that loan, when the decision was made, I think it took

13 about eight months, or maybe longer, including the

14 appellate instance and including the Cassation Court.

15 MR STROILOV: Right. Thank you, Mr Sklyarevsky.

16 MR LORD: Might this witness be released, my Lord?

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you very much for your

18 attendance. I am sorry, it has been a very long haul

19 for you and I have kept everyone from their lunch but

20 I am very grateful to you. I hope you have a good

21 journey back. Yes, you may be released.

22 That was subject to, obviously, I think the accounts

23 were going to be produced and there were one or two

24 other suggestions made by Mr Stroilov which he will

25 either pursue or not.

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, and within that …

2 MR BIRT: In there, if one looks hard enough, you can find

3 it, and the reference for the SKIF document is page 3719

4 and Mercury is 2561, so those are the financial

5 statements that Mr Stroilov had available to him during

6 the course of the cross-examination, and we think that

7 those are the publicly available accounts, my Lord.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you very much.

9 MR STROILOV: I do apologise, I am afraid you will be

10 horrified to know I wasn’t sure actually what company

11 accounts comprises, so I wasn’t sure that that is the

12 thing.

13 My Lord, just to take — obviously on disclosure

14 points I’ve raised with Mr Sklyarevsky, I’m not going to

15 make an application. You have heard what the witness

16 has said. You have heard what I have put to the witness

17 about the relevant transactions.

18 If the claimants would like to disclose anything,

19 take any steps to change the position, it is — well,

20 they are free to do so. If not, I reserve the right to

21 invite such inferences as I may like to invite.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay. That’s your right.

23 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

24 MR LORD: My Lord, in terms of timetabling, your Lordship

25 will know that Ms Kosova is the next witness. We are

89 91
1 MR LORD: Yes, could we deal with the accounts and then 1 hoping to have her called on Thursday. We still would
2 I will come back to the timetable, if I may. 2 like her to come on Thursday. I think Mr Stroilov said
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is this a good time? Can we get this 3 she might be a day or a bit longer. We would hope if
4 before everyone collapses? 4 she comes on Thursday — we have only had a day and
5 MR LORD: I would hope we can because I think Mr Stroilov is 5 a half so far this week — there will be a decent chance
6 probably anxious to get away and we are anxious to call 6 we only have another day and a half on the Thursday and
7 Ms Kosova on Thursday, so we try and get her done and so 7 Friday and we can get her done and she can fly back to
8 it might be we will have five minutes now, I think 8 Russia.
9 probably only five minutes and then we can probably 9 And that would then, my Lord, all being well, allow
10 break for Thursday. 10 us to maybe have some timetabling at the end of Friday
11 Housekeeping 11 where we can pick up matters concerning — I can mention
12 MR BIRT: It was simply to inform your Lordship arising out 12 Mr Smirnov without going into the detail, but there are
13 of the questions your Lordship asked at the end of 13 various timetabling points, I know your Lordship is
14 Friday about the accounts, the SPARK database, which 14 anxious to look ahead and to map out the rest of
15 your Lordship has been taken to a number of extracts in 15 the timetable. By Friday we will have served
16 the bundle. 16 Professor Hall’s report. I think it has now been signed
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 17 and finalised by him. I think copies might be available
18 MR LORD: This contains publicly available financial 18 now. If they are not available now, that’s a printing
19 information, and you will recollect that during the 19 delay, and they will be with your Lordship and
20 witness’s evidence, Mr Stroilov took the witness to lots 20 Mr Stroilov, I think shortly today. Then it may be
21 of these SPARK entries, which were all contained in the 21 better to pick that up on Friday when we can see —
22 same reference, really. They are at 22 your Lordship will have time to see Professor Hall’s
23 {D176-D191/2918.1T/1}, and that is effectively all one 23 report and Mr Stroilov will have had time to read it,
24 document of some 4,000 plus pages which is all disclosed 24 and also any witness statement from Ms Goncharuk, and we
25 by the defendants themselves. 25 could then maybe take up timetabling in that vein. But
90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 we would ask that we start on Thursday with Ms Kosova,

2 please.

3 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I’m not sure it’s quite right,

4 I don’t recall ever indicating that maybe a day or

5 slightly longer for Mrs Kosova. I think that was my

6 estimate for Mrs Yashkina, so my learned friend may be

7 mistaken about that.

8 For Mrs Kosova, I was thinking it would be two days,

9 and possibly overspilling into the third day, I am

10 afraid. That’s a difficulty. In a way, I don’t know

11 what to do. I think, as I said, and that remains the

12 position, to have a cross-examination on some decent

13 level, rather than really be preparing here in court

14 between questions, I need two days’ break between

15 witnesses.

16 But on the other hand, if Mrs Kosova is on Friday,

17 that means very likely overspilling to the next week,

18 and then Mr Savelyev moves to the end of the week and

19 the consequence of that would be really squeezing out

20 Mrs Mironova, and I am concerned about that.

21 I think I have indicated that in the ideal world my

22 preference would be to have Ms Mironova after Easter,

23 but if you are not prepared to do that and if

24 your Lordship’s solution is rather to squeeze me than to

25 squeeze the timetable, well, then I suppose we can’t

1 fit, but he had that time to prepare for more than one

2 witness and Ms Kosova should start, we say, on Thursday,

3 otherwise we are going to be doing — it is going to be

4 a two and a half day week with all the expense and the

5 inefficiency of the court resource and the inconvenience

6 to the parties and we do need to finish this litigation,

7 my Lord. We are very anxious — we will come to it on

8 Friday — this case does need to come to a conclusion as

9 quickly as possible for a variety of reasons.

10 We would ask to start on Thursday with Ms Kosova.

11 Mr Stroilov has the rest of today and all of tomorrow to

12 prepare, and we say, in the circumstances, that would —

13 to finalise his preparation. It shouldn’t be starting

14 now. If it is starting now, then really that begs the

15 question what was happening in the two weeks when

16 we were in Paris.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Mr Lord, I hear what you say and

18 you have said it before. If I must err, I err on the

19 side of making sure that there is sufficient break for

20 Mr Stroilov, given the difficulties if you are not

21 a professional, of maintaining your concentration from

22 one witness to the next, even if you have had time to

23 prepare, equally, I am bothered about two and a half day

24 weeks.

25 I should say that on Friday I am going to rise at

93 95

1 really move Mrs Kosova from Thursday, but I am afraid

2 I have to warn, it will probably be rather terrible in

3 terms of my inefficiency.

4 As far as — I think we have thought further on

5 Ms Goncharuk, and I think — I wonder if we need to go

6 into private to discuss that.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is it premature to do that before

8 I have fully understood the position with respect to

9 Mr Smirnov?

10 MR LORD: Yes, as your Lordship said yesterday, it is

11 important to see Professor Hall’s report and to consider

12 that and then we can do things in an orderly way. But

13 the main thing is to see if we can start Ms Kosova on

14 Thursday. If she might be three days, into a third day,

15 that’s all the more reason to start her on Thursday with

16 Mr Savelyev coming the following week. Your Lordship,

17 we would suggest that, really, it is all very well

18 saying that Mr Stroilov must have two days between

19 witnesses, but the fact remains that there were two

20 weeks in France and most of last week when I was

21 cross-examining, so the thick end of three weeks when he

22 was preparing for the next batch of cross-examination.

23 So it’s not right to say that the clock only starts

24 after one witness goes out of the witness box. That

25 can’t be right. Mr Stroilov must use the time as he saw

1 4.30, no later.

2 Now, Mr Stroilov, I do extend every indulgence and

3 sympathy to you, even though it must be, to some extent,

4 exasperating if you are on the other side of this, and

5 funding it all. What can you do? I realise you have to

6 probably travel back to Cambridge and have a cup of tea

7 and that kind of thing, but you will have the remains of

8 the day, if I can put it that way, and you will have

9 tomorrow entirely for preparation, and you will have

10 a break between the end of Ms Kosova and the beginning

11 of Mr Savelyev, which I quite understand you need. Can

12 we not start Ms Kosova on the 10th, Thursday?

13 MR STROILOV: Well, we can. I fear whether it might,

14 really, actually be more terrible in the round. It is,

15 really, well, in a way I will be — I feel it is really

16 squeezing me too far, I have every sympathy with

17 everyone’s considerations and that it is going slowly,

18 but it’s natural that I go slowly because I’m alone.

19 I am afraid that is a natural physical consequence of

20 that.

21 I may have to do a much more limited

22 cross-examination than I would have liked to, or I may

23 be — well, you have huge pauses in court, much bigger

24 than you already have, while I am trying to find the

25 document or gather my thoughts.

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 So I would see the logic of doing that if 1 a half, it’s not much better than three.
2 your Lordship is still keen on sticking to the timetable 2 MR LORD: My Lord, your Lordship has already looked at these
3 and not letting it slip again, but I just fear it is — 3 matters on {Day19/63:1} and onwards we had a debate
4 I mean, in a way I am, myself, in two minds, because 4 about the timetable for before Easter, and we debated
5 I don’t — I mean, I fear that really moving — in 5 Ms Kosova and starting and stopping and Mr Savelyev,
6 fairness, I think I must say that moving Ms Kosova to 6 when they would come and your Lordship made various
7 Friday effectively means moving Ms Mironova to after 7 directions —
8 Easter, because there is no way this can be squeezed 8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It just says «? Ms Kosova», and
9 unless we are — we have pushed her to the very end. So 9 I simply couldn’t remember. Show me what I was —
10 that’s the trouble. I don’t know. 10 MR LORD: Page 63, my Lord. Your Lordship was — I think it
11 Well, it will really prejudice my cross-examination 11 was page 62, really, it is the bottom of the page,
12 if I have to do it on Thursday, but if I have to, I will 12 I think we were trying to timetable ahead, line 25
13 have to. 13 {Day19/62:25}:
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I think maybe you are being 14 «8th and 9th, and Ms Kosova will come in on the 10th
15 a little black and white about this, Mr Stroilov. 15 and we would hope to finish her by the 11th. That’s two
16 Things are never perfect in litigation, and it is 16 days for her, that should be enough, two full days…»
17 a pretty wearisome task, but obviously I take seriously 17 «Hopefully. I would still say that it is two to
18 when you say that you will be prejudiced, because it is 18 three, but I would really aim to —»
19 not my intention to prejudice anybody. Are you not 19 And then your Lordship said: More than two days for
20 rather overstating that? 20 a non central witness might be going down the wrong
21 MR STROILOV: Well, I do think it will be a rather terrible 21 road.
22 cross-examination, rather more — much more impromptu 22 I have to say we were — my clients and the
23 than I or you would have liked. 23 witness — we were all thinking that we were going to
24 It may still be — I appreciate that everyone likes 24 start on the 10th with Ms Kosova, with a view to trying
25 more preparation time than may be available. I just 25 to finish her by the 11th. Obviously if Mr Stroilov
97 99
1 fear that it may be a little — in a way, my Lord, you 1 goes on, if he needs more time, he needs more time.
2 must understand I am not trying to bargain and get 2 Then if we read on —
3 a comfortable time for myself. 3 MR STROILOV: I’m sorry to interrupt, but that was on the
4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no. 4 premise that I was wrong about Mr Sklyarevsky needing
5 MR STROILOV: Really, I’m trying to be as helpful as 5 three days and my learned friend was right about me
6 possible and I am driving myself to the limit, 6 finishing in two days.
7 physically, to be honest. 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that’s why, to be fair, there
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How long are you going to be, on 8 was a question mark by Ms Kosova. I think I had rather
9 present estimate, with Mr Savelyev? At the moment it is 9 hoped that we would finish Mr Sklyarevsky yesterday.
10 down for three days; is that right? 10 MR STROILOV: And I do apologise I haven’t. I was trying.
11 MR STROILOV: I do think it will take three days, my Lord, 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Does it help you at all to put
12 yes. 12 Ms Kosova back to 12.00 or thereabouts?
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And Ms Mironova, you may not have 13 MR STROILOV: Not really, my Lord. For me, really, if I am
14 turned to her, yet? 14 here I prefer longer days rather than shorter days to
15 MR STROILOV: Again, I would estimate it is three days as 15 reduce the number of days, if that makes sense.
16 well. On Mr Sklyarevsky, I was surprisingly correct, 16 MR LORD: My Lord, the only — I think the only — a very
17 actually, to say it is three days, and it was two days 17 serious point is we can’t have it suggested that if we
18 plus two half days. 18 don’t start Ms Kosova on Thursday, Ms Mironova goes
19 Then I — in a way, I’m rather — I’m tending now to 19 behind Easter. We can’t have that. That’s just going
20 trust my time estimates. 20 to tear up this timetable. It’s going to mean nothing
21 Mr Savelyev may, if I’m really lucky, it may be — 21 happens after Mr Savelyev before Easter. There’s no
22 well, I fear there is virtually no chance — 22 basis for that at all, and if that is the risk, then we
23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you are really lucky how long? 23 should start with Ms Kosova on Thursday. That really
24 MR STROILOV: I don’t think there is a chance that it will 24 means that we should try and get on with this. We only
25 be two days and that’s what matters, so if it is two and 25 have three witnesses now before Easter. We have 10
98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 sitting days to do three witnesses plus two intervening

2 weekends.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, but Mr Lord, a problem is that

4 sometimes pressing on leads to a longer

5 cross-examination.

6 MR LORD: My Lord, Mr Sklyarevsky’s cross-examination —

7 obviously it is a matter for closing submissions — but

8 there was an awful lot of — we covered an awful lot of

9 material that may not really, strictly speaking, need

10 not to have been covered with this witness. There was

11 an awful lot of debating of court cases and so on and

12 the clock was ticking and hours were coming and going.

13 So obviously Mr Stroilov must have the time he

14 needs, but your Lordship may want to consider just

15 questions of efficiency, and focus along the way, out of

16 fairness to all parties, including the —

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that there was too much, and

18 I interceded probably too late, but I’m anxious not to

19 intercede too quickly, on quizzing a witness about court

20 decisions which were translated by approved translators

21 and which I can read for myself.

22 It’s not a serious — it’s not a vicious criticism,

23 Mr Stroilov. I think you are doing extremely well.

24 I don’t mean that …

25 MR STROILOV: I dare say I had no means of knowing even

1 at the end of Friday, because then I have to leave

2 myself time to prepare for Mr Savelyev.

3 MR LORD: My Lord, why don’t we see how we go. Why don’t we

4 start on Thursday at 10.30, and we see how we go, we

5 take stock, and if issues arise and it’s felt that there

6 is too much pressure, that is one thing. If questions

7 are not as focused as they might have been then that is

8 another thing. I suggest we start off on Thursday and

9 your Lordship keep the matter under review as

10 your Lordship has done throughout this case.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think I will do that, Mr Stroilov.

12 I won’t, either myself, guillotine you, or necessarily

13 encourage you to put forward a guillotine, as it were —

14 I don’t want any situation where, in effect, the answer

15 is that had you had longer for the exam, you could have

16 said something else. I don’t want that at all.

17 MR STROILOV: My Lord, it is a —

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know this is an unfair way of

19 putting it, but I just have to share with you my

20 concerns in this respect. I think we will start on the

21 Thursday. If, at the beginning of Thursday, or at any

22 part during it you say it is just hopeless, then I will

23 discuss it with you, but I want you to make every best

24 endeavour, as I know you will, to get the

25 cross-examination up and running.

101

1 whether I had to do it …

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, it’s a difficult job and you are

3 doing it very well indeed. But I cannot let

4 Ms Mironova — and I have said this before, I just can’t

5 let her slip over the Easter back. We have to have made

6 sufficient progress in that regard.

7 MR STROILOV: If we cannot, then there is no dispute,

8 really: it has to be Thursday —

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think I must press you. I am

10 perfectly prepared to start a little late on the 10th if

11 that would assist you, but I think you say not.

12 If you get into real trouble and you need to tell me

13 that, you know, you just haven’t got it sufficiently

14 organised to make the progress you would wish, you will

15 have to tell me, and I know what a stress and strain it

16 is, and I am deeply grateful for you undertaking it, but

17 I think we should stick to trying to get — starting

18 with Ms Kosova on the 10th and proceeding on the 11th.

19 Maybe we will finish her on the 11th, or very little

20 into the 14th, which will give you a little bit more

21 time with Mr Savelyev.

22 MR LORD: Yes.

23 MR STROILOV: My Lord, on the premise that we have to do

24 Mr Savelyev and Ms Mironova this term, I suppose

25 effectively I have to guillotine myself with Ms Kosova

103

1 I do think that it is actually a better result in

2 many senses for you, because if, by the end of Friday,

3 there are really important things which you have to ask

4 Ms Kosova, then we do have the Monday in case.

5 Otherwise you will have straddled the weekend, have

6 a very full day on Friday, a very full day on Monday,

7 and Mr Savelyev to follow.

8 So I think we should try for this. If you are in

9 a very difficult position, then please understand,

10 I have sympathy and wish to assist your side to have

11 a good, fair tilt at all these matters.

12 MR STROILOV: I am grateful.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Very well. So 10.30 am on Thursday?

14 MR LORD: Yes, please.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And I think other housekeeping matters

16 may have to wait until the Monday evening rather than

17 the Friday, as I must go at 4.30.

18 MR BIRT: A last 10-second point, my Lord. Can I just hand

19 this up, which is the revised organogram which your

20 Lordship asked about on Friday.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Any photos?

22 MR BIRT: I thought they were being sent to you on the

23 e-mail.

24 MR LORD: They will be sent today, we will send them today.

25 MR BIRT: My Lord, the organogram has also been uploaded,

102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 8, 2016 Day 24

1 for your Lordship’s note that is at {AA2/13} and that is

2 revised. It has taken a bit of time to get the boxes in

3 the right place and move them about. There’s three

4 sheets there and I hope they prove informative, my Lord.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s very helpful indeed. Thank you

6 to all those who worked so hard on it. That is

7 excellent.

8 10.30 am on Thursday. See how best we can move

9 forward.

10 MR LORD: Thank you, my Lord.

11 (2.20 pm)

12 (The court adjourned until 10.30 am on

13 Thursday, 10 March 2016)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

105
1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 MR VLADIMIR ALEXANDROVICH ……………………….1 SKLYAREVSKY (Continued)

4 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV …………..1 (Continued)

5 Re-examination by MR LORD ………………..57

6 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD ………….64

7 Further cross-examination by MR STROILOV …..84

8 Housekeeping ………………………………….90

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

106
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

107

March 8, 2016 Day 24

A

A56/18840/2009 (1)

20:5

AA2/13 (1) 105:1 AA2/8/73 (1) 53:4 AA2/8/74 (1) 53:11 AA2/8/82 (1) 53:25 AA2/8/83 (1) 54:11 ab (1) 16:15 abandon (1) 2:16 Abarina (1) 23:6 ability (1) 62:23 able (9) 5:21 8:22

11:8 63:2 69:18 72:20 77:9 86:8 88:5

abnormal (1) 41:8 abolished (1) 4:22 above-mentioned (1)

27:10 absence (1) 8:24 absent (1) 21:23

absolutely (8) 27:22 38:8 43:16 46:7 69:1 71:20 79:18 80:1

abuse (18) 7:12 9:2 11:19 12:12,21 13:16,21,23 14:2,8 15:3 16:12 18:10 18:15 27:24 28:9 28:12 55:7

abused (7) 7:3,8 11:15 12:2 14:12 16:24 33:23

acceptable (1) 43:24 accepted (1) 19:11 accepts (1) 75:5 accords (1) 73:21 account (1) 88:9 accounting (3) 30:1

63:21 79:25 accounts (7) 30:2

79:17 89:22 90:1 90:14 91:7,11

accurately (1) 75:24 achieve (2) 77:1,15 achieved (1) 50:15 acquired (1) 51:3 act (1) 48:22

acted (3) 11:21 66:9 70:16

acting (9) 11:23 18:25 22:14,18 24:16,22 25:2,3 28:1

action (4) 12:9 16:5 16:17 19:3

actions (1) 38:5 activity (1) 52:20 actual (8) 5:17 30:10

33:6,15 51:16 79:11 82:21 88:3

add (1) 27:7

added (5) 11:14 21:3 26:3 69:3 81:24

addition (2) 69:12 86:2

additional (16) 16:9 16:10,22 25:25 26:1,2 33:13 38:24 42:11 48:17,17 52:2,11,12 68:13 75:18

address (1) 76:7 adds (1) 61:9 adduce (10) 16:4,21

19:13 20:23 25:13 25:18,20,21 26:1

33:15 8:9 55:8 85:8,9 76:3 78:5 82:8 bad (1) 27:23 belong (2) 82:13,14
adduced (4) 16:9 appeal (12) 12:16 83:19 86:13 90:13 badly (1) 51:17 belonging (3) 82:9,20
25:23 26:3,5 18:7 19:18 20:7 104:20 balance (1) 45:19 82:21
adjourned (1) 105:12 24:6 32:19 33:14 asking (6) 15:9 26:9 bank (88) 37:19 40:4 bench (1) 2:6
adjournment (1) 68:4 34:19 35:2 59:2 26:13 44:24 48:14 42:25 43:9,11,11 Berezin (1) 64:4
admitted (1) 9:24 73:2,17 68:5 43:21,22 44:2 45:6 best (7) 38:22 58:23
adopt (1) 85:21 appealed (1) 58:16 aspects (2) 65:16,16 45:8,23 46:6,7,8,24 62:4 77:2 85:20
advance (1) 34:20 appear (3) 15:2 22:17 assessment (1) 74:17 47:6,19 48:13,20 103:23 105:8
advisers (1) 47:6 80:13 asset (7) 29:17,17 48:21 49:10,15,16 better (3) 92:21 99:1
advocate (1) 18:23 appeared (2) 21:12 31:25 33:20 38:17 49:20,20,22,24 104:1
affect (1) 62:21 67:21 51:25 61:11 50:6,8,25,25 51:6,9 big (4) 7:19 80:20,24
affidavit (2) 2:8 4:4 appears (4) 20:25 assets (26) 30:4,11,19 52:7,7,14,17,21 82:3
affiliated (1) 46:11 24:8 34:6 39:9 30:24 42:13 43:25 54:18 55:18 59:22 bigger (1) 96:23
afraid (5) 38:13 91:9 appellate (8) 20:24 45:15 48:17 49:22 64:12,13 67:17 biggest (1) 23:24
93:10 94:1 96:19 22:13 24:10,25 51:10,15 52:3,11 69:4,15 70:7,8 billion (7) 29:23 30:18
afternoon (1) 82:7 25:22 27:4 29:12 52:12,15,18 55:22 74:10,18,19 75:5 32:23 33:18 44:17
agencies (1) 45:16 89:14 55:24 57:4 65:5 76:2,4,7,21,22,24 44:18 63:18
agency (1) 62:8 application (3) 25:20 69:14,17 70:6 86:5 77:1,15,16 82:13 binding (1) 41:25
AGM (2) 79:8,10 25:25 91:15 86:7,21 82:14,20,22 83:3 BIRT (5) 90:12 91:2
ago (5) 11:19 14:17 applied (5) 11:5 27:1 assign (1) 52:21 84:2,3 85:4,4 86:6 104:18,22,25
32:23 65:2 84:5 27:3 62:8 74:20 assignment (3) 52:24 86:22,23 87:6,6,7,8 bit (7) 4:5 59:15,17
agree (6) 15:12 27:12 apply (3) 80:7,9 81:6 52:25 53:3 87:12,17,23,24 66:17 92:3 102:20
40:16,24 53:13 appoint (1) 88:2 assist (3) 83:19 88:5,8,13,17 89:6,8 105:2
57:1 appointed (1) 9:25 102:11 104:10 bank’s (8) 48:16 52:8 black (1) 97:15
agreed (8) 40:10,14 appreciate (2) 3:12 assistance (2) 77:13 53:23 69:22 74:14 blown (1) 60:20
42:1 66:3 74:12 97:24 77:18 84:7,15 86:12 board (4) 45:12 65:17
75:5 77:14,15 approach (1) 43:4 associated (1) 46:11 banking (5) 39:12 78:8,13
agreement (14) 2:15 approaches (1) 41:19 assume (1) 24:9 45:10,17 53:9,19 boilerplate (1) 41:17
2:17 9:13 11:3 approval (2) 8:25 assuming (2) 59:12 bankrupt (3) 75:17 boilerplates (1) 41:7
30:11,17 48:23 59:22 62:18 87:4,7 bona (1) 56:10
49:11 52:23 53:3 approved (2) 4:14 attach (3) 71:11,25 bankruptcy (14) 69:16 bond (1) 46:5
59:21 65:23 66:5 101:20 72:2 85:6,16 86:6 87:11 book (1) 45:15
83:12 approving (1) 7:4 attacked (1) 64:12 87:14,15,16,21,25 borrowed (1) 64:1
agreements (5) 41:15 April (7) 35:21,22 36:4 attempt (1) 88:7 88:3,10,18,25 borrower (20) 36:15
41:24,24 45:14 36:13 58:2 71:21 attempts (1) 3:23 bankrupted (2) 69:13 40:12 42:15,25
57:8 79:21 attend (2) 24:13 71:3 86:4 45:6,22 46:23 47:7
Ah (1) 1:14 Arbitrazh (3) 18:20 attendance (1) 89:18 bankrupting (1) 49:21 47:8 48:6 49:8,17
ahead (2) 92:14 99:12 72:1 89:4 attending (4) 22:20 banks (25) 40:12 50:17 51:8 65:18
aim (1) 99:18 area (1) 46:13 24:17,24 25:3 41:18 42:22,23 70:7 77:16 86:22
aimed (1) 7:21 argue (1) 57:4 attention (2) 20:14 43:16 44:6 45:11 87:6,7
ALEXANDROVICH (2) arguing (1) 9:19 26:24 45:18 46:16 50:25 borrowing (1) 65:19
1:7 106:3 argument (2) 44:16 attorney (3) 24:18,20 51:1,21 53:9 55:5 bothered (1) 95:23
allegation (1) 14:7 79:21 24:21 55:21 56:2,11 bottom (11) 10:5
alleged (1) 88:15 arising (1) 90:12 attorneys (1) 18:25 64:10 74:7 75:10 13:25 19:24 20:15
allegedly (1) 7:7 Arkhangelskaya (5) attract (2) 62:23,24 75:11,16 77:8,18 25:11 26:25 28:16
allow (5) 41:22 50:23 7:7 8:20 11:13,24 author (2) 69:21 81:13 54:2,8 85:2 99:11
52:10 75:7 92:9 23:5 86:11 banned (1) 56:17 bought (1) 32:22
allowed (3) 13:21 Arkhangelskaya’s (5) authorised (2) 45:16 bargain (1) 98:2 box (2) 1:16 94:24
22:17 25:20 6:23 7:1,17 8:6 55:8 bargaining (1) 75:11 boxes (1) 105:2
alternatively (3) 41:3 19:5 avail (1) 14:11 base (1) 17:19 branches (2) 81:13,14
77:19 79:2 Arkhangelsky (37) available (11) 47:10 based (15) 8:18,22 breach (5) 4:18 48:22
amend (1) 85:21 4:24 6:25 7:2 11:15 47:11 52:12 71:5 12:8 14:2 15:1 16:3 55:15 71:15 72:3
Americans (1) 78:16 11:20,21,23 12:2 74:7 90:18 91:5,7 17:8 18:10,15 breached (1) 46:18
amounts (1) 83:13 14:3 15:6,24 16:16 92:17,18 97:25 24:21 29:12 38:17 break (8) 15:11 39:2,4
and/or (1) 47:6 16:23 28:3,5 29:24 avoid (3) 26:8 44:21 41:11 46:1 59:5 39:6 90:10 93:14
annual (1) 79:8 32:21 35:16 37:18 84:22 basically (2) 7:16 95:19 96:10
answer (13) 5:21 8:17 37:20,24 47:25 aware (7) 11:22,24 38:19 briefly (1) 1:10
41:17 42:3,5,21 48:6 50:20 61:23 16:23 17:5 62:12 basis (6) 8:21,22 bring (3) 26:24 33:10
48:14 51:19 68:3,9 61:24,25 62:7,18 62:15,17 31:14 44:20 71:4 45:12
68:11 85:22 103:14 63:8,10,16 64:4,15 awful (3) 101:8,8,11 100:22 bringing (1) 77:19
answers (1) 57:18 70:4 76:15 86:20 batch (1) 94:22 brought (2) 10:15
Anti-Corruption (1) Arkhangelsky’s (10) B bear (2) 48:10 55:21 50:21
53:8 4:1 6:16 11:20 16:9 B2/13/17 (1) 74:3 bearing (1) 16:20 BSP (7) 64:7,12 66:17
anticipated (2) 36:2 23:8,14 35:20 36:5 becoming (1) 34:22 67:4,5,17 76:8
B2/13/18 (1) 36:23
37:10 61:21 76:11 beg (4) 1:14 26:18,20 BSP’s (1) 66:11
B2/13/19 (1) 36:23
anticipating (1) 36:25 arose (1) 41:13 27:5 bundle (1) 90:16
B2/13/5 (1) 74:4
Antonenko (3) 1:10 arrangement (5) beginning (2) 96:10 burden (1) 6:22
B2/13/6 (1) 36:19
1:19 3:5 38:13 48:13 66:7 103:21 business (14) 2:5 4:6
back (20) 1:9 3:20 8:2
anxious (6) 45:1 90:6 79:23 81:12 begs (1) 95:14 49:9,13 50:10,19
11:7 14:8 25:8 40:8
90:6 92:14 95:7 arrangements (5) behalf (1) 83:10 51:22 55:16 62:21
41:4 42:8 57:12
101:18 45:13 47:24 65:4 behaved (3) 63:10,13 66:9 74:9,21 75:4
59:16 60:1 65:1
anybody (1) 97:19 76:8 81:19 63:13 81:4
67:24 89:21 90:2
apart (2) 31:4 50:10 article (10) 7:11,15 behaviour (1) 27:24 buy (4) 69:23 74:16
92:7 96:6 100:12
apologies (2) 31:11 11:4 12:21 13:19 believe (4) 18:18 75:2 86:14
102:5
84:21 26:25 55:4 60:21 47:16 72:6 75:16 buying (1) 16:25
backdate (1) 72:7
apologise (3) 57:19 60:24,25 believes (2) 43:23 BVI (10) 2:9 3:8,20 4:3
backdated (4) 71:2
91:9 100:10 asked (16) 5:18 44:2 74:24 4:12 5:4,12 83:4,9
72:8,9,10
apparent (1) 36:24 57:24 58:14 60:3,5 believing (1) 31:13 84:14
background (1) 20:12
apparently (5) 1:15 60:6 61:14 69:22 bells (1) 59:25

C

call (6) 43:8 51:12 54:1 78:16 81:3 90:6

called (8) 10:22 12:7,9 21:9 36:6 53:7 75:25 92:1

Cambridge (1) 96:6 capital (2) 44:19 45:20 care (1) 57:14

carry (2) 3:11 54:18 carrying (1) 4:3 case (49) 2:21 4:1

8:23 10:15 14:1 16:20 18:21 19:1 19:18,21,22,22 20:1,6 21:9 29:12 29:15,16,18 30:25 31:18,23 32:12 34:1 35:16,19,21 35:25 38:2 39:17 42:24 44:1 49:14 52:5 55:19,22 58:16 61:5 64:3 65:5 69:5 70:3 80:13 84:9 86:19 87:22 95:8 103:10 104:4

cases (9) 17:13 37:10 46:22 47:1 53:20 68:15,20,25 101:11

cash (2) 50:11 63:20 cassation (5) 24:6

33:21,22 34:7 89:14

cassational (3) 12:16 14:19 17:20

cause (4) 12:9 16:5,16 19:3

caused (1) 3:16 cent (6) 49:24 63:22

63:22 71:23 74:15 74:17

central (1) 99:20

CEO (6) 24:19,20 28:1 28:3,5 49:3

certain (4) 9:19 40:20 42:12 43:2

certainly (1) 23:15 Cession (1) 52:23 cetera (1) 78:11 chair (2) 78:8,12 challenging (1) 18:11 chance (4) 86:1 92:5

98:22,24 change (9) 33:17

65:21 68:6 71:13 71:16,19,24 80:2 91:19

changed (5) 22:2 47:1 48:13,21 71:19

changing (3) 17:19 49:3 72:4

characteristic (1)

41:14 characteristics (1)
56:23 check (1) 21:10 checked (1) 20:9 chosen (1) 37:24

chronologically (1)

36:8

chronology (1) 35:15 chronology-wise (1)

36:12 circumstances (9)

27:20,23 32:3 33:11,13 42:13

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

108
March 8, 2016 Day 24

66:4 81:6 95:12 15:3 conflicts (1) 41:11 count (1) 51:13 D107/1537/4 (1) Day21/141:1 (1) 65:8 default (13) 30:8 46:5

cite (1) 49:14 Committee (1) 53:8 conflictual (1) 49:3 country (1) 62:4 39:25 Day22/100:1 (1) 60:2 46:12,25 47:5,12
City (1) 81:15 commodities (1) confusing (1) 18:14 couple (2) 82:1 84:21 D122/1954/1 (2) 8:3 Day22/106:7 (1) 60:6 48:18 50:24 55:12
civil (13) 7:12 11:4,18 40:21 connected (2) 32:20 course (20) 11:14 22:22 Day22/26:18 (1) 58:5 55:14 64:9,11,14
12:6,12 13:20,22 common (3) 52:23 33:19 16:4,8 17:2,7 25:24 D122/1954/2 (2) 9:6 Day22/26:8 (1) 57:23 defaults (3) 45:22
16:11 18:21 27:1 53:3 55:10 connote (1) 82:13 34:15 38:15 40:15 23:22 Day22/28:1 (1) 70:10 46:3 47:25
35:23 37:7,14 communicated (2) 7:6 connoted (1) 82:9 42:4,6 46:4 62:23 D122/1954/3 (1) Day22/28:20 (1) defendants (4) 34:10
claim (44) 2:22 3:15 57:15 consequence (2) 65:23 66:4 69:16 12:23 70:11 83:10,16 90:25
4:23 7:1,6,10,10,18 communication (1) 93:19 96:19 74:20 86:6 89:7 D122/1954/4 (1) Day22/42:1 (1) 6:10 define (1) 42:19
8:6,23,24 9:1,2,4,4 41:12 consequences (2) 91:6 15:10 Day22/43:1 (1) 6:12 degree (4) 5:24 6:1,1
9:24 10:22 11:1,6,7 companies (14) 46:23 11:11 17:11 court (87) 3:20 4:12 D122/1954/5 (1) 8:4 Day22/43:2 (1) 6:16 55:9
11:11,12,14,15 47:1 48:12 51:3,14 consider (2) 94:11 4:14,14 8:5,11 D122/1954/6 (1) 9:7 Day22/52:1 (1) 58:13 delay (1) 92:19
12:5,8 14:2,6 15:13 56:7 71:19 73:14 101:14 14:19,23 16:1,22 D122/1954/7 (1) Day22/74:1 (1) 59:16 delayed (1) 1:3
15:14,23 16:3,5,12 74:21,22 76:10,11 considerable (6) 9:14 17:15,18,18,20,21 12:23 Day22/75:4 (1) 59:8 demand (3) 3:16
18:9,16,19 19:6 80:13,14 17:1 44:14 55:21 17:25 18:2,20 D122/1954/8 (1) Day22/84:12 (1) 68:4 45:23,24
20:4 30:14 58:14 company (52) 3:6,14 56:13 57:10 19:12 20:8,24 21:4 15:10 Day22/84:23 (1) 68:9 demanding (1) 75:9
59:3 88:13 89:3 4:19 29:22 30:8 consideration (9) 2:25 22:12,13 24:5,6,10 D131/2151/1 (2) Day23/104:1 (1) demonstrate (1)
claimants (1) 91:18 32:5 33:2 38:18,21 15:18,19 18:2 25:1,1,15,22,24 19:16 21:17 61:14 27:23
claimed (1) 61:24 38:22,25 48:15,18 28:18 30:4,18 32:3 27:2,3,4,12 28:9 D131/2151/10 (1) Day23/114:5-7 (1) demonstrated (4)
claiming (1) 2:9 49:17,18,19,19 51:23 29:11,12 30:6,16 26:19 63:7 29:16 30:16 31:1
claims (10) 6:23 8:20 52:13 61:17 62:6 considerations (1) 31:1,13,20 32:16 D131/2151/2 (2) Day23/65:1 (1) 78:2 32:24
8:24 9:11 10:24 62:21 63:3 65:18 96:17 32:16,18 33:5,14 20:11 25:8 Day23/66:1 (1) 78:3 demonstrates (1)
12:15 18:13,19 65:20 69:13,19 consistent (2) 52:19 33:14,16,21 34:7,9 D131/2151/4 (1) Day23/74:1 (1) 82:6 27:14
21:8 35:24 71:18 73:5 75:9,17 52:20 34:19 37:4 38:24 27:18 days (24) 14:8 35:21 deny (3) 38:7 57:3
clarified (1) 14:20 75:24 78:6,9,12 conspiracy (2) 38:9,11 42:1 54:24 58:16 D131/2151/5 (1) 29:1 35:22 58:2 70:25 83:25
clarify (7) 22:11 51:19 80:7,19,23 81:3,18 consultants (2) 47:6,7 59:6,6,10,13 68:15 D131/2151/6 (1) 93:8 94:14,18 department (1) 47:10
68:4 86:24 87:1,2 82:16,17 85:13 contact (1) 57:15 68:20,25 69:9 19:17 98:10,11,15,17,17 departments (2)
88:7 86:3,10 87:4,14,21 contained (1) 90:21 70:12 72:1 73:12 D131/2151/7 (1) 98:18,25 99:16,16 37:19 45:12
classification (1) 54:2 88:1,9,21,22 91:10 contains (1) 90:18 73:16 87:4,8,9,10 20:11 99:19 100:5,6,14 depend (2) 15:24 16:1
clause (3) 40:1,1,16 company’s (4) 62:23 contemplating (1) 87:18 88:14 89:4,4 D131/2151/8 (1) 100:14,15 101:1 depends (1) 52:24
clear (5) 15:23 25:15 62:25 70:2 86:17 75:3 89:14 93:13 95:5 20:16 days’ (1) 93:14 depositee (1) 79:15
27:6 68:19 70:24 compensation (1) contention (1) 29:13 96:23 101:11,19 D131/2151/9 (1) de (1) 66:8 depositors (2) 56:3,6
cleared (1) 58:12 49:11 contentious (2) 9:12 105:12 26:15 dead (1) 16:7 depository (16) 79:3,3
clearly (1) 74:4 complain (2) 73:8,13 9:13 courts (2) 12:13 72:13 D135/2235/1 (1) deadlocks (1) 41:1 79:5,6,10,19 80:4
client (6) 36:15 37:23 complete (5) 20:20 context (11) 19:6 covenants (3) 46:6,18 35:11 deal (4) 46:24 49:11 80:16,22,23,25
44:7 76:23 77:5,7 40:3 42:15 44:3 26:13 39:12 43:6 57:9 D138/2317/1 (2) 77:17 90:1 81:1,9,12,18,24
clients (6) 25:3 47:16 72:16 58:11 59:15 60:17 cover (1) 53:6 58:17 72:22 dealing (1) 73:16 describe (4) 2:17 31:5
51:1 56:11 62:24 completed (5) 1:11,12 65:6 78:15,20 covered (2) 101:8,10 D138/2317/2 (1) 73:4 deals (1) 39:19 36:8 48:25
99:22 1:20,21,22 79:12 covers (1) 11:3 D138/2317/3 (1) debate (1) 99:3 describing (1) 63:9
clock (2) 94:23 101:12 completely (3) 38:7 continue (1) 12:20 crammed (1) 36:7 73:11 debated (1) 99:4 description (1) 76:6
closed (6) 2:3 4:22 63:11 77:24 Continued (4) 1:7,8 credit (4) 51:2,6,12 D138/2317/5 (2) debating (2) 73:7 destroyed (1) 65:19
46:13 80:20 81:3 completeness (2) 15:7 106:3,4 56:4 58:19 73:3 101:11 detail (2) 76:16 92:12
81:18 15:9 continuing (1) 9:9 creditor (2) 65:22 D153/2566/31 (1) debt (15) 48:17 50:7,9 details (1) 18:22
closing (1) 101:7 complexity (1) 57:5 contract (6) 16:6 31:7 66:10 53:5 63:17,23 74:7,16 determined (4) 31:14
clue (1) 82:23 complied (2) 4:11 41:4 54:20 77:14 creditor’s (1) 66:11 D153/2566/32 (1) 74:24,25,25 75:4,8 61:3 65:25 88:24
co-investment (1) 16:18 77:15 creditors (3) 55:5 53:11 76:3 87:5 88:24 developed (2) 7:11
2:15 comply (1) 42:25 contracts (3) 42:8,20 64:17 68:14 D153/2566/40 (1) debtor (2) 66:18 88:11
code (11) 7:12 11:4 composite (4) 60:8,13 57:9 criminal (7) 16:20 53:25 88:21 developer (1) 2:4
11:18 12:6,12 60:18 61:11 contrary (1) 18:8 17:13 19:3 37:8,9 D153/2566/41 (1) debtor-company’s (1) DG (1) 15:5
13:20,23 16:11 comprises (1) 91:11 control (6) 22:1 62:5 37:10 56:15 54:7 61:8 different (15) 2:5
18:22 19:3 27:1 conceals (1) 9:12 65:18 66:8 68:12 criticism (1) 101:22 D176-D191/2918.1T… debts (1) 61:8 23:15 24:21,22
collaborate (1) 4:12 concentrated (1) 2:3 72:16 cross-default (3) 90:23 December (6) 13:10 33:7 35:13 41:18
collapses (1) 90:4 concentration (1) controls (1) 66:6 45:24 46:3,19 D192/2920/12 (2) 29:8,20 31:7,22 41:18,19 45:13
collateral (3) 67:19 95:21 convenient (3) 10:11 cross-examination (… 60:15,19 32:2 55:11 68:16 73:18
69:15 86:5 concern (2) 50:11 64:16,16 1:8 6:7 35:12 65:2 daily (1) 63:24 decent (2) 92:5 93:12 77:24 85:15
collect (1) 56:5 75:24 conversation (1) 84:20 91:6 93:12 damage (1) 9:14 decided (6) 2:14 3:5 differing (1) 41:19
college (1) 14:8 concerned (6) 35:12 38:16 94:22 96:22 97:11 damages (2) 2:9,23 4:19 17:9 71:19,21 difficult (12) 3:3 14:22
collusion (1) 38:11 36:14 70:3 72:14 COO (1) 15:5 97:22 101:5,6 dare (1) 101:25 decision (38) 2:4 4:13 17:17,21 36:11
come (16) 1:9 8:2 86:19 93:20 cope (1) 76:2 103:25 106:4,7 database (2) 12:13 7:17,20 8:5,8 9:3 41:7,17 42:19 56:1
12:20 18:3,4 47:8 concerning (2) 32:4 copies (1) 92:17 cross-examining (1) 90:14 14:1 16:15 18:20 66:14 102:2 104:9
50:20 56:2 87:11 92:11 copy (2) 58:22 82:4 94:21 date (9) 8:10 25:17 19:18 23:18 24:11 difficulties (2) 8:13
87:19 90:2 92:2 concerns (2) 7:12 cornucopia (1) 23:11 cross-referencing (1) 29:20 31:20,23,24 32:19,20 33:9 95:20
95:7,8 99:6,14 103:20 corporate (2) 47:8 26:21 31:25 32:1 79:18 34:19,19,20 35:8 difficulty (1) 93:10
comes (3) 13:16 74:16 concert (1) 50:15 52:2 cup (1) 96:6 dated (3) 13:10 25:16 42:1 59:2 69:8 dim (1) 43:22
92:4 conclusion (1) 95:8 corporation (1) 47:9 current (1) 23:2 71:8 71:14,16 72:5,18 directions (1) 99:7
comfortable (3) 26:12 conclusions (1) 17:22 correct (18) 19:20 curtain (1) 78:18 dates (2) 8:18 87:24 73:16 74:18,19 director (4) 7:2 14:12
26:14 98:3 condition (2) 42:15 27:22 31:16,18 customer (1) 74:8 day (15) 6:9 31:7 47:2 87:5,9,10,10,19 71:19,24
coming (3) 8:13 94:16 69:3 32:12 33:9 35:18 cut-off (1) 79:18 68:3 92:3,4,6 93:4 89:8,11,12 directors (4) 65:22
101:12 conditions (6) 40:20 52:4 67:15 69:1,1 cynic (1) 69:7 93:9 94:14 95:4,23 decisions (16) 14:20 68:12,21 78:8
commence (1) 88:1 40:24 41:1 42:12 71:3 79:18 80:5,9 Cyprus (1) 40:25 96:8 104:6,6 16:17 17:17 18:1,1 disagreed (1) 10:1
commences (1) 63:25 43:1 57:8 86:1 89:2 98:16 Day16/222:1 (1) 18:7 35:5 37:13 disaster (2) 4:5,7
commencing (1) conducted (1) 11:25 correctly (6) 5:23 D 61:22 58:16 69:21 72:13 disclose (3) 79:10,19
88:10 confectionery (2) 18:16 52:3 65:15 D107/1537/1 (1) Day16/222:10 (1) 73:17 86:12 87:18 91:18
comment (5) 6:16,20 49:18,19 71:8,9 61:25 87:19 101:20 disclosed (4) 79:1,2,8
39:22
56:25 60:12 69:10 configuration (1) 7:16 corresponds (2) 10:5 Day19/62:25 (1) declare (3) 7:25 87:4 90:24
D107/1537/2 (1)
commercial (3) 48:19 confirm (5) 11:21 29:6 99:13 87:6 discloses (1) 79:21
39:25
67:6,23 58:21 59:2 83:25 cost (2) 31:3 55:25 Day19/63:1 (1) 99:3 declared (1) 87:12 disclosure (2) 78:22
D107/1537/3 (1)
commitments (1) 32:9 87:1 costing (1) 55:24 Day21/140:10 (1) declaring (2) 7:21,22 91:13
39:23
committed (2) 11:19 conflict (2) 57:3 64:7 costs (1) 5:4 65:7 deeply (1) 102:16 discontinued (1) 25:2

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

109

March 8, 2016 Day 24

discount (7) 74:12,19 efficiency (1) 101:15 Erokhin (2) 11:22
75:1,5,10,12,19 effort (1) 34:7 19:13
discuss (4) 77:3 87:17 efforts (1) 63:8 err (2) 95:18,18
94:6 103:23 Egor (1) 61:4 especially (3) 6:15
discussed (15) 33:22 EGRUL (1) 80:17 36:24 78:16
37:4,6,11,16,16,25 eight (2) 89:9,13 essentially (5) 9:22
57:6 66:5 76:13 either (9) 24:25 35:21 65:19 73:10,15,20
77:2,10,10,11,14 38:20 58:1 74:8 establish (1) 28:8
discussing (5) 17:15 76:21 88:1 89:25 estimate (3) 93:6 98:9
36:16 67:21 82:16 103:12 98:15
85:12 elegance (1) 7:22 estimates (1) 98:20
discussion (4) 4:9 elegant (7) 6:17,18 estranged (1) 6:24
17:7 59:20 76:20 7:13 10:23 12:7,9 et (1) 78:11
discussions (2) 50:17 16:15 euro (1) 5:8
76:8 emphasise (1) 28:5 euros (2) 5:6,6
disliked (1) 67:9 employees (1) 61:18 evade (1) 48:7
disobey (1) 83:7 employment (2) evaluate (1) 63:2
displeased (1) 37:17 58:14 59:3 evening (1) 104:16
dispose (2) 70:5 86:21 encompass (1) 29:24 event (8) 30:13,14
dispute (5) 32:21 37:4 encourage (2) 17:14 57:24 58:6 69:24
38:1 47:24 102:7 103:13 84:13 86:14 87:4
disputed (2) 31:21,22 encumber (2) 70:5 events (6) 35:15 36:7
disputes (1) 41:11 86:21 36:7,10 37:6 63:12
disputing (1) 36:16 encumbered (2) 30:12 everyone’s (1) 96:17
distressed (5) 45:15 33:1 evidence (29) 6:22
74:7,24 76:3,22 encumbrance (3) 60:9 15:14 16:4,9,22
district (3) 59:6 88:14 61:12 68:13 20:24 25:13 27:9
89:4 encumbrances (1) 27:10,14 32:6,18
divorced (1) 15:25 61:4 34:10,17 36:1,5
document (16) 2:6 endeavour (1) 103:24 47:2 59:18 60:17
8:19 11:8 39:25 endeavoured (1) 61:16,19,21,24
41:8,9,13,14 47:22 33:15 63:7 70:23 82:11
47:23 48:2 59:7 Energomashbank (1) 85:10 87:1 90:20
60:19 90:24 91:3 64:9 evidential (1) 17:18
96:25 enforce (6) 52:17 ex (1) 2:22
documents (18) 14:25 69:18 86:8 88:5,16 exact (1) 87:24
16:10 19:11 25:19 88:18 exactly (9) 5:5,7 6:13
25:21,23 26:2,2,3 enforceable (3) 41:23 7:1 11:6 13:21
31:4 41:15 61:18 41:25,25 24:16 25:2 37:5
71:4 72:7,8,10 79:1 enforced (2) 4:11 exam (1) 103:15
79:5 88:22 example (4) 50:14
doing (5) 7:8 95:3 enforcement (2) 53:17 55:23 75:8
97:1 101:23 102:3 75:21 83:8 exasperating (1) 96:4
domain (1) 75:14 engage (1) 63:8 excellent (1) 105:7
double (1) 54:19 engaged (2) 66:17 exception (1) 3:21
double-check (3) 83:5 exchange (4) 40:19
18:17 19:21,24 England (1) 78:24 55:24 65:13 79:7
dozens (1) 53:20 English (30) 10:3,3,9 exchanged (1) 25:19
Dr (8) 23:8,14 61:21 10:14 12:25 20:18 exclusively (1) 33:19
61:24,25 62:7,18 21:13 26:18,19,22 exist (5) 42:21 43:19
63:8 27:11,16,17 28:16 45:9 55:8 67:24
draft (1) 84:24 28:25 29:8 34:4 existed (1) 76:15
drafting (1) 41:2 41:21 53:24 58:24 existence (1) 77:11
draw (2) 17:22 20:13 58:24,25 60:21 exit (1) 64:16
driving (1) 98:6 65:11 68:9 73:18 exotic (1) 83:5
due (3) 9:2 42:9 45:10 74:3 80:11,11 expect (1) 13:12
Duvernois (1) 61:5 85:11 expected (1) 37:7
entail (1) 71:15 expecting (2) 8:13
E enter (9) 14:10 40:25 38:3
e-mail (1) 104:23 45:7,13,18 47:11 expense (1) 95:4
47:18,21 48:18 expenses (4) 83:13,22
early (8) 35:22 36:2,4
entered (4) 17:12 84:8,11
36:13 45:2,24
42:11 44:20 66:18 experience (23) 39:11
63:16 67:21
entering (4) 15:4 39:14,18,20 40:9
easily (1) 80:5
16:23 17:6 50:17 40:12,16,18 42:17
Easter (7) 93:22 97:8
entirely (3) 65:20 43:6 44:9 45:1,4,22
99:4 100:19,21,25
85:22 96:9 46:2,15 49:8 50:25
102:5
entities (2) 46:12 52:19 54:25 55:2
EBITDA (1) 43:1
74:22 77:7 89:7
economics (1) 6:1
entity (3) 52:2 76:21 explain (9) 1:24 2:13
editors (1) 53:12
82:12 19:5,6 29:18 65:8,9
education (1) 5:24
entries (2) 79:15 74:13 85:3
effect (7) 43:14,19
90:21 explained (4) 1:25
79:14,23 87:11,20
envelope (3) 41:4 76:5 77:24 83:5
103:14
42:8 57:12 explaining (1) 83:20
effected (1) 43:10
equally (1) 95:23 explanation (10) 18:5
effective (2) 4:10,16
equipment (2) 49:23 59:10,13,25 64:17
effectively (4) 23:14
51:24 68:7 82:19,22,24
90:23 97:7 102:25
equity (2) 45:20 71:23 83:9

exposure (4) 39:14 44:14 46:11 52:6
extend (2) 66:17 96:2 extent (7) 15:20 34:18 40:10 72:9 76:19

85:11 96:3 external (2) 63:2 88:2 extinguish (1) 75:8 extract (3) 13:8 29:7

34:8

extracts (1) 90:15 extraordinary (2) 47:4

84:13 extremely (5) 47:19

55:5,14 57:7 101:23

eyes (1) 43:21

F

faces (1) 76:22 facilitate (1) 79:23 fact (19) 9:12 14:11

16:21 19:8 22:11 28:1 31:2 33:3,19 34:22 38:17 40:18 44:25 52:1 72:16 73:8 82:12 88:9 94:19

facto (2) 2:22 66:8 factors (2) 52:24 53:2 factory (1) 49:21 factory’s (1) 49:21 facts (2) 15:13 30:10 factual (4) 15:16 19:5

29:13 49:15 fail (1) 1:21

fair (10) 22:21 28:10 29:13 32:11 37:1 37:12 85:18,22 100:7 104:11

fairness (2) 97:6 101:16

faith (1) 27:24 falls (1) 43:2

far (25) 3:23 4:18 9:1 10:25 14:8 35:12 35:19,19,25 36:12 38:15 45:11 59:20 63:16,21 70:13 72:1 83:11,17,19 84:3 87:3 92:5 94:4 96:16

fault (1) 84:7

fear (5) 96:13 97:3,5 98:1,22

features (1) 39:17 February (2) 76:13,14 federal (3) 21:1,3 35:2 Federation (8) 4:10,13

4:17 7:12,14,19 12:8 74:23

fee (2) 44:21 81:1 feel (2) 35:1 96:15 fees (1) 84:2

felt (1) 103:5 fide (1) 56:10 figures (1) 63:19

file (3) 19:21,22 25:25 filed (6) 3:15 12:8

25:20 35:23 88:13 89:3

files (1) 26:4

final (6) 2:1 17:16,20 34:14 60:23 63:6

finalise (1) 95:13 finalised (1) 92:17 finance (3) 38:21 47:10 76:9

financial (19) 17:5 42:24 43:1 46:2,4 46:10 50:12,16,18 50:21,21 55:15 56:10,12 63:25 64:5,6 90:18 91:4

financier (1) 53:18 find (7) 10:6 36:22

47:12 50:22 82:19 91:2 96:24

finds (2) 26:25 27:4 fine (1) 57:5 finesse (1) 69:8 finish (7) 29:2 45:1

95:6 99:15,25 100:9 102:19

finished (3) 13:4 25:5 54:12

finishing (1) 100:6 fire (1) 57:14 firm (1) 83:18

first (39) 3:1 4:7 7:18 7:23 8:5 9:4 11:16 12:7,10,14,14,15 14:22 19:1,2 21:6 21:11,22 22:12,25 23:15 25:5,14 27:2 27:12 29:11 33:5 34:9,19 35:15 40:1 47:2 48:5 56:23 58:2 65:1 87:8,9 88:2

firstly (1) 7:24 fit (2) 6:11 95:1

five (6) 2:15 3:6,14 4:18 90:8,9

fix (1) 74:4 fixed (1) 31:9

flow (2) 50:11 63:20 fly (1) 92:7

focus (5) 42:10 53:23 71:7,11 101:15 focused (2) 2:5 103:7 follow (2) 43:2 104:7

followed (1) 65:17 following (2) 84:9

94:16

follows (3) 13:2,16 64:12

Food (1) 75:25

Foods (2) 50:1,1 foot (1) 58:15 forced (1) 65:21 foreign (1) 4:14 forged (1) 81:22 form (1) 42:11 formal (1) 66:6 formulating (1) 51:17 forth (3) 45:16 48:1

71:22 forward (3) 8:21

103:13 105:9 found (4) 10:8 28:9 36:20 61:16

founder (1) 82:8 fours (1) 73:14 fourth (2) 52:22 73:4 framework (1) 48:1 France (1) 94:20 fraud (1) 38:14 fraudulent (6) 38:4,6

38:9,9,11 56:14 free (2) 38:25 91:20 freezing (13) 2:10,19 2:23 3:2,8,16,22

4:5,16,21 5:17 83:6 84:13

Friday (17) 3:4 8:12 34:24 90:14 92:7

92:10,15,21 93:16 95:8,25 97:7 103:1 104:2,6,17,20

friend (3) 45:3 93:6 100:5

fruit (1) 48:10 frustrated (1) 12:18 fulfilled (2) 43:11,13 fulfilment (2) 40:3

44:3

full (12) 15:18 33:16 34:1 36:6,10 64:5,7 74:10 81:16 99:16 104:6,6

fully (4) 40:12 50:7 79:1 94:8

fund (1) 50:2

funding (4) 62:24 77:1 77:9 96:5

funds (1) 88:23 further (8) 18:2 27:6

38:5 68:22 84:18 84:20 94:4 106:7

futile (1) 4:2 future (1) 37:1

G

gains (1) 44:19 gather (1) 96:25 general (7) 7:3 14:11

31:1 39:19 41:15 43:18 47:21

generalise (1) 55:20 generalised (1) 43:4 generalising (1) 15:20 generally (2) 39:11

74:6

generate (1) 75:18 generic (3) 41:9,14

44:4

genuine (1) 31:15 getting (3) 5:16 32:6

38:14

gift (3) 9:13 11:3 16:6 gist (1) 71:13

give (5) 25:16 49:12 51:2 84:18 102:20 given (9) 18:6 25:21

49:9 70:25 72:15 72:17 73:13 81:5 95:20

gives (1) 47:5

giving (3) 51:6,12 63:7 go (30) 2:13 3:20 9:7

11:7 14:22,25 18:22 19:16 21:17 25:8 27:21 36:18 53:1 59:16 60:6 65:6 66:1 70:10 80:15,21,23,25 87:8,8,17 94:5 96:18 103:3,4 104:17

goes (8) 26:14 52:15 54:4 73:12 88:3 94:24 100:1,18 going (18) 59:12 65:1 70:4 75:24 86:20

89:23 91:14 92:12 95:3,3,25 96:17 98:8 99:20,23 100:19,20 101:12

Goncharuk (4) 21:24 23:9 92:24 94:5 good (19) 1:6,9 14:18

39:2 50:9,11,11,12 50:13,14,15 51:25 58:22 75:8,16

81:12 89:20 90:3 104:11

govern (1) 41:15 governed (2) 40:25

41:21 graduated (1) 6:2 grateful (6) 23:17

43:15 85:24 89:20 102:16 104:12

great (3) 55:9 57:9 84:11

grey (1) 41:24 grounds (2) 10:25

11:1

group (15) 7:3 9:14 12:1 14:12 15:5 28:2 46:10,11,12 53:21 63:17,20 64:8 65:9 71:18

group’s (2) 40:3 64:6 grouped (1) 36:9 groups (1) 22:14 guarantors (1) 88:16 guillotine (3) 102:25

103:12,13

gun (4) 56:24 57:13 65:14,16

Gunard (2) 59:21,21

H

half (13) 10:6 13:1 27:19 35:15 51:10 51:11 87:22 92:5,6 95:4,23 98:18 99:1

Hall’s (3) 92:16,22 94:11

hand (6) 4:15,17 52:6 72:16 93:16 104:18

handed (3) 2:6,7 19:14

hands (1) 48:24 happen (15) 42:18

44:5,8,13,14 46:22 46:25 47:1,19 48:10 49:13,14 72:8 75:2,15

happened (15) 2:20 3:24 14:24 17:4 32:2 34:6,13 35:4 36:12,13 50:6 55:15,16 67:1 84:1

happening (3) 48:24 53:23 95:15

happens (7) 46:3,19 47:25 48:11 55:14 74:14 100:21

happy (6) 55:13 58:25 74:25 75:1,13 76:25

hard (2) 91:2 105:6 haul (2) 64:25 89:18 head (1) 73:5

hear (2) 34:13 95:17 heard (5) 20:4 67:25 76:16 91:15,16 hearing (6) 9:21 17:2 23:16 24:1 31:10

70:18 hearings (8) 11:14

16:8 17:8,15 22:20 24:17,24 70:17

held (5) 4:1 5:18 78:10,25 79:3

help (2) 5:21 100:11 helped (1) 74:8 helpful (3) 72:21 98:5

105:5 helping (1) 46:24

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

110

March 8, 2016 Day 24

helps (1) 65:5 implications (1) 44:22 intend (1) 73:24
hesitate (1) 17:24 impoliteness (1) intention (1) 97:19
high (3) 43:21 55:9 73:25 Inter-District (1) 21:2
56:1 importance (4) 65:3 intercede (1) 101:19
higher (1) 43:23 71:12,25 72:2 interceded (1) 101:18
HILDYARD (97) 1:6 important (6) 28:4 interest (9) 3:12,17,19
20:25 21:6,12,15 61:2 71:13 72:5 4:20,22 42:22 64:1
22:1,5,8,23 23:23 94:11 104:3 64:2,3
24:5 25:7 27:2 imposing (1) 48:8 interested (7) 5:16
28:23 31:10 32:6 impossibility (1) 34:11 25:10 38:23 51:22
32:13,16 34:2,6,13 impromptu (1) 97:22 71:7 77:6,21
34:16,25 35:4,7 inaccurate (1) 82:6 interesting (1) 89:10
39:4 43:5 48:25 including (8) 18:19 interests (6) 28:1 66:9
54:10 56:21 57:20 24:3 46:7 56:1 72:10 80:15,22
64:21,22 65:13,24 74:21 89:13,14 84:10
66:4,13,23 67:4,8 101:16 interference (1) 35:9
68:2 69:7 70:9,20 incomplete (1) 17:23 interim (1) 17:17
71:6 72:12,20,23 inconvenience (1) international (4)
73:18,23 75:3,22 95:5 46:14,15,20,21
76:12,18 77:23 incorrect (2) 68:10,11 interpreter (4) 1:15
78:5,15 79:12,22 increase (3) 44:19 1:16 5:9 31:11
80:6 81:1,16 82:1 48:16,20 interrupt (3) 17:24
82:11,18 83:2,15 increased (1) 44:8 27:15 100:3
84:2,16 85:20 incur (1) 75:17 interruption (1) 26:9
89:17 90:3,17 91:1 indebtedness (1) intervened (1) 21:1
91:8,22 94:7 95:17 51:11 intervening (1) 101:1
97:14 98:4,8,13,23 independent (1) 21:8 introduce (1) 34:8
99:8 100:7,11 independently (1) 4:2 invalid (3) 7:21 8:1
101:3,17 102:2,9 index (2) 55:24 106:1 17:9
103:11,18 104:13 indicate (4) 18:3 invalidation (1) 16:6
104:15,21 105:5 39:17 44:25 76:2 invalidity (3) 16:13
106:6 indicated (4) 5:11 17:10,10
hired (1) 5:19 18:8 75:25 93:21 invented (2) 2:21,24
history (2) 12:5,10 indicates (1) 20:23 investment (7) 2:16
holder (2) 71:23 78:1 indicating (1) 93:4 43:7 67:8,10,16
holders (1) 81:10 individual (2) 47:9 77:8,18
honest (7) 14:18 55:19 investor (7) 50:12
24:15 42:4 51:18 individuals (3) 13:20 52:25 56:13 61:6
63:10 83:1 98:7 56:6 89:5 74:16 76:25,25
hope (8) 13:17 58:7 indulgence (2) 64:8 investors (1) 77:19
74:15 89:20 90:5 96:2 invests (1) 50:2
92:3 99:15 105:4 inefficiency (2) 94:3 invigilator (1) 88:3
hoped (4) 69:15 85:4 95:5 invite (2) 91:21,21
86:6 100:9 inferences (1) 91:21 involved (12) 2:1 5:14
Hopefully (1) 99:17 inform (1) 90:12 5:15,20 33:24
hopeless (1) 103:22 information (7) 19:9 38:14 49:25 57:11
hoping (1) 92:1 30:3 33:16 75:14 66:21 76:19,19
horrified (1) 91:10 76:17 79:7 90:19 89:6
host (1) 52:24 informative (1) 105:4 involvement (2) 53:23
hours (2) 53:1 101:12 informed (2) 3:25 77:17
housekeeping (3) 4:24 involving (10) 40:19
90:11 104:15 106:8 inherent (1) 12:2 41:12 49:14 50:4
huge (2) 14:13 96:23 initial (3) 68:16 69:9 50:18 59:23 66:25
hundreds (1) 18:12 88:21 67:6,23 75:9
husband (5) 7:2,8,8 initially (1) 68:11 irrelevant (1) 72:17
11:25 17:5 initiate (1) 87:20 issue (10) 15:16,16
initiated (2) 11:13 33:21,22,25 43:12
I 16:16 46:5 72:14,18
idea (2) 68:14 75:16 initio (1) 16:15 83:24
insofar (1) 45:25 issued (2) 24:18,20
ideal (1) 93:21
instance (27) 8:5 issuer (3) 46:2,4 81:10
identified (2) 53:21
12:16 14:23 15:3 issues (1) 103:5
56:23
17:20 21:11 22:12 item (1) 11:4
identify (1) 77:9
22:13 23:1,16 25:6 Izotova (3) 11:17 17:1
identities (1) 79:20
25:14 27:3,12 20:6
illogical (1) 63:11
29:11 33:5 34:9,20
imagine (2) 38:8,10
44:1,15 48:16 J
immaterial (1) 71:20
52:14 70:15 75:22
immediate (1) 75:19 job (1) 102:2
79:20 81:13 89:14
immediately (1) 46:13 jointly (1) 83:23
instances (4) 12:15,19
immovable (1) 49:22 journalist’s (1) 55:4
47:16 81:21
impact (1) 62:25 journey (1) 89:21
instructed (2) 22:19
impelled (1) 16:10 judge (9) 14:16 16:7
66:20
impinge (1) 72:10 16:10,13 17:8 19:9
instruction (2) 66:11
implement (1) 56:17 19:15 22:16,17
66:11
implemented (1) judging (1) 10:23
instruments (1) 56:12
42:24 judgment (16) 8:11
Insurance (5) 61:15
implementing (2) 12:4 14:16,19,23
61:17 62:6,14,20
54:25 56:9 15:8,23 16:2 17:16
Insurance’s (1) 62:9

17:20,21 18:6 20:8 25:6 35:2 88:17

judgments (2) 17:18 25:1

Julia (1) 11:24

June (8) 7:14 8:10 18:24 30:7 62:4 68:14 69:19 86:9

Justice (101) 1:6 11:17 17:1 20:5,25 21:6,12,15 22:1,5,8 22:23 23:23 24:5 25:7 27:2 28:23 31:4,10 32:6,13,16 34:2,6,13,16,25 35:4,7 39:4 43:5 48:25 54:10 56:21 57:20 64:21,22 65:13,24 66:4,13 66:23 67:4,8 68:2 69:7 70:9,20 71:6 72:12,20,23 73:18 73:23 75:3,22 76:12,18 77:23 78:5,15 79:12,22 80:6 81:1,16 82:1 82:11,18 83:2,15 84:2,16 85:20 89:17 90:3,17 91:1 91:8,22 94:7 95:17 97:14 98:4,8,13,23 99:8 100:7,11 101:3,17 102:2,9 103:11,18 104:13 104:15,21 105:5 106:6

justify (1) 2:22 justifying (1) 68:20

K

keen (1) 97:2 keep (1) 103:9
kept (5) 17:19 25:3,3 57:18 89:19

kill (1) 56:15

kind (12) 8:15 10:18 18:10,13,18 40:16 43:4 49:3 52:20 54:19 78:20 96:7

Kirov (1) 59:6 knew (2) 64:5 67:24

know (33) 7:5,7 22:17 37:23 44:1 45:11 48:6 53:16,17 56:15 63:12 70:13 76:14,16 77:5,6 81:20 82:4,25 83:6 83:22 88:12,12 89:7 91:10,25 92:13 93:10 97:10 102:13,15 103:18 103:24

knowing (2) 14:23 101:25

known (2) 53:13,16 Kosova (24) 90:7

91:25 93:1,5,8,16 94:1,13 95:2,10 96:10,12 97:6 99:5 99:8,14,24 100:8 100:12,18,23 102:18,25 104:4

L

land (13) 29:20,25 30:1,22 32:10,25 60:4,11,12 61:2,7 69:19 86:9

landed (1) 84:6 lapse (1) 66:15 large (8) 12:25 15:20

47:9 49:19 63:17 75:19 78:9 81:14

larger (1) 47:8

late (3) 67:21 101:18 102:10

law (19) 5:24 6:1,2 9:19 17:10 18:21 19:1,11 25:22 28:13 40:25 41:21 41:22 70:22 73:19 83:18 85:14 87:3 87:22

lawful (1) 27:5 lawfully (2) 27:1,3 lawyer (5) 5:24 6:3

11:23 18:23 23:14 lawyers (30) 3:3,14,25

5:14,19 6:17 11:20 16:4,9,21 18:24,25 19:5 22:14,19,19 23:8,21 24:16,22 24:23 25:3 33:4,4,4 33:14 41:1 70:15 72:6 83:12

layer (1) 81:24 layman (1) 15:21 lazy (1) 72:12 lead (1) 58:8 leads (1) 101:4

learned (5) 14:16 17:8 45:2 93:6 100:5

leases (1) 8:15 leasing (1) 59:21 leave (4) 3:5 25:21 45:2 103:1

ledger (2) 79:14,25 left (4) 5:1 30:24 39:2

62:3

legal (24) 3:9 4:9 5:3 6:5,8,21 7:14,15,24 12:10 14:20 17:11 17:15 18:9 19:10 47:9 52:10 57:10 70:5,16 83:19,23 86:20 87:20

legal’ (1) 61:5 legally-flawed (1)

71:17 lend (1) 56:6

lender (5) 52:21 54:18 65:20 66:1,6

lenders (1) 48:19 lending (1) 56:4 length (1) 53:1 lengthy (2) 70:12

87:14

Lentelephonestroy (2)

78:7 81:15

let’s (3) 44:16 64:23 68:19

letter (1) 62:4 letting (1) 97:3 level (3) 34:12,14

93:13 levels (1) 18:2

liabilities (4) 43:10,17 56:2 61:7

liability (6) 43:12,13 47:18 52:17 73:5 80:14

life (3) 3:2 4:8 36:10 light (1) 33:10

liked (2) 96:22 97:23 likes (1) 97:24

limit (2) 46:13 98:6 limited (5) 73:5 80:14

80:19,23 96:21 limits (1) 46:10 line (10) 37:19 57:6

57:24 58:5 60:7 62:1 63:9 68:5,8 99:12

lines (3) 42:21 44:24 58:15

liquidity (1) 75:19 list (3) 23:3 53:11

54:13 listen (1) 73:24

literally (2) 41:4 42:8 litigation (9) 5:13 36:3 37:1,8,14,25 38:3

95:6 97:16

little (10) 10:18 66:17 76:17 77:3 82:5 97:15 98:1 102:10 102:19,20

live (2) 7:5 83:21 living (1) 17:3

LLC (2) 80:22 82:19 loan (19) 3:12,13 4:20

29:22 30:21 33:21 40:13 45:23 46:17 46:18 48:1 49:12 51:7 54:20 64:2 87:5,18 88:15 89:12

loans (8) 40:5,7 42:16 45:25 48:17 49:25 67:19 75:11

logic (10) 68:10,11,16 68:17 69:22,23 80:6 86:13,14 97:1

logical (1) 82:19 London (2) 4:1,25 long (7) 57:19 59:12

64:25 65:2 89:18 98:8,23

longer (9) 43:2 62:5 87:23 89:13 92:3 93:5 100:14 101:4 103:15

look (34) 6:9,13,15 8:2,8,18 9:5 10:9 12:23 14:6 16:19 17:17,19,21 23:11 36:19 39:21 46:9,9 48:24 52:5 53:4 55:19,23 58:23,25 60:23 61:25 74:1 84:22 87:24 89:10 89:11 92:14

looked (2) 35:6 99:2 looking (9) 4:4 6:15

10:4,13 28:16 40:1 41:2 75:12,18

looks (6) 4:4 29:11 55:3 56:24 59:3 91:2

Lord (74) 17:24,24 22:21,25 28:22 32:12 34:12,15,15 39:1 43:15,16 49:6 57:1,19,21,22 64:19 65:21 67:7 69:2,11 72:19,21 72:25,25 73:20,24 80:1 84:21 85:17 85:17,23,23 89:16 89:16 90:1,5,18 91:7,13,23,24,24 92:9 93:3 94:10 95:7,17 98:1,11 99:2,2,10,10 100:13,16,16 101:3 101:6,6 102:22,23

103:3,3,17 104:14 104:18,24,25 105:4 105:10,10 106:5

Lordship (32) 1:5 22:22 23:4,9 25:5 35:10 39:8 45:3 54:8 59:14 63:14 64:19 72:19 73:2 90:12,13,15 91:24 92:13,19,22 94:10 94:16 97:2 99:2,6 99:10,19 101:14 103:9,10 104:20

Lordship’s (7) 23:2 26:24 35:3,10 61:20 93:24 105:1

loss (3) 52:7 68:24,24 losses (3) 3:18 55:21

75:18

lost (10) 12:14,19 32:6 68:15,21 69:5 69:24 70:4 86:14 86:19

lot (12) 25:19 36:15 41:2 47:3,15 49:19 54:24 77:7,21 101:8,8,11

lots (5) 40:24 50:3 78:10 81:13 90:20

low (1) 63:20 lower (5) 10:6,18

17:17 26:14 27:19 lucky (2) 98:21,23 lunch (1) 89:19

M

main (7) 21:6 30:4,11 30:19 33:20 63:19 94:13

maintaining (1) 95:21 major (6) 8:25 16:17 44:21 45:11 50:2

75:10 majority (1) 73:20 making (1) 95:19

Malysheva (10) 8:12 12:18 36:2,14 37:7 37:16 38:7 50:20 77:3,10

Malysheva’s (1) 38:5 management (13)

10:1,1 21:24 22:3 22:15,16,19 38:18 42:23 46:25 48:12 68:6 71:20

management’s (1)

22:18 managers (2) 48:15

48:22

Managing (1) 61:4 map (2) 77:17 92:14

March (10) 1:1 36:2,4 36:13 58:1,9,10,12 71:1 105:13

Marine (5) 9:14 12:1 28:2 63:20 65:9

mark (1) 100:8 market (8) 29:14

31:16 46:2 55:16 61:3 63:2,5 67:25 markets (3) 46:4,20

56:10

Maslennikov (1)

24:20 match (1) 20:9

material (3) 9:7 72:4 101:9

materials (2) 19:13,14

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

111

March 8, 2016 Day 24

matrix (1) 49:16 matter (15) 18:23
19:8 22:11 40:18 44:25 62:16 68:24 68:25 71:6 76:9 80:19,24 83:20 101:7 103:9

matters (6) 62:12 92:11 98:25 99:3 104:11,15

Matvienko (1) 35:9 mean (20) 6:18 31:8 31:12 34:3 51:7,8

56:16 58:9 67:9 74:13 76:15 77:5 77:13 84:15 85:3,9 97:4,5 100:20 101:24

meaning (2) 77:25

82:8

means (13) 14:16 17:11 55:14 66:10 70:19,24 78:17 81:20 88:23 93:17 97:7 100:24 101:25

meant (10) 8:16 11:7 13:10 14:10 58:12 61:13 63:14 70:15 74:5 78:20

mechanism (1) 57:2 mechanisms (2) 56:5

56:12

Mechel (2) 75:9,9 meeting (4) 36:25

37:14 71:14 79:9 meetings (1) 71:3 members (1) 78:10 memorandum (2)

19:10 39:21

memory (3) 1:21 18:18 78:13 mention (1) 92:11

mentioned (8) 3:4 6:4

7:17 11:18 17:12 23:17 27:20,23

Mercury (1) 91:4 middle (4) 23:4,25 29:3 66:16

million (3) 50:4 51:11

51:12

mind (8) 14:17 16:21 59:14,17,19 61:12 74:5 80:10

minds (1) 97:4 minority (1) 73:8 minus (1) 61:3 minutes (4) 39:1,4

90:8,9 minutiae (1) 41:3

Mironova (7) 93:20,22 97:7 98:13 100:18 102:4,24

mislead (1) 31:13 misquoting (1) 84:23 missed (1) 22:23 mistaken (3) 14:5

63:18 93:7 model (6) 42:24 43:1

50:12,21,22 55:15 models (2) 50:18,18 moment (4) 21:14

29:19 39:2 98:9 moments (1) 11:18 Monday (3) 104:4,6

104:16

money (6) 49:20 50:2 56:4,5,7 64:1

months (3) 89:9,9,13 morning (3) 1:6,9

75:23 73:14 option (2) 37:5,25
mortgaged (1) 61:7 notices (3) 70:25 71:2 options (1) 74:6
Moscow (1) 55:23 71:8 order (20) 2:10,19,23
move (5) 18:7 41:23 notification (1) 72:15 3:2,8,16,22 4:5,8
94:1 105:3,8 notifications (2) 70:21 4:16,21 5:17 33:13
moved (4) 3:5 4:25 71:22 55:10 63:1,19
32:25 67:18 null (5) 7:22,25 11:5 68:12 83:6 84:13
moves (1) 93:18 11:12 16:14 88:23
moving (4) 35:13 97:5 nullity (3) 10:22 18:10 orderly (1) 94:12
97:6,7 18:15 ordinary (1) 66:1
multiplied (1) 64:3 number (16) 8:23,23 organisation (1) 53:7
municipal (1) 59:6 19:21,22 20:1,6 organised (1) 102:14
24:4,4 39:16 53:21 organogram (2)
N 57:9 64:17 74:6 104:19,25
N9/9/36 (1) 60:22 79:1 90:15 100:15 original (1) 48:23
numbered (1) 54:12 Orkla (3) 50:1,1 75:25
name (4) 49:17 78:16
numbers (1) 20:9 Oslo (5) 9:14 12:1
78:17 81:7
28:2 63:20 65:9
named (1) 21:19
O ought (4) 30:25 32:14
names (2) 79:11 80:2
55:20 56:16
narrow (1) 43:3 object (1) 58:8
outcome (1) 50:16
National (1) 53:7 objection (1) 58:8
outstanding (1) 52:17
natural (3) 55:6 96:18 objective (3) 31:19
Overall (1) 37:4
96:19 69:25 86:15
overdue (1) 54:20
naturally (2) 3:13 obligation (2) 32:4
overpaid (2) 3:19 4:23
37:21 33:1
overpay (1) 4:20
nature (1) 65:4 obligations (10) 30:5
overpaying (1) 3:17
near (1) 25:11 30:13,14,20 31:2,6
overspilling (2) 93:9
necessarily (1) 103:12 32:10 37:21 40:4
93:17
necessary (3) 17:19 44:3
overstating (1) 97:20
35:1 82:6 obtain (2) 3:20 87:18
overturned (4) 14:19
need (20) 8:8,18 obtained (1) 89:8
35:5,6,7
14:25 17:16 18:17 obvious (2) 30:9
owed (1) 49:19
20:16 21:17 39:2 58:11
owned (2) 71:18
43:17 52:5 55:19 obviously (14) 17:25
74:22
77:21 78:2 93:14 21:24 23:7 34:23
owner (5) 50:5,7 61:9
94:5 95:6,8 96:11 42:10 52:14 56:19
78:17 82:21
101:9 102:12 76:22 89:22 91:13
owners (4) 78:23
needed (1) 38:25 97:17 99:25 101:7
79:11,20 81:9
needing (1) 100:4 101:13
owns (2) 73:13 79:17
needs (8) 17:9 30:3 occasions (2) 47:14

57:6,14 87:24 58:7
P
100:1,1 101:14 occur (1) 44:5

negative (2) 30:22 occurs (3) 46:17,19 page (50) 6:9,11 8:17
63:4 47:5 9:6,9 10:3 11:8
negatively (1) 62:25 offence (1) 55:13 13:1,25 15:11
negotiating (1) 75:12 offer (1) 75:13 20:10,17,18 21:7
negotiation (5) 47:12 offered (1) 50:21 21:17 23:4 25:11
47:18 48:4,7,10 officers (1) 47:10 25:12 26:8 27:7,17
negotiations (3) 47:5 official (1) 55:10 28:23,24 29:4
47:22 49:7 okay (5) 11:10 28:6 39:22,24 53:6,10
nervous (1) 37:22 44:17 52:5 91:22 53:24 54:3,5,9
network (1) 81:14 old (5) 9:25 22:16,18 56:23 57:13 58:15
never (4) 40:22 76:13 24:18 78:12 61:20 65:7 73:11
81:17 97:16 OMG (8) 7:3 8:25 9:23 73:12 84:24,25,25
nevertheless (2) 28:8 14:12 15:5 24:13 85:2,2,3 91:3 99:10
30:3 35:23 76:14 99:11,11 106:2
new (9) 10:1 20:24 OMG’s (1) 25:2 pages (2) 12:22 90:24
21:24 22:3,15,19 OMGP (4) 23:6,7,13 paid (5) 3:1 42:22
24:20 25:13 61:8 28:10 83:9,11 84:1
newspaper (1) 75:15 Omsk (1) 81:15 Panfilova (1) 53:18
nominal (6) 15:17 once (10) 26:14 35:15 paper (3) 64:8 67:6,23
18:11 44:10,21,21 43:12 44:5 52:8 par (4) 42:3,6 46:4
78:1 54:2,12,16 79:8 74:20
nominee (2) 78:20 88:17 paragraph (33) 2:13
79:5 one-off (1) 67:2 9:9,18,20 10:13
nomineeship (2) 81:5 one-word (1) 48:14 12:24,25 13:6,15
81:8 ones (2) 11:20 67:20 13:19,24,25 20:20
non (2) 75:6 99:20 ongoing (1) 50:11 21:6,20 23:24
non-payment (1) onwards (2) 65:7 99:3 26:23 27:13,13,16
61:18 OOO (1) 82:19 27:19 28:16 29:3,6
normal (9) 39:18 40:8 opened (1) 17:13 36:24 37:12 60:23
40:15 41:8 45:6,23 operated (1) 71:13 60:25 73:4 74:2
50:24 52:20 65:8 operations (4) 51:22 76:1,1 87:13
Norwegian (1) 50:2 63:1,24,24 paragraphs (8) 10:4
Noskov (1) 61:4 opinion (3) 4:2 33:8 10:20 20:13,15,22
note (5) 5:8 35:3,10 33:10 25:12 36:19,22
61:20 105:1 opportunities (1) 77:7 parallel (1) 88:8
notice (3) 72:17 73:9 opposed (1) 15:18 pardon (4) 1:14 26:19

26:20 27:5 piece (1) 47:13 18:9 43:18,20
Paris (1) 95:16 pitching (1) 77:12 46:14,21 48:5,11
part (19) 8:20,25 14:9 place (5) 17:7 44:10 55:20 67:20
27:24 28:9 46:14 75:6 79:14 105:3 practices (1) 39:19
46:20 49:9,10,11 plaintiff (3) 9:11 10:15 practising (1) 6:3
49:13,21 65:22 24:1 preamble (1) 59:5
73:6 74:9,18 85:15 plaintiff’s (1) 9:21 precedent (2) 7:16,25
88:7 103:22 plan (2) 38:5,8 precisely (1) 12:17
participants (1) 63:2 planned (1) 3:7 prefer (2) 10:12
participate (1) 21:4 planning (1) 8:14 100:14
participation (1) 84:15 plant (1) 49:23 preferable (1) 75:20
participatory (2) planted (1) 51:24 Preferably (1) 74:8
80:15,22 please (22) 1:5 11:7 preference (2) 76:5
particular (16) 18:19 27:21 37:3 39:8 93:22
26:9 31:25 36:14 57:22 58:13,17 prejudice (2) 97:11,19
37:22 40:5,6 41:8 59:8,18 60:2,22,23 prejudiced (1) 97:18
43:12,13 44:7 61:22 63:7,15 preliminary (1) 2:17
52:14 53:22 66:12 70:10 74:1 87:2 premature (1) 94:7
70:18 84:9 93:2 104:9,14 premise (4) 6:23
parties (19) 9:23 14:9 pledge (12) 29:24 37:13 100:4 102:23
26:1 40:10,14,23 30:1,20,20 32:11 preparation (3) 95:13
41:19 42:1 44:13 47:17 85:6,15 96:9 97:25
45:14 50:14 55:12 88:17,18,22 89:1 prepare (4) 95:1,12,23
57:15 66:3 67:18 pledged (9) 29:21 103:2
72:11 75:8 95:6 30:5 33:20 43:25 prepared (4) 74:16
101:16 49:22 52:15,18 83:2 93:23 102:10
Partner (1) 61:4 69:15 86:5 preparing (2) 93:13
partners (3) 45:12,16 pledger (5) 70:7 85:15 94:22
49:10 86:23 88:6,20 presence (2) 21:21
parts (1) 9:8 pledges (6) 39:13 51:4 23:2
party (13) 12:11 15:4 51:16,25 57:4 present (4) 10:15
15:5 21:4 24:2 68:13 56:10 68:18 98:9
31:22 45:7 52:22 plot (10) 29:20,25 presented (1) 23:21
52:22 53:1 74:24 30:1 33:1 60:11,12 press (2) 39:3 102:9
75:1 76:25 61:2,7 69:18 86:9 pressing (1) 101:4
passage (1) 79:4 plots (1) 30:22 pressure (1) 103:6
Pause (5) 1:17 6:14 plus (3) 90:24 98:18 presumed (1) 30:11
13:3,25 37:3 101:1 pretence (1) 6:23
pauses (1) 96:23 pm (3) 39:5,7 105:11 pretext (2) 14:15 15:2
pay (11) 44:18 61:6 point (17) 9:19 12:21 pretty (2) 78:9 97:17
64:1,1,2,12 81:1,9 13:21 24:23 25:10 prevailed (1) 12:16
83:12 84:2,3 28:4 29:22 38:16 prevented (1) 2:18
paying (3) 3:12 32:13 50:17 54:16 63:1 previous (4) 9:9 24:18
64:18 72:21 73:12 81:18 30:17 31:24
payment (1) 84:15 84:12 100:17 previously (3) 25:23
payments (2) 40:6 104:18 29:23 50:3
63:23 points (3) 14:20 91:14 price (22) 18:12 29:14
peculiarities (1) 45:10 92:13 29:17 30:17 31:14
people (12) 19:2 41:3 police (1) 35:17 32:11,25 33:11,17
41:18,20,20,23 political (1) 35:9 33:21,25 44:10,21
42:7 49:5 53:12 popular (1) 67:7 60:3,7,8,9,13,18
55:17 78:10 81:20 Poroshina (1) 23:6 61:3,6,11
perception (1) 78:1 ports (5) 7:3 9:15,23 principle (1) 77:11
perfect (1) 97:16 14:12 15:5 printing (1) 92:18
perfectly (1) 102:10 position (13) 24:2,3 prior (3) 7:13 20:8
perform (1) 66:10 32:8 38:24 48:18 87:16
performed (1) 43:17 52:8 64:6 69:5 private (4) 50:2 74:21
performing (1) 37:21 74:14 91:19 93:12 80:21 94:6
period (3) 17:25 36:6 94:8 104:9 probability (1) 12:1
63:20 positions (2) 9:22 probably (12) 18:12
permission (1) 3:21 23:20 38:22 49:24 57:1
permits (1) 54:18 possession (1) 51:14 58:19 72:21 90:6,9
person (6) 21:19,22 possibility (3) 26:5 90:9 94:2 96:6
56:8,9,19 82:12 76:20 77:12 101:18
personal (2) 48:7 81:8 possible (16) 26:6 problem (8) 31:9 46:7
persons (1) 21:8 29:16,17 37:5 63:19 74:25 76:23
pertaining (2) 8:24 9:4 38:10 59:15,22 77:11 84:5 101:3
Peterhof (3) 49:17,18 60:20 68:13 69:20 problems (1) 41:13
50:5 85:1,14 86:11 87:3 procedural (1) 71:15
Petersburg (3) 46:8 95:9 98:6 procedure (4) 52:10
50:6 83:18 possibly (7) 13:12 75:21 85:6 87:16
photos (1) 104:21 19:20,20 26:4 36:4 procedures (3) 41:10
phrase (1) 54:15 75:24 93:9 48:3,3
physical (1) 96:19 post (1) 2:22 proceeding (2) 16:2
physically (1) 98:7 potential (2) 37:25 102:18
pick (3) 72:24 92:11 38:1 proceedings (28) 1:3
92:21 power (2) 24:17,19 2:9 3:25 4:3,25 5:4
picks (1) 73:12 powers (1) 24:21 5:16,18,20 16:16
picture (1) 31:1 practice (11) 7:14,15 17:15 25:24 34:1

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

112

March 8, 2016 Day 24

37:9 38:24 70:12 71:9 83:4,10 85:16 87:9,16,21,25 88:4 88:10,25 89:6

process (4) 47:11 51:8 66:1 88:8

produce (2) 34:10,11 produced (2) 34:9

89:23 professional (2) 18:23

95:21

Professor (3) 92:16,22 94:11

proffering (1) 31:23 profile (5) 43:21,23 44:6 46:10 48:16

progress (2) 102:6,14 project (11) 1:10,12

1:19,22 2:16,19 3:5 38:18,19,20 49:25

projects (2) 2:2,4 pronunciation (1)

78:7 proof (1) 16:5

proper (2) 15:18 32:11

properties (1) 51:24 property (6) 56:20

66:20,21,25 67:16 67:18

proposing (1) 34:21 protecting (1) 56:3 protection (4) 65:24

69:4 81:21,24 protracted (3) 17:25

47:11 75:20 prove (4) 16:22 32:22

33:13 105:4 provide (4) 16:5 59:10

59:13 77:1 provided (7) 19:9

29:24 31:4 33:17 54:19 69:4 82:4

proving (1) 32:22 provisions (1) 57:10 public (3) 75:14 78:11

80:21

publicly (2) 90:18 91:7 puff (1) 64:23 purchase (4) 30:17

32:14 57:9 59:22 purchased (1) 44:15 purchaser (2) 32:13

75:6

purchasers (1) 68:23 purchasing (1) 27:25 purpose (1) 79:22 purposes (1) 78:18 pursue (1) 89:25 push (1) 45:23 pushed (1) 97:9

put (9) 8:21 54:23 56:21 65:14 84:23 91:16 96:8 100:11 103:13

puts (1) 68:7 putting (3) 23:18

85:18 103:19 pyramid (1) 63:25

Q

qualify (1) 85:21 quarters (1) 4:21 question (24) 5:22

23:2 24:15 40:13 40:15 41:18 42:3,6 42:10,21 43:5 51:5 51:18,19,21 52:3

56:8 62:18 63:6 76:10 77:24 86:25 95:15 100:8

questions (27) 17:2 23:18 26:9,13 44:24 45:3 57:24 60:3,5,6 61:15 62:12 64:19,21 68:5 69:23 78:5 82:2 84:16,18,19 86:13 90:13 93:14 101:15 103:6 106:6

quick (2) 65:10 74:1 quickly (3) 85:11 95:9

101:19

quite (40) 1:25 3:3,9 3:15 6:5 12:5,18 14:19,20,24 25:19 26:2,4 29:15,16,17 30:8 33:9 37:14,22 37:23 44:14 47:3 52:23 53:13 54:24 55:4,22,24 58:25 63:17 64:17 67:1,7 72:7 74:14 75:15 83:6 93:3 96:11

quizzing (1) 101:19

R

raiding (4) 53:8,9,22 55:1
raise (3) 17:1 38:21 48:17

raised (1) 91:14 ranked (1) 76:4 ranking (1) 55:9 rare (2) 47:20 55:14 rate (2) 74:19 75:12 rating (10) 62:5,8,9,13

62:13,20,23,24

63:1,4

rationale (3) 80:6 81:5

82:15

re-examination (3)

57:21 73:1 106:5 reach (3) 69:16 85:5

86:7 reached (3) 54:8

69:20 86:10 read (29) 10:20,21

13:3 14:18 15:9 17:16 27:8 28:13 28:14 29:3,8 34:3 35:19 36:5 47:22 54:2,6,16,22 58:24 61:1 68:8 75:14 85:11,20,24 92:23 100:2 101:21

reading (8) 12:20 27:17,18 28:10 31:16,19 37:1,12

ready (3) 26:16 54:10 61:6

real (5) 2:24 3:18,19 79:11 102:12 realisation (3) 51:9

65:5 85:5

realise (1) 96:5 realised (1) 38:3 realises (1) 49:2 really (47) 4:4 13:12

14:22 15:9 17:19 26:21 34:20,21 36:25 37:13 40:2 44:23 47:15 48:14 67:10,12 71:25 73:7,21 76:5,17 79:13 81:6 82:25

84:8 90:22 93:13 regulations (1) 45:10 9:25 23:3
93:19 94:1,17 reiterate (1) 72:3 represented (1) 23:6
95:14 96:14,15,15 rejected (1) 32:17 repurchase (1) 43:9
97:5,11 98:5,21,23 related (7) 18:21 require (4) 42:23 43:9
99:11,18 100:13,13 24:25 33:3 53:2 43:24 48:3
100:23 101:9 102:8 60:11,12 66:21 requirements (1)
104:3 relation (3) 3:17 61:16 78:22
reason (7) 12:17 66:18 researched (1) 53:20
24:13 38:2,12,13 relations (1) 77:8 researchers (1) 53:21
44:5 94:15 relax (1) 48:24 reserve (1) 91:20
reasons (1) 95:9 released (3) 77:22 resolution (1) 47:24
recall (39) 2:10 3:23 89:16,21 resolved (1) 50:23
3:24 4:18 5:1,5,7 relevance (1) 76:17 resort (2) 49:1,4
6:13 7:1,10 9:1 relevant (4) 72:13 resource (1) 95:5
11:6 12:4 13:12 82:13 88:15 91:17 respect (16) 11:19,25
14:8 19:8 24:16,24 reliability (1) 63:3 16:6 18:20 39:15
25:1,17,17 30:10 relied (4) 11:17 12:5 42:9 48:19 66:19
35:10,19,25 36:12 12:11 19:2 66:20 69:6,9 75:10
37:5 38:15,19 72:1 relies (1) 13:19 77:16 78:6 94:8
78:4 82:10 83:11 rely (2) 16:11 46:6 103:20
83:13,17,19,22 relying (1) 18:16 respected (2) 53:13
84:1 93:4 remains (3) 93:11 53:16
receive (1) 52:9 94:19 96:7 rest (2) 92:14 95:11
received (2) 3:8 50:8 remember (13) 6:6 restaurant (1) 41:5
recognise (1) 24:11 11:22 18:16 59:17 restore (1) 35:14
recognised (1) 9:24 60:4 66:14,15 restructure (1) 74:9
recollect (4) 36:11 72:14,18 78:1 82:3 result (3) 49:9 51:14
65:6 66:24 90:19 83:13 99:9 104:1
Recollecting (1) 65:13 remembered (1) 5:12 resulted (1) 35:9
recollection (2) 5:3 remembers (1) 24:9 results (1) 9:14
8:16 removal (1) 68:20 returned (2) 42:14
reconvene (1) 64:23 remove (1) 62:19 43:25
record (3) 32:7 34:3,3 Renord (4) 1:22 2:22 review (1) 103:9
recourse (4) 70:1,3 70:17 76:9 revised (2) 104:19
86:17,18 Renord’s (2) 72:6 105:2
recover (2) 74:15 83:24 revoked (2) 62:25
85:15 Renord-Invest (1) 63:4
recovered (1) 49:24 71:1 revolve (1) 43:5
recovery (8) 48:20 repaid (4) 40:6,7 50:7 rhetoric (2) 64:11,11
50:9 52:11 54:19 74:10 rid (2) 5:16 76:23
75:6,20 77:2 88:15 repay (4) 40:13 43:3 right (67) 2:6 6:4 7:9
reduce (2) 51:11 52:16 88:23 9:3 11:11,15,19
100:15 repaying (1) 49:12 12:2,21 13:21,23
reducing (2) 45:20,20 repayment (2) 42:15 14:2,9,9,12 15:3,21
refer (2) 46:15 70:11 45:24 16:12,24 18:15
reference (12) 13:7,8 repeat (1) 41:20 20:2 21:2,10 22:3
20:5 25:14 27:8 replaced (1) 68:12 23:12 24:7 26:7
35:11 52:22 59:24 replacement (3) 65:17 27:24 28:6,9,12
78:2 82:5 90:22 68:21 69:10 32:11 34:25 39:13
91:3 repo (38) 19:7,10 31:7 43:16 51:12 52:5
referred (3) 16:13 36:17 38:1,4 39:11 60:14 62:19 65:21
25:10 58:15 39:12,19 40:17,18 68:2,22,24 69:11
referring (6) 13:22 40:22 42:10 43:7,7 70:20 71:2,24 73:6
16:12 28:6 52:1 43:8,13 45:7,18 73:13 75:7 76:18
76:11 80:12 46:24 48:12 50:24 77:23 78:15,21
refers (4) 9:11 14:1,9 51:3,15 54:19 79:13 80:1 82:11
16:8 56:14,18,22,22 87:7 89:15 91:20
refinance (1) 74:9 65:16 66:19,21,25 91:22 93:3 94:23
refinancing (3) 75:23 67:10,10,11,16,22 94:25 98:10 100:5
76:10,21 repoed (1) 48:15 105:3
reflect (1) 45:14 report (24) 13:9,9,11 rights (14) 2:14 7:3,12
reflected (1) 30:2 13:13 25:16,18 12:12 13:16 18:10
reformulate (1) 51:6 26:5 29:7,15 30:16 33:23 45:25 52:21
refused (1) 47:18 31:5,6 32:24 33:6,7 69:18 70:2 85:19
regard (22) 3:10 4:1 33:15,16 34:8,8 86:8,17
4:25 7:11,15 11:1 53:7 56:24 92:16 ring (1) 59:25
32:9 33:1 37:9 38:1 92:23 94:11 rise (3) 47:5 84:18
55:7,7,21 60:13 reporting (3) 30:2 95:25
61:7 65:4 83:14,23 37:20 63:22 risk (10) 30:13 43:21
87:5,18 89:11 reports (1) 56:20 43:23 44:6 46:10
102:6 repos (6) 44:9 67:6,9 48:16 74:17 75:1,6
region (1) 36:21 67:13,15,16 100:22
register (4) 56:2 79:24 representation (1) risks (4) 30:7 36:16
80:3 81:23 23:12 38:25 48:20
registered (1) 80:17 representative (9) road (2) 77:17 99:21
registering (1) 78:23 9:21 21:23,23,25 room (1) 57:3
registers (1) 81:22 22:6 23:5,13 24:7 roubles (2) 29:23 61:5
registrar (1) 78:25 24:11 round (1) 96:14
regret (1) 34:22 representatives (2) RUB (18) 13:7 29:13

29:16 30:15 31:3 32:2,9,13,23,24 33:19 44:11,17 55:25,25 60:7,16 63:18
rule (1) 26:4

ruled (2) 16:14 17:9 ruling (1) 12:3

run (4) 12:12 64:22 69:8 75:1

running (1) 103:25 Russia (19) 7:24 34:20

41:18 42:7,7 45:11 45:18 50:3 52:23 53:14,22 55:7,22 70:12 72:8 75:9 81:22 83:8 92:8

Russian (70) 4:10,13 4:14,16 5:24,25 7:11,14,19 8:3 10:6 10:7,10,12,16,17 11:18 12:6,8,10,11 12:13,24 13:17,17 13:22 16:11,22 17:10 18:9,21 19:1 19:11,17 20:15,18 20:19,21 25:9,21 26:14,17,21 27:8 28:13,15,19,21 29:3,5 30:1 31:10 36:20 41:22 45:11 53:5,25 54:4 58:18 58:23 70:22 72:1 72:13 74:2,22 75:10,15 85:14 87:3,22

S

sake (2) 44:16 79:21

Salans (1) 83:18 sale (18) 13:7 18:11

29:19 30:17 31:15 31:16 44:10 50:18 57:8 59:22 60:3,7 61:2 65:25 75:4,4 75:23 88:25

sarcastic (1) 6:20 sarcastically (1) 6:18 Savelyev (11) 93:18

94:16 96:11 98:9 98:21 99:5 100:21 102:21,24 103:2 104:7

saw (4) 25:14 48:5 80:17 94:25

saying (21) 3:16 14:5 23:14 33:2,17 37:18,20 47:3 55:2 59:5 62:8 68:17 73:20,22 78:20 85:7,12,17,18 87:13 94:18

says (10) 13:20 18:6 20:3 27:9,14 34:3 42:25 61:4 82:22 99:8

Sberbank (1) 46:8 scan (4) 20:12 26:8

65:10 68:6

Scandinavia (7) 60:12 61:15,17 62:6,9,14 62:20

scenario (4) 30:22 37:24 42:24 49:3

scheme (6) 54:1,18,25 55:1,1 56:9

schemes (2) 53:22

56:5

screen (10) 6:11 8:3 9:6 12:22 20:10 25:9 39:22 53:10 60:22 84:23

screens (2) 15:8 26:7 scroll (22) 9:5 12:22 15:7 20:10,16,19 21:13,15 22:7 23:19,21 26:7,15 27:15 28:15,25 39:24 53:10,24

54:7,9 73:11 scrolled (2) 26:17 54:4 scrolling (1) 26:12 scrolls (1) 73:3

se (1) 87:15 search (1) 12:13

second (18) 9:4,5 10:4 11:4 12:24 20:14 20:20 21:18,19,23 22:13 25:11 26:24 27:15 37:3 62:18 74:5 87:9

secondary (1) 51:23 secondly (2) 7:24

84:12

section (9) 11:17 12:6 12:11 13:22 16:11 18:17,21 19:2 28:12

securities (3) 67:6,23 78:23

security (12) 42:12 43:8,24 44:9 52:9 56:22 66:18 67:13 67:15,17,19 80:16

see (56) 8:10,17 9:8 9:10,16,18,23 10:19,25 12:13 13:24 21:5,18,22 22:22,23 23:4,9,24 24:2 25:9 28:6 40:17 41:13 44:6 46:22 47:23 52:6 53:6,11,15 54:1,21 55:24 57:23 58:3 59:5,15 60:10 62:7 62:10 64:24 68:19 73:2,21 78:2 81:9 91:1 92:21,22 94:11,13 97:1 103:3,4 105:8

seen (12) 15:13 18:7 40:22 42:4,5,20 43:20 45:4,5,9 67:25 72:23

seldom (2) 81:4,17 Selezneva (1) 60:4

Seleznevskaya (1)

60:11

sell (5) 38:21 44:18 49:23 74:9,25

seller (1) 28:3 sells (1) 51:9 send (1) 104:24

sense (8) 47:4 51:16 52:13 66:5 68:23 74:18 77:3 100:15

senses (1) 104:2 sent (3) 22:6 104:22

104:24 sentence (4) 44:3

54:13,17 74:5 sentences (1) 43:19 separate (2) 9:1 66:9 separated (2) 6:24

17:3 separately (1) 51:2 September (1) 2:14

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

113

March 8, 2016 Day 24

series (2) 10:24,24 signed (1) 92:16 spade (4) 56:15,16,24 strictly (1) 101:9
serious (5) 4:9 47:13 signifies (1) 87:13 65:14 Stroilov (80) 1:5,8,9
71:16 100:17 signify (1) 79:15 SPARK (2) 90:14,21 1:19 18:3 20:7 21:3
101:22 similar (3) 40:22 speak (1) 21:19 21:10,13,16,18
seriously (4) 6:19,20 49:16 78:24 speaking (7) 1:16 22:3,6,10,25 23:1
36:14 97:17 simple (1) 15:14 15:21 18:18 74:6 23:17,24 24:8 25:8
served (4) 70:21 71:9 simply (6) 24:14 28:13 78:13 80:10 101:9 27:4 28:25 31:12
71:22 92:15 56:17 78:17 90:12 special (1) 45:12 33:2 34:5,17,21
Service (2) 21:1,3 99:9 specialist (1) 53:19 35:1,5,8 39:1,8
services (4) 56:11 siphon (1) 48:17 speciality (1) 6:2 43:15 49:6 54:12
77:6,21 81:10 sir (16) 5:18 10:9,19 specific (4) 52:6 54:15 57:17 58:8 60:25
servicing (1) 63:23 28:13 51:5 54:6,15 55:1 78:6 68:5 76:4 84:20,21
set (7) 24:2 41:10,10 54:22 55:1 56:8 specify (1) 43:12 85:24 89:15,24
43:17 45:11 47:23 58:25 59:15,20 speculate (4) 59:19 90:5,20 91:5,9,23
48:2 68:17 86:25 89:2 62:15 82:23,25 92:2,20,23 93:3
sets (4) 9:22 20:11 sit (3) 48:23 69:25 spelt (1) 57:7 94:18,25 95:11,20
24:21,22 86:16 spend (2) 5:3 41:2 96:2,13 97:15,21
Sevzapalians (15) 8:6 sitting (1) 101:1 spent (2) 36:15 47:3 98:5,11,15,24
9:19 14:2,11,15 situation (28) 3:4,9 sphere (1) 53:8 99:25 100:3,10,13
15:2 16:25 20:21 5:2 21:11 37:17,22 spreadsheet (1) 82:16 101:13,23,25 102:7
23:5 25:13,19 46:17 47:3,4,5,13 squeeze (2) 93:24,25 102:23 103:11,17
27:25 28:10 31:13 48:22 50:23 52:6 squeezed (1) 97:8 104:12 106:4,7
33:4 55:12 59:11 64:7 squeezing (2) 93:19 strong (3) 6:5,7,21
Sevzapalians’ (2) 64:14 65:8,9 66:12 96:16 structure (1) 65:19
29:12 32:8 71:17 72:9 76:3,7 St (3) 46:8 50:6 83:18 structured (3) 7:7
sham (2) 11:2 18:14 84:6,7 103:14 stage (8) 2:1 65:1 41:9 45:17
share (4) 69:6 81:23 situations (3) 55:11 69:20 70:18 85:5 studied (2) 33:22,25
83:15 103:19 55:13 74:7 86:10 88:4,4 subject (7) 32:10
share-related (4) six (1) 89:9 stake (3) 30:15 31:20 35:13 36:16 42:14
69:24 70:4 86:15 SKIF (17) 1:21 2:1,2,10 71:24 48:12 65:20 89:22
86:19 2:14 3:19,20 5:3 stakes (3) 31:2 32:23 submissions (1) 101:7
shared (1) 83:22 6:5 33:4 59:23 33:18 submitted (1) 33:5
shareholder (3) 73:8 70:15,17 82:17 standard (7) 40:19,20 subsequent (6) 14:24
73:21 79:6 83:11,25 91:3 41:16,16 63:24 26:3 48:3 63:12
shareholders (5) SKIF’s (1) 84:10 67:11 77:25 68:22 88:25
78:14 79:9,25 80:3 skipping (2) 9:18 13:6 Star (4) 2:15 3:6,14 subsequently (5) 4:21
81:3 Sklyarevsky (40) 1:7,9 4:18 7:10 11:13 30:19
shareholders’ (1) 57:7 2:8 13:11 15:12 start (14) 45:5 93:1 68:14
shareholding (1) 18:5,9 19:4 24:9 94:13,15 95:2,10 subtle (2) 57:2,2
46:22 26:11 27:18,21 96:12 99:24 100:18 successful (1) 75:23
shares (33) 7:4 11:2 29:2 31:8,12 35:1 100:23 102:10 successfully (1) 1:11
14:13 15:17 16:25 35:14 39:9 42:9 103:4,8,20 suddenly (1) 44:7
27:25 40:7 42:12 44:23 49:7 53:6 starting (13) 10:7 13:1 suffered (1) 55:17
42:13 51:13,23 54:13,23 57:17,22 13:15 20:21 21:20 sufficient (5) 16:19
52:9 66:19 78:10 57:23 58:21 59:24 23:25 28:17 29:4,7 32:18 45:2 95:19
78:25 79:1,4,13,16 60:24 61:23 73:22 95:13,14 99:5 102:6
80:7,10,11,12,14 84:22 88:12 89:15 102:17 sufficiently (1) 102:13
80:19,21,23,24 91:14 98:16 100:4 starts (5) 10:13 13:17 suggest (3) 11:9 94:17
81:2,11,17,22 100:9 106:3 27:19 28:20 94:23 103:8
82:13 Sklyarevsky’s (1) state (3) 7:20 55:9 suggested (2) 60:15
sheet (2) 45:19 82:3 101:6 61:17 100:17
sheets (1) 105:4 slightly (3) 34:16 state-owned (1) 74:21 suggesting (1) 6:25
shipping (19) 29:22 39:10 93:5 stated (1) 82:12 suggestions (1) 89:24
30:8 32:5 33:2 slip (2) 97:3 102:5 statement (11) 6:4,6 suggests (1) 68:7
69:13,19 70:2 85:6 slowly (2) 96:17,18 35:20 36:6,18,22 sum (1) 29:22
85:13 86:3,10,17 small (3) 80:7,20,24 39:9 47:21 74:2 summary (2) 23:20
87:14,21 88:1,9,14 Smirnov (2) 92:12 76:1 92:24 52:10
88:21,22 94:9 statements (1) 91:5 supervision (1) 45:17
shock (1) 37:9 sold (9) 7:4 14:13 step (1) 69:8 support (3) 9:11 22:8
short (1) 39:6 15:17 30:23 32:23 steps (6) 8:14 62:19 32:18
shorter (1) 100:14 49:10 50:10 51:10 70:5 86:21 87:17 supporting (1) 84:9
shortfall (1) 52:16 80:7 91:19 supports (1) 32:8
shortly (1) 92:20 sole (2) 15:16,16 stick (1) 102:17 suppose (3) 69:7
show (4) 61:22 72:19 solution (4) 6:17,21 sticking (1) 97:2 93:25 102:24
72:20 99:9 7:23 93:24 stock (4) 40:19 55:23 supposing (1) 51:9
showed (1) 19:14 someone’s (1) 56:20 79:7 103:5 Supreme (1) 18:20
showing (1) 26:12 sorry (15) 19:20 23:23 stop (1) 3:10 sure (15) 3:15 9:3
shown (15) 15:1 25:7 45:5 51:17 stopped (4) 3:23 4:3 13:13 34:2 41:11
57:22 58:13,17 57:18 59:24 64:24 24:17,23 50:22 51:5,18,20
59:8 60:2,14,18,19 65:10 68:8 73:23 stopping (2) 50:16 72:25 82:15 91:10
61:14,21 63:6 76:12 78:6 89:18 99:5 91:11 93:3 95:19
70:25 72:12 82:3 100:3 straddled (1) 104:5 surnames (1) 53:15
shows (1) 71:7 sort (7) 34:18 43:7 straight (1) 43:3 surprisingly (1) 98:16
side (4) 20:23 95:19 64:8 78:15,19 strain (1) 102:15 suspect (1) 89:3
96:4 104:10 79:12 84:14 strategic (2) 50:12 suspend (1) 4:19
sides (1) 66:6 sorts (1) 41:1 52:25 Svyaz-Bank (1) 64:9
sight (1) 25:22 sought (1) 20:23 street (2) 78:16 81:7 swap (1) 67:11
signal (3) 1:15 28:22 soundness (1) 63:3 stress (1) 102:15 sympathy (3) 96:3,16
63:4 sources (1) 77:9 stressed (1) 65:3 104:10

symposium (3) 34:18 34:21,22
system (2) 30:1 79:14

T

table (1) 41:5 tailor-made (1) 67:13 take (22) 17:7 30:3,18

35:2 43:14 44:10 50:13 55:13 59:12 59:25 62:19 63:25 65:11 73:6 79:14 87:22 91:13,19 92:25 97:17 98:11 103:5

taken (9) 37:13 55:18 56:20 60:20,24 73:1 89:9 90:15 105:2

takes (3) 43:22 47:15 75:6

talk (1) 61:10 talking (8) 20:1 23:1

30:6 58:6 61:10 67:8,12,12

task (3) 69:25 86:15 97:17

tax (5) 21:1,3 44:14 44:19,21

tea (1) 96:6 teaching (1) 64:4 team (10) 5:14 6:5,8

24:3,4,13 70:16 83:19,24,24

teams (1) 83:23 tear (1) 100:20 telecommunication…

2:2

tell (9) 8:22 33:3 54:3 54:14 56:13 59:14 63:14 102:12,15

template (1) 40:20 templates (1) 41:6 tending (1) 98:19 tens (3) 5:5,6,8 term (7) 40:17 41:7

42:20 44:4 67:9 69:3 102:24

Terminal (43) 9:25 14:13 20:25 21:5 21:12,20 22:1,4,15 23:8,9,15 24:3,4,7 24:12,12,19 29:14 29:21,25 30:4,12 30:19,23,23 31:3 32:4 33:18,20 44:16 46:9 60:4 68:6 70:2,6 85:5 86:18,22 88:5,16 88:20 89:1

Terminal’s (2) 69:17 86:7

terminated (1) 65:23 terms (13) 15:13

40:20,24 41:1 43:1 57:8 63:11 67:11 72:4 76:4 77:18 91:24 94:3

terrible (3) 94:2 96:14 97:21

testing (1) 34:23 text (11) 10:3,6,25

12:24,25 20:18,19 20:19 27:8 28:15 28:17

thank (23) 1:18,19 5:23 13:5 18:4 44:23 49:6 53:4

57:17,20 58:19 59:8 66:13 73:23 77:20 82:1 84:17 85:23 89:15,17 91:8 105:5,10
thanks (3) 19:16 25:5 77:21

thematically (1) 36:8 themed (1) 36:9 themes (1) 36:9 theory (5) 48:9,9

63:12,15 64:15 thereabouts (1)

100:12 thick (1) 94:21

thing (14) 7:19 8:15 43:4 49:4 53:3 78:19 80:2 81:12 88:20 91:12 94:13 96:7 103:6,8

things (7) 34:20 36:11 40:21 72:7 94:12 97:16 104:3

think (111) 1:10,23 5:11 6:4 8:3,12 10:6 11:22 12:3,15 12:20 14:5 15:20 18:5,14 19:17 20:16 21:3,14,17 22:21,25 23:3,7,7 23:13,17,20 24:25 25:16,25 26:16,18 26:20,23 27:11,13 38:17 39:1,10 42:18 43:5 46:14 46:19 47:2 48:6 53:12 55:8,18,20 56:21 58:5,6,11,16 58:18,19,24 60:14 60:15,16 62:2 63:12 64:3 70:25 73:16,17 74:2 75:23,25 78:16,24 83:17,25 84:11 85:17 89:6,12,22 90:5,8 91:6 92:2,16 92:17,20 93:5,11 93:21 94:4,5 97:6 97:14,21 98:11,24 99:10,12 100:7,8 100:16 101:17,23 102:9,11,17 103:11 103:20 104:1,8,15

thinking (6) 3:18 49:20 70:9 79:13 93:8 99:23

third (14) 10:4 20:14 21:8,19,22 25:12 45:7 52:21 67:18 72:11 76:25 87:10 93:9 94:14

thought (4) 10:11 59:19 94:4 104:22

thoughts (1) 96:25 thousands (4) 5:6,6,8

18:13 threatening (1) 65:15 three (13) 50:14

94:14,21 98:10,11 98:15,17 99:1,18 100:5,25 101:1 105:3

threshold (1) 43:2 Thursday (24) 90:7,10

92:1,2,4,6 93:1 94:1,14,15 95:2,10 96:12 97:12 100:18 100:23 102:8 103:4 103:8,21,21 104:13

105:8,13 ticking (1) 101:12 tilt (1) 104:11

time (60) 1:11 3:1 4:7 7:23 8:14 11:16 13:2 17:11 19:2 24:5,23 29:19 30:5 35:23 36:6,10,15 38:16 41:2 45:2,21 47:3,15 48:5 49:15 50:17 57:16 63:20 65:2,11 66:15 69:14,23,25 71:10 71:25 76:20 79:15 79:16 82:7 84:12 86:4,14,16 87:15 90:3 92:22,23 94:25 95:1,22 97:25 98:3,20 100:1,1 101:13 102:21 103:2 105:2

time-consuming (1)

80:2 timeline (1) 72:4 times (1) 43:20

timetable (7) 90:2 92:15 93:25 97:2 99:4,12 100:20

timetabling (4) 91:24 92:10,13,25

tiny (1) 73:7

title (3) 8:17 11:8 79:4 today (4) 92:20 95:11

104:24,24 today’s (1) 84:24 told (3) 8:11 34:23

54:24 tolerate (1) 48:21

tomorrow (2) 95:11 96:9

tool (4) 55:3 56:16,17 57:2

top (9) 9:8 12:24 20:1 20:20 28:19 48:15 48:22 51:15 52:11

torn (1) 50:10

total (4) 1:22 50:8,8 52:16

totality (1) 8:19 touch (1) 37:19 tracks (1) 79:3 trade (1) 81:17 traded (5) 79:6,16

80:8 81:2,16 trading (3) 78:18

79:13,23 trailblazing (1) 12:7 transact (1) 81:4 transaction (51) 2:21

2:25 3:1,7,11,11,21 4:19,22 7:9 8:25 9:12,13 11:2,2,5,12 14:10 15:4 16:14 16:17,24 17:9 18:14,15 19:7 22:9 31:21,21 32:1,14 33:23,24 38:1,4,9 40:19,25 42:11,14 45:7 50:1,9 56:14 56:18 59:23 65:16 66:21 67:2 77:16 83:18

transactions (22) 7:21 7:25 11:25 17:5 19:10 36:17 39:11 39:12 40:11,22 41:21,22 44:12,20 45:9,19 50:3 67:1 67:20,22 68:16

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

114

March 8, 2016 Day 24

91:17 51:18,20 59:20 53:5,24,25 54:4
transcript (3) 6:9 82:5 63:21 64:6 65:15 59:1 64:15 74:3,4
84:24 69:4 84:5,6 85:4 vicious (1) 101:22
transfer (2) 2:14 3:13 94:8 view (4) 43:22 48:8
transferred (5) 3:6 undertaken (1) 68:23 50:13 99:24
40:8 46:23 52:9 undertaking (1) Vinarsky (3) 24:16,18
61:8 102:16 35:17
transfers (2) 68:22 undervalue (3) 14:14 Vinarsky’s (3) 24:23
69:6 17:1 60:16 58:14 59:3
translated (4) 27:11 undone (1) 66:2 virtually (1) 98:22
85:21,25 101:20 unfair (1) 103:18 vis-a-vis (12) 33:1
translation (3) 1:13 unfolding (1) 37:6 52:7 64:9 69:18
31:9 80:12 unfortunately (9) 70:2,7,8 86:9,18,22
translators (2) 2:7 30:21 33:25 41:6 86:23 87:21
101:20 45:17 47:23 48:9 VLADIMIR (2) 1:7
travel (1) 96:6 51:21 72:7 83:24 106:3
treat (1) 55:5 unhappy (2) 55:5 void (5) 7:22,25 11:5
treated (1) 57:14 56:19 11:12 16:14
trial (9) 14:23 16:2,3 unique (2) 7:18 40:23 volatility (1) 56:1
17:18,21 22:12 universe (1) 76:15 volume (1) 79:16
25:24 69:5 75:21 university (3) 5:25 6:3 Vozrozhdenie (1)
trials (4) 69:24 70:4 64:5 64:13
86:15,20 unpledged (2) 51:15 VTB (2) 46:8 64:9
tried (4) 4:23 16:21 52:2 Vyborg (19) 29:22
31:13 50:22 unpredictably (1) 44:7 30:8 32:5 33:2
trilateral (1) 65:4 unusual (6) 39:19 69:13,15,19 85:6
tripartite (3) 65:3,18 42:16,18,20 43:9 85:13 86:3,5,10
65:23 48:14 87:14,21 88:1,9,14
trouble (4) 26:21 unwritten (1) 41:24 88:21,22
56:18 97:10 102:12 upheld (2) 32:14,19
true (2) 52:18 78:17 uploaded (1) 104:25 W
trust (1) 98:20 upper (1) 13:1 wages (1) 61:18
try (9) 3:20,20 4:2 upset (1) 12:18
wait (3) 69:25 86:16
17:22 51:19 64:22 upside (1) 50:8
104:16
90:7 100:24 104:8 use (11) 41:7,19 45:13
waiting (1) 34:13
trying (19) 21:10 70:1,1,5 81:20
Wales (1) 78:24
25:13,17 26:1 28:8 86:16,17,20 94:25
want (21) 4:17 15:10
32:22 33:3 35:14 useful (1) 34:17
15:11 18:22 38:20
47:12 48:7 76:23 uses (1) 64:1
42:22 44:25 59:18
77:12 96:24 98:2,5 usual (6) 42:20 43:8
59:25 61:22 62:15
99:12,24 100:10 43:11 44:4 45:1
66:16 81:14 82:23
102:17 48:13
82:24,25 83:7
Tuesday (1) 1:1 usually (4) 43:16
101:14 103:14,16
turned (3) 19:14 20:7 44:19 46:3 56:4
103:23
98:14
wanted (7) 3:13 38:21
two (35) 9:24 10:20 V
40:12 58:12 74:4
12:14,15,19,22 vague (1) 39:10
74:11 86:25
14:9 18:1 20:22
valid (2) 72:15 73:9 wants (1) 28:24
22:14 24:21 40:22
validity (2) 69:9 70:9 warn (1) 94:2
44:17 55:25 62:12
valuation (22) 13:8,10 wasn’t (14) 2:1,24 4:6
78:23 89:23 93:8
13:13 25:16,18 4:7 5:15,20 6:20
93:14 94:18,19
26:5 29:15,19 30:6 15:14 37:11 68:17
95:4,15,23 97:4
30:10,16,25 31:6 83:8 85:17 91:10
98:17,18,25,25
31:15,23 32:20,24 91:11
99:15,16,17,19
33:6,6,7,7,10 water (1) 16:7
100:6 101:1
valuations (1) 29:23 way (45) 4:13 5:1,14
type (2) 4:8 33:7
value (12) 31:20,24 7:6,10 18:11 32:10
typical (2) 18:11 53:21
47:17,17 51:2,13 32:25 36:11 43:8

51:15,16,22,24 45:18 46:1 47:12
U
61:3,11 49:15 50:22 51:20

unclear (2) 3:9,10 valued (1) 30:15 55:5 56:14 63:10
understand (29) 1:25 valuer (2) 30:3 31:24 63:13 65:14 67:16
3:3 5:23 19:4 24:15 valuers (1) 31:19 67:18 69:4 70:3
28:12 32:7 36:1 variety (1) 95:9 71:14 72:8 76:23
37:7 41:12 46:1 various (11) 8:14 77:2,12 82:24
52:3 55:4 63:16 17:17 18:25 53:2 83:20 85:18 86:18
69:22 78:9 79:22 56:3,12 76:2,6 89:5 93:10 94:12
81:16 82:15,20,21 85:19 92:13 99:6 96:8,15 97:4,8 98:1
83:2 84:4 86:12,25 Vasiliev (1) 23:10 98:19 101:15
89:5 96:11 98:2 Vasin (1) 53:17 103:18
104:9 VAT (1) 44:18 ways (5) 56:3 75:7
understandable (1) vein (1) 92:25 76:2,6 78:23
83:3 version (28) 8:4 10:10 We’ve (1) 83:11
understanding (5) 10:14,16 19:17 weapon (1) 49:4
4:15 62:3 69:1 20:15 21:13 25:9 wearisome (1) 97:17
70:23 85:14 26:14,17,18,20,22 week (7) 55:25 92:5
understands (1) 49:2 26:22 27:16,17 93:17,18 94:16,20
understood (12) 51:5 28:19 29:1,8 36:20 95:4

weekend (1) 104:5 weekends (1) 101:2 weeks (4) 94:20,21

95:15,24

went (3) 22:23 34:12 35:17

Western (43) 9:25 14:13 20:25 21:5 21:12 22:1,4,15 23:9,15 24:3,4,7,12 24:12,19 29:14,21 29:25 30:4,12,19 30:23,23 31:3 32:4 33:18,20 44:16 46:9 60:4 68:6 69:17 70:2,6 85:5 86:7,18,22 88:5,16 88:20 89:1

white (1) 97:15 wholly (1) 71:18 wide (1) 64:17 widely (1) 41:19 wider (3) 59:10,13,24 widespread (1) 44:12 wife (1) 17:4

wish (3) 57:4 102:14 104:10

wishes (1) 65:20 withdraw (2) 62:5,20 withdrawal (1) 62:13 withdrawing (1) 2:18 withdrawn (1) 62:9 withdrew (1) 38:12 witness (26) 1:16 2:7

6:6 22:21 23:12 34:23 35:20 36:5 36:18 64:20 74:1 76:1 89:16 90:20 91:15,16,25 92:24 94:24,24 95:2,22 99:20,23 101:10,19

witness’s (1) 90:20 witnesses (4) 93:15

94:19 100:25 101:1 won (2) 70:13,14 wonder (2) 59:12 94:5 word (5) 6:18 7:13

71:6 82:20,20 wording (1) 28:14 words (17) 9:10 10:7

10:7,13,17 13:1,15 13:18 20:21 27:7 28:21 29:5 40:1 48:19 69:17 74:11 86:8

work (6) 1:13 45:15 47:13 48:15 57:10 81:14

worked (3) 56:10 83:23 105:6

working (6) 1:18 46:2 46:15 50:14 71:4 77:18

world (1) 93:21 worried (4) 8:12

34:16 87:23,25 worry (1) 68:20 worse (1) 42:5 wouldn’t (3) 5:21

15:12 85:19 write (3) 41:3 42:8

56:19 written (1) 62:4

wrong (2) 99:20 100:4

X

Y

Yashkina (1) 93:6 year (3) 32:23 79:8
87:22

years (4) 14:17 44:17 78:12 84:5

yesterday (8) 5:11,12 5:19 36:5 77:25 80:18 94:10 100:9

Z

Zaitseva (1) 53:17

Zapadny (2) 21:20

23:8

Zelenov (4) 38:12,15 38:16,23

zone (1) 41:24

0

1

1 (10) 13:19 21:17 24:4 30:18 32:23 33:18 44:17 79:21 106:3,4

1,500 (1) 78:14

10 (20) 7:11,15 11:17 12:6,11,21 13:19 13:22 16:11 18:17 18:21 19:2 26:25 28:12 39:4 54:16 62:1 63:18 100:25 105:13

10-second (1) 104:18

10,000 (1) 44:11

10.30 (5) 1:2 103:4 104:13 105:8,12

10.53 (1) 1:4

100 (4) 50:4 55:25 71:23 74:15

104 (1) 61:20

106 (1) 61:20

10th (5) 96:12 99:14 99:24 102:10,18

11th (4) 99:15,25 102:18,19

12.00 (1) 100:12

12.07 (1) 39:5

12.20 (1) 39:7

13 (1) 68:5

14 (1) 62:1 14th (1) 102:20

15 (3) 39:1 88:13 89:2

17 (1) 71:1

18 (2) 36:21 58:5

2

2 (8) 20:17,18 24:4 29:22 39:24 40:1,1 44:18

2.20 (1) 105:11

2.30 (1) 82:7

20 (4) 39:1 58:7,9,10

2007 (2) 66:22 67:1

2008 (9) 29:20 30:7 31:22 32:2 62:2 66:22 67:1,7,21 2009 (19) 7:14 18:24

30:7 35:15,17 53:9 58:7 62:4 63:17 66:16,16 67:7,22 67:24 69:19 76:14 86:9 88:13 89:2

2010 (1) 67:24

2011 (3) 2:14 3:4 53:9

2011/2012 (1) 3:7

2012 (2) 1:22 3:24

2013 (1) 3:25

2014 (1) 1:23
2016 (2) 1:1 105:13
22 (3) 6:9 68:3 70:20
23 (3) 58:15 68:8
70:20
24 (1) 74:2
25 (4) 8:10 49:24
58:15 99:12
2561 (1) 91:4
29 (3) 13:10 29:8 31:7

3

3 (4) 39:22 63:9 73:11 73:12
30 (4) 31:22 32:2 63:22,22

32 (2) 36:19,22

33 (4) 36:19,22,24 37:12

3719 (1) 91:3

4

4 (2) 54:1,18

4,000 (1) 90:24

4.30 (2) 96:1 104:17

42 (1) 6:9

5
50 (1) 55:25
57 (1) 106:5

6
6 (1) 71:21
62 (1) 99:11
63 (1) 99:10
64 (1) 106:6
66 (1) 11:4
68 (2) 84:24 85:2
69 (3) 84:25,25 85:3

7

7 (3) 2:13 60:8 71:21

74 (1) 78:12

8

8 (2) 1:1 57:24

80 (1) 74:17

84 (1) 106:7 8th (1) 99:14

9

9,900 (11) 13:7 29:13 29:16 30:15 31:3 32:2,9,13,24 33:11 33:19

90 (1) 106:8

95 (1) 74:17

99,000 (3) 60:7,16 61:5

9th (1) 99:14

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