Day 26

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

Day 26 Redacted

March 11, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 Friday, 11 March 2016 1 and clarify that.
2 (10.00 am) 2 Q. But surely you would have some recollections of
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good morning. 3 a decision of this seriousness, whatever the minutes
4 MR LORD: My Lord, there is just one point about the 4 say? What are your own recollections of that?
5 correction to the transcript from yesterday, which 5 A. I recall it very badly at this point in time because
6 I trust found its way through. I trust that is 6 that happened a long time ago. Also the matter
7 unexceptionable and it is agreed. It is probably 7 concerned extension, and it’s not a matter connected
8 appropriate to have that corrected whilst this witness 8 with legal risks, and I presume — and I currently do
9 is still under oath and can be asked questions along 9 not recall the discussion, how the discussion carried
10 those lines should the matter arise? 10 on. I think for the most part it must have touched upon
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. You have seen this, Mr Stroilov, 11 the matters of financial and economic nature with regard
12 have you? 12 to the group and its financial status.
13 MR STROILOV: I don’t think I have, I am afraid. I am not 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think if this witness is minuted as
14 up to speed. I will probably find it in the e-mail, 14 having been there, you should take her to the minute,
15 if … 15 otherwise it turns into a sort of memory test to no good
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You can have my e-mail if it assists 16 effect.
17 you. 17 MR STROILOV: Yes.
18 MR LORD: Here is a copy, actually. 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If she is minuted as having been there
19 MR STROILOV: I am grateful. Should I quickly look at it so 19 you can ask her your questions. If she is minuted as
20 I know what it is about? I apologise I do not know 20 not having been there you can ask her whether that may
21 immediately. (Pause) 21 be a mistake, or whatever it is, but I think she should
22 Obviously if the interpreter says that is 22 know the groundwork for it.
23 an interpreter’s error, of course it has to be 23 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful, my Lord. Could we go to
24 corrected. I don’t know, I would appreciate guidance. 24 {D113/1648.2/0.1} on one screen and {D113/1648.2/1} on
25 Should I ask the witness again so that — 25 the other. So that looks like the minutes of the
1 3

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think what was said was said and the

2 interpreter has gone back over it and changed the

3 sequence of the «and» and the «but» and I think we can

4 leave it at that.

5 MR STROILOV: I think we should, my Lord. I agree.

6 MS TATIANA EVGENIEVNA KOSOVA (Continued)

7 (All questions and answers interpreted except where

8 otherwise indicated)

9 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV (Continued)

10 MR STROILOV: Good morning Mrs Kosova.

11 A. Good morning.

12 Q. I would like to ask you about the decision of the

13 management board on 4 March 2009, to refuse the

14 extension for the PetroLes loan, entailing a default of

15 OMG; do you remember anything about that?

16 A. I know that such a decision of the management board took

17 place. It happened. The matter was discussed about

18 extending the loan and, in the result, the management

19 board’s decision was to refuse the prolongation, the

20 extension of the loan.

21 Q. That is obviously a serious decision for the Bank, isn’t

22 it?

23 A. I think so.

24 Q. Were you present at that management board meeting?

25 A. Now I do not recall, but we could check with the minutes

1 meeting on 4 March, and you are recorded as being

2 invited to that meeting in the same procedure as

3 discussed yesterday; can you see that?

4 A. Yes, I can.

5 Q. If we could scroll down one page on each screen

6 {D113/1648.2/0.2}, {D113/1648.2/2} you can see the issue

7 being considered to providing the extension to PetroLes,

8 and if we scroll down two further pages, I think on both

9 screens {D113/1648.2/0.4}, {D113/1648.2/4}, you can see

10 the decision to deny the extension, and the unanimous

11 vote for that.

12 Does that refresh your memory in any way? Do you

13 recall any such meeting?

14 A. Since that happened a long time ago I do not recall the

15 actual discussion and, based on the minutes, it did

16 mention my presence. I can confirm that I was present

17 and the decision was to deny the extension.

18 However, since I don’t have any recollections, any

19 specific recollections of that meeting, then the matters

20 that were considered, they were, for the most part,

21 financial and economic matters, and based on that

22 discussion, such a decision, such a resolution, has been

23 made.

24 Should the matters have touched upon any legal

25 risks, then possibly I would have remembered it better.

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: At this time Mrs Malysheva was the

2 deputy chairman; is this right?

3 A. Yes, she was a deputy chairman, that is correct.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did she discuss any of this before the

5 meeting with you about the PetroLes loan extension?

6 A. No, she did not, my Lord. At that point in time in

7 2009, I did not interact with Mrs Malysheva, I did not

8 report to her, and the legal department was overseen by

9 Mr Skatin at that point in time.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: When did he become director of

11 the legal department? It’s probably on my list, so

12 don’t worry. I will have a look. Sorry, Mr Stroilov.

13 MR STROILOV: I would just like to clarify, my Lord.

14 I think if we go back to pages 0.1 and page 1

15 respectively, if we scroll up again {D113/1648.2/0.1},

16 {D113/1648.2/1} Mrs Kosova, I think, you were recorded

17 as being the «Director of the Bank’s Legal Directorate»

18 at that time so. Just to clarify, you were the director

19 of the legal directorate, were you not?

20 A. Yes, at that point in time I was the director of the

21 legal directorate, and that means the head of the legal

22 service for the Bank, that was me.

23 However, as the deputy of Mrs Malysheva, who was the

24 chairman of the board, she would then not oversee the

25 legal directorate. At that point in time we at the

1 pursuant to the Bank’s claim, but pursuant to the claim

2 of Sevzapalians against Western Terminal. Do you recall

3 that? Do you recall my questions, I mean, from

4 yesterday?

5 A. Yes, I do recall your questions, sir.

6 Q. Yes. So the public auction, as the documents suggest,

7 took place on 26 December 2011; does that sound right?

8 A. Now I do not recall.

9 Q. Well, if we could perhaps have a look and establish if

10 the document stirs any recollections.

11 Well, I think if I have to find the document, I will

12 be told, I don’t think I necessarily have to.

13 Essentially, I think it is admitted that the assets were

14 sold to a company called Nefte-Oil, which is another

15 Renord company; so do you accept that?

16 A. Currently I know that this, indeed, is the case.

17 Q. The assets were sold for RUB 161,000, not millions,

18 thousands. Does that sound to you like a market price?

19 A. At that point in time I did not know about the

20 situation, about organising that public sale. I haven’t

21 seen the documents and, accordingly, I have not studied

22 the documents. So, again, it is difficult for me to

23 evaluate this because I am a lawyer and not a valuer.

24 I cannot now compare all the facts that formed the basis

25 for that price, and I presume that the valuation was

5 7

1 legal directorate, we were reporting to Mr Skatin, who

2 was a deputy of the chairman of the board, the other

3 deputy, not Mrs Malysheva.

4 Q. Don’t you recall being asked at that meeting to update

5 the board about the situation with the arrest of Tosno

6 in Estonia. Does that remind you of anything? Were you

7 recalled to tell the board about that?

8 A. As far as I recall, I did not update the board about

9 that. No one asked me to do that. I think the

10 situation with regard to the group and its financial

11 position, and all the other circumstances at that point

12 in time, was described by Mr Platonov, the director of

13 Investrbank.

14 Q. How long does a meeting of the management board normally

15 last?

16 A. It happens variously, depending on the number of matters

17 on the agenda, about their scope and complexity

18 sometimes, but on average it would be an hour and a half

19 to two hours. Sometimes it lasts longer.

20 Q. Okay, well if you don’t remember any of it you don’t

21 remember. Let me move on, then.

22 Now, if I may just briefly come back to a couple of

23 issues that we touched upon yesterday, namely various

24 transactions concerning Western Terminal. You remember

25 I asked you about the first public sale, which was not

1 performed prior to the public sale, and accordingly

2 I presume that the price must be justified.

3 Q. Then subsequently the Bank was asked to provide consent

4 to the assets to be sold from Nefte-Oil to VECTOR; do

5 you recall that?

6 A. Yes, I recall that such decisions did take place.

7 Q. That was in June 2012, was it not?

8 A. Possibly. Now I do not recall the date.

9 Q. But you were a party to those discussions within the

10 Bank, were you not?

11 A. Sir, would it be possible to have sight of the

12 documents, then I would be able to confirm exactly

13 whether I was a party to these discussions.

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. I mean could we have sight of the minutes, please.

16 Q. {D159/2682.2/0.1} on one screen, and {D159/2682.2/1} on

17 the other screen.

18 So you will see that on the list of people present,

19 you are listed as the fourth name, aren’t you?

20 A. Yes, I can see that, sir.

21 Q. If we could now scroll down to page 5 of each document,

22 I think in the English version it should be 0.5, and in

23 the Russian I guess it will be 5, but maybe slightly

24 before {D159/2682.2/0.5}, {D159/2682.2/5}. Item 32,

25 yes. So you can see Mr Kolpachkov providing consent to

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 that sale.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. The voting is recorded as being unanimous?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Presumably you were explained by Mr Kolpachkov the

6 reasons for that transaction, proposed transaction? Do

7 you recall anything about that?

8 A. No, I do not recall the explanation of Mr Kolpachkov and

9 the actual discussion of the matter, that happened quite

10 a long time ago. However, I can say that, for me, being

11 the member of the major credit committee that was

12 responsible for legal risks, it was important that the

13 Bank should not bear any risk in that part, in the legal

14 part, so that the Bank would not lose any rights.

15 And since the consent was requested and the term of

16 consent was to preserve the encumbrance for the Bank,

17 retain the encumbrance for the property that was

18 pledged, that stated the Bank’s pledge irrespective of

19 the change of owner, then for me this did not have any

20 serious matters. Possibly this is why I do not recall

21 the discussion that happened.

22 Q. Well, are you aware that the sale from Nefte-Oil to

23 VECTOR Invest, which was just a few months after the

24 previous sale which I discussed, that took place for RUB

25 2,300,000; did you believe that to be the market price

1 a reliable tool, is a reliable instrument, especially

2 a pledge of real estate, because it is registered with

3 the registration body. Therefore, within the context of

4 this matter, when a consent to the transfer of the right

5 of ownership from one company to another is being

6 considered, and the encumbrance is being maintained,

7 it’s not something that caused me concern.

8 Q. Right. Well, just to remind you, because I am afraid

9 I didn’t follow the sequence very well, the next event

10 in the chain was the claim against VECTOR Invest and the

11 settlement agreement. I don’t want to ask you about it

12 today, I just want to remind you and my Lord that

13 I asked you about it yesterday. So just so that we have

14 the chronology in our minds.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I ask one question on the minute?

16 MR STROILOV: Yes.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: At 32.2, could you help me on that,

18 insofar as you are able? It provides that there is

19 a decision:

20 «Not [to] conduct an analysis of the property

21 owner’s financial and operating activities.»

22 I assume the property owner at that point is

23 Nefte-Oil, is it?

24 A. This decision about providing consent with regard to

25 VECTOR Invest, this is a decision to provide consent

9 11

1 at that time?

2 A. I did not know the terms of the sale at that point in

3 time.

4 Q. Generally speaking, were you not concerned that the

5 assets pledged to the Bank are being moved in between

6 companies in some strange ways? Between companies which

7 are clearly all part of Renord Group. Were you not

8 concerned that something may be going wrong?

9 A. I was not concerned because it was important to retain

10 the pledge. It was important for the Bank not to lose

11 the right of pledge to the property pledged, and since

12 in law, if the owner changes, the pledge doesn’t get

13 lost, nothing happens to it, therefore I didn’t have

14 such concern with regard to transfer of the title of

15 property to another company.

16 Q. So is it really your approach that, as long as there is

17 a registered pledge of real estate, it doesn’t matter

18 who controls the company; is that your approach to this

19 kind of issue generally?

20 A. As a lawyer, yes, of course. It was important for me,

21 first and foremost, that the Bank does not lose its

22 right to the pledge.

23 Q. As a lawyer, you do regard a registered pledge of real

24 estate as quite a reliable form of security, don’t you?

25 A. Certainly, a registered pledge as a form of security is

1 with regard to VECTOR Invest. That is the purchaser was

2 VECTOR Invest within this decision.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. Would it be usual and, if so,

4 why, to resolve not to conduct any analysis of the

5 property owner’s financial and operating activities?

6 A. No, this is not always — these terms were not always

7 contained in the decisions, however it depended in this

8 particular case on the department and the business

9 department that was preparing the matter, that was

10 justifying the matter, and accordingly, if they opined

11 that there was no need of such analysis, then they would

12 include such a provision in the resolution.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that nothing to do with what might

14 more generally be called due diligence? If it is

15 something to do with due diligence, is that not one of

16 a paradigm legal issues to be considered?

17 A. No, this is not part of due diligence. It’s a question

18 of providing certain financial documentation, making

19 financial documentation available when the matter is

20 being discussed at the BKK, and this analysis operating

21 in financial documents is conducted by different

22 departments. The analysts — the director of debt was

23 in charge of drafting the draft decision. Speaking from

24 memory, I’m into the sure I recall where they were

25 actually working. I think it was probably the loan

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 department. So all those finance officers within the

2 Bank were analysing this financial documentation and, as

3 a rule, making that documentation available was usually

4 required, it was usually a requirement to make that

5 documentation available.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. So this was an unusual decision,

7 and I am not querying for a moment that other

8 departments would undertake any due diligence which was

9 required, but what does seem strange — and I think you

10 are saying unusual — is a decision purposely not to

11 make any such enquiries.

12 A. It is possible that this decision is not usual. It’s

13 an unorthodox decision, but it does happen. It all

14 depends on how much the financial service knows about

15 this. I mean, the financial service that analyses the

16 documents and then which prepares the draft decision and

17 which sends this draft decision to the BKK. Therefore,

18 under the circumstances, in my capacity as a lawyer,

19 I proceeded on the understanding that the finance

20 officers within the Bank understood what the company was

21 all about. Perhaps they had some information about the

22 company available to them.

23 So it was just about the consent being given. Mind

24 you, they were not analysing a loan request; it was

25 a minor issue. So in order not to generate any

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s all right. (Pause)

2 All right?

3 MR STROILOV: No, not yet, my Lord. I am sorry.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s all right, don’t worry.

5 MR STROILOV: Yes, now it’s started working on my side as

6 well.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All well?

8 MR STROILOV: Yes, I am grateful. It will be all right.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

10 MR STROILOV: Sorry about that, Mrs Kosova.

11 Now, you told my Lord yesterday that you have the

12 general responsibility for this litigation since 2013 in

13 the Bank; is that right?

14 A. After I stopped being general counsel and director of

15 the legal directorate, and moved to the position of the

16 adviser to the deputy chairman of the board, and began

17 working with Mrs Irina Malysheva, one of my

18 responsibilities was the conduct of these proceedings.

19 Even though at that time Mr Balandin was also

20 responsible for the conduct of this litigation, it just

21 so happened that this became one of my core businesses,

22 as it were, one of my core responsibilities. At that

23 time I was not fully responsible for this, but it then,

24 and later, emerged as one of the main areas of my work.

25 So this was what I meant.

13 15

1 additional paperwork, perhaps they took this decision.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Why is it a minor issue? I am sorry.

3 Surely it is of some concern to the Bank to know who it

4 is owns the property which is subject to the pledge?

5 Surely that’s quite important?

6 A. Well, definitely. It is important.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Anyway, you think in this case

8 that someone in the Bank, or the relevant department in

9 the Bank, knew enough about the relevant property owner

10 that it didn’t need to make any further enquiries, to

11 such an extent that it resolved that none should be

12 made; is that a fair summary?

13 A. That is correct.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Thank you.

15 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I am afraid there is, again,

16 something technical with my Magnum. I don’t know if it

17 is just my Magnum or anyone’s. I can’t open the page,

18 there is something wrong with the connection and it will

19 soon become a problem.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What, you have a blank screen?

21 MR STROILOV: I’ve got «The web page is not available»

22 screen.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We will pause while you do that,

24 Mr Stroilov. Don’t worry.

25 MR STROILOV: I am trying to.

1 Q. Prior to that point in time, were you overseeing this

2 litigation as well in your capacity as the head of the

3 legal department?

4 A. At that time, it was Mr Balandin who had oversight of

5 these proceedings and in my capacity as general counsel

6 I definitely pitched in whenever certain matters needed

7 to be resolved, mainly legal matters that needed to be

8 addressed, but I was also in correspondence with the

9 lawyers. I wouldn’t describe this as correspondence

10 with respect to all matters because, once again,

11 Mr Balandin had overall responsibility for the oversight

12 of the conduct of this litigation.

13 Q. But, generally, you were involved in and knew what was

14 happening?

15 A. Generally, yes. Yes, I was up to speed.

16 Q. Of course this litigation was, in a way, interconnected

17 with the Russian enforcement proceedings, such as the

18 claimed enforcement proceedings in relation to

19 Western Terminal assets. So, presumably, you were

20 coordinating these processes, if that makes sense?

21 A. So far as I can recall, we, the legal department, at

22 that time were in charge of the Russian litigation,

23 Russian judicial proceedings. I wouldn’t say that we

24 were in charge of coordinating the various proceedings,

25 ie the proceedings within the context of this particular

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 trial here in England.

2 So our task was to issue proceedings to receive the

3 judgment with respect to the enforcement proceedings and

4 then, depending on the judgment, we will then take all

5 the necessary steps to enforce, to conduct an enforced

6 sale of the assets.

7 Q. Yes. So the Western Terminal assets were sold at

8 a purported public auction on 29 September 2012, were

9 they not?

10 A. I think we would need to double-check the date against

11 the documents. I’m not sure I can recall the date, but

12 the assets were sold at a public sale, yes, which was

13 organised by the court bailiffs service of the Russian

14 Federation.

15 Q. So that was already, obviously, during this litigation

16 as well, was it not?

17 A. Yes. If we are talking autumn 2012, then this was

18 running parallel to this litigation here, right.

19 Q. May I hand up a letter, which I am afraid is not on

20 Magnum. (Handed)

21 I imagine the interpreters need one as well, so one

22 for my learned friends, one for the witness, one for the

23 learned judge and one for the interpreters. If the

24 transcribers want one, they can have one.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

1 translations, confirming the details of the sale.»

2 So if we could now look at the protocols enclosed to

3 that letter. Those are on Magnum.

4 So oddly, what was enclosed to this were a protocol

5 on — is it translated as «Protocol» or «Minute»? Yes,

6 official protocols number 2 and number 3, but not

7 number 1.

8 So the first one we have seen is minute number 2,

9 which is at {D161/2718/1}, and the Russian version

10 starts at {D161/2718/3}. There you can see the members

11 of the commission and so on, but then once you have the

12 «Offers» section, the very short table, the second table

13 on this page, which is very short, you can see only one

14 bit from the company called Kontur.

15 A. Yes, I can see that.

16 Q. But no other bids, and there is no mention of any other

17 bidder; can you see that?

18 A. Well, unfortunately we only have one page of the

19 minutes, and so it would be hard to analyse this

20 document as a whole. For all I know, this may be just

21 a description of who the winner is who prevailed at the

22 bidding.

23 Q. Well, it looks, with respect, Mrs Kosova, if you have

24 a table headed «Offers of the bidding participants»,

25 that seems to be the purpose of this table to record all

17 19
1 MR STROILOV: Mrs Kosova, I will read to you — let me 1 bids rather than just the winning bid; doesn’t that make
2 explain and take you through the letter, because 2 sense to you?
3 obviously there is no Russian version, so I will just 3 A. It seems logical, yes.
4 explain what it is. This is the letter dated 4 Q. If we could scroll down one page on each screen, just
5 31 October 2012, sent from the Bank’s then English 5 for completeness {D161/2718/2}, {D161/2718/4}, so you
6 solicitors, Baker & McKenzie, to Mr Arkhangelsky’s 6 can see that there are just signatures, and what the
7 French lawyer, Mr Ameli. That was to inform 7 «Signature fingerprint» is, I am not sure. It is
8 Mr Arkhangelsky and Mrs Arkhangelskaya — I think 8 probably just something electronic.
9 OMG Ports was not a party at that stage yet — to inform 9 If we could now go, still in the same tab, but if we
10 them of the sale of Western Terminal assets which had 10 could go to page 5 on the English screen, and 8 on the
11 taken place a month before. Do you follow? 11 Russian screen {D161/2718/5}, {D161/2718/8}, that’s
12 A. To the extent I can read some English, yes, I am 12 protocol number 3. So you can just see that this is,
13 following the logic. 13 effectively, a contract for the sale of the property to
14 Q. Then I think the paragraph that deserves to be read is 14 Kontur, and I understand that’s quite normal for Russian
15 the third paragraph from the top, and let me read it for 15 public auctions, to have this protocol as the sale
16 you: 16 contract of public auction. If you just scan-read
17 «The sale was conducted by public auction in 17 through, I just want there to be — I just want everyone
18 electronic form on Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18 to see what …
19 organised by the Territorial Department of Federal 19 If we could scroll down kind of slowly, page by
20 Agency for State Property Management in the Leningrad 20 page, let’s say every five seconds. I just want the
21 region, duly accredited for selling assets within 21 general scope of this document to be seen, but I am not
22 enforcement procedure. 22 going to ask detailed questions on it. So if you could
23 «We understand that scheduling auctions for 23 scroll down {D161/2718/6}, {D161/2718/9}. So as the
24 Saturdays is in line with current practices of the said 24 Russian version ends, the English, if we could just
25 agency. Attached are official protocols with English 25 slowly scroll it down so it is generally seen what it is
18 20
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 {D161/2718/7}.

2 So, Mrs Kosova, at that stage what I am putting to

3 you is that at that stage, in October 2012, there was no

4 suggestion that there were more than one bidder at the

5 auction; isn’t that so?

6 A. It would be difficult for me to say that based on these

7 documents because, for all I know, there may be some

8 other minutes, or protocols, that may be missing. For

9 instance, in my witness statement, I make reference to

10 the fact that there were two companies that made their

11 bids, and that had been allowed to take part in the

12 public sale. Consequently, there must be yet another

13 document available somewhere.

14 Q. There must be, but the point I am making is that on

15 31 October 2012 no such another document was provided to

16 us, and I suggest that at that stage there was no

17 evidence of a second bid.

18 A. I really have no offer to comment — I’m sorry, no

19 comment to offer. I did not draft this document, I did

20 not disclose these documents, so this was done by the

21 lawyers, and I am afraid I cannot tell you what actually

22 happened there.

23 But at any rate, the public sale was organised. It

24 was a public sale, it was organised by the judicial

25 bailiffs service. This service acts on the basis of

1 the bailiffs service ever breaking the law, breaching

2 the law. This is the statement I’m making and I do not

3 believe that there is any vicious, logical circle here.

4 Q. So aren’t you saying — just trying to summarise it, so

5 what you say is that Russian bailiffs are above

6 suspicion; is that what you are saying?

7 A. My position is that I have no reason to believe that the

8 service of judicial bailiffs has been acting in breach

9 of statute, based on my understanding and my knowledge

10 of the position.

11 Q. Right. Now, Mrs Kosova, we did raise it at the time, we

12 did raise the point that the protocol 1 is missing and

13 that apparently there was only one bidder. We raised it

14 more than once.

15 Eventually, if we could look at {N22/53/11}, you can

16 see another letter from Baker & McKenzie, dated

17 20 November 2013, and that’s to me in response to

18 a number of criticisms we made at that stage in relation

19 to the Bank’s disclosure in these proceedings; do you

20 follow that? Do you follow the explanation?

21 So we’ve complained on a number of points,

22 Baker & McKenzie respond with this letter; do you

23 understand?

24 A. Yes, I understand it. This is your answer — this is

25 their answer to the questions, or the criticism, that

21

1 Russian statute. It has certain regulations and

2 procedures that are set out in statute, and they provide

3 for the announcement that needs to be made before the

4 sale takes place, and all the other procedures that are

5 set out on the Enforcement Act of the Russian

6 Federation. So I have no doubt that the sale was

7 conducted fully in compliance with the Russian law and

8 in compliance with all the procedures that, at that

9 time, were part of the statute book with respect to the

10 conduct of public sales.

11 Q. Well, Mrs Kosova, do you have any recollections of your

12 own from that period in connection with that sale?

13 A. My recollection with respect to this particular sale,

14 you mean? No, I do not have that because I did not take

15 part. I did not take any part in the sale. I did not

16 attend the sale, and so I did receive information that

17 the sale had taken place, and we later on received the

18 supporting documentation.

19 Q. Mrs Kosova, the point you made a minute ago, it’s a bit

20 of a vicious circle, isn’t it? You say: I am satisfied

21 the sale was lawful because the law provides that sales

22 must take place in accordance with the law; don’t you

23 see a bit of a vicious circle there?

24 A. What I’m saying is that the public sale was conducted

25 pursuant to the law. I have never seen any instances of

23

1 you had previously raised.

2 Q. Yes, and if we could now scroll down to page 17

3 {N22/53/17}, so there you see it’s a continuation of

4 a rather long table setting out our complaints and their

5 response. In the left part you see our complaint, and

6 it is simply a quotation from our previous letter. On

7 the right side you see what Baker & McKenzie have to

8 say; do you follow that?

9 So it is only — and as you can see, in response to

10 that now, in subparagraph (a), Baker & McKenzie say:

11 «The Bank has now located Protocol 1 and the

12 corresponding publication of information regarding the

13 auction sale. Copies of these are enclosed.»

14 Then at (b), let me check if our query … yes. By

15 that time, as you can see in (b) of our query, the Bank

16 has asserted in the reply that there was a second

17 bidder, but we haven’t seen any document relevant at

18 that time.

19 So if you follow that, so it was in November 2013

20 that we were, for the first time, given any documentary

21 evidence that there was more than one bidder; do you

22 follow that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. So it appears like it took the Bank over a year to

25 locate protocol number 1 of the so-called public sale of

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 quite a substantial pledge. So where did you look for

2 it during that year?

3 A. I really have no comment to offer because I did not take

4 any direct part in what you describe as the search for

5 this document.

6 I presume that perhaps originally the Bank itself

7 did not have all the documents available to it, so

8 perhaps the Bank needed some time to obtain those

9 documents from the bailiffs service, and I have no

10 comment to offer with respect to the duration of time

11 because this was something that was being done by

12 Baker & McKenzie’s solicitors and, therefore, I am not

13 sure I can say anything with respect to the dates.

14 Q. So, just for completeness, let’s look at protocol

15 number 1, {D161/2715/1} for the English version, page

16 {D161/2715/3} for the Russian version.

17 Here for the first time you see a reference to two

18 bidders. Do you accept that both of them are controlled

19 by Renord-Invest? Both Kontur and Globus-Invest; do you

20 accept that?

21 A. Now, I know about Kontur that it was controlled by

22 Renord-Invest, and with regard to Globus-Invest,

23 I simply do not recall now.

24 Q. Just for completeness, if you could scroll down both

25 screens, just so that everyone has seen the complete

1 any interested bidder could have joined it and could

2 have bought the asset out and, accordingly, if the

3 interest would have been at such level so that the price

4 would be too low, then the price in the course of the

5 sale would have gone up. If that property would have

6 been of such interest to a wide range of parties, it’s

7 unlikely that the price would have stayed at that level.

8 That’s my first point.

9 Secondly, the federal bailiffs service receives its

10 commission as a percentage of the sale price, and

11 therefore the bailiff service itself is not interested

12 to make lower prices, and the valuing companies, the

13 valuers also do their valuation business, and they have

14 to take care of their reputation. So I also do not see

15 any grounds for them to lower the prices for some

16 reason.

17 So I think that everything here is within the

18 statute, within the law and the procedures.

19 Q. Was the valuation done by an expert appointed by the

20 court or by the Bank?

21 A. Now I do not recall exactly. Possibly that was

22 a valuation company contacted by the Bank. Possibly

23 that could have been the case.

24 Q. That’s right. But before we leave that document, I just

25 would like to put it to you that obviously it’s dated

25

1 document {D161/2715/2}, {D161/2715/4}. Now, Mrs Kosova,

2 didn’t you tell the court in your witness statement that

3 it was your responsibility to oversee the enforcement

4 proceedings to ensure that the Bank retains maximum

5 coverage?

6 A. I said that my task was to oversee the Bank’s court

7 proceedings, the proceedings related to enforcement, so

8 that they would be within the law, so that they would

9 be — I’m very sorry. So that they would be as complete

10 as possible with regard to the law so that subsequently

11 there would be no grounds to challenge them or to

12 prolong the proceedings so that the Bank would be able

13 to obtain compensation as a result of these proceedings.

14 This is what I meant.

15 Q. Now, the sale took place for about RUB 675 million,

16 didn’t it, approximately? I’m not asking you to

17 remember the exact figure, but that’s about right, isn’t

18 it?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Were you satisfied that was the market price?

21 A. As far as I recall there was a market valuation of the

22 value. The reserve price was approved by the court, and

23 that is complete compliance to the law and the said

24 procedures in the Russian Federation. Then that was

25 a public sale, an open auction and, accordingly,

27

1 incorrectly: it was that, in reality, Globus-Invest was

2 not a genuine bidder; this document was produced at

3 a much later stage than the alleged date of auction on

4 that Saturday and it was then backdated. Isn’t that

5 an obvious inference from what I have put to you

6 previously?

7 A. It’s not obvious for me, sir.

8 Q. No. If we could now look at the valuation report,

9 {D160/2702/1}, and the Russian version should be,

10 I think, at {D160/2702/5}, oddly. So this is the

11 valuation report whereby the market «price» was

12 determined. As you can see on page 1, it was

13 commissioned by the Bank to a company called ADK,

14 Agentstvo Delovykh Konsultatsiy.

15 Now, is it a very well known valuation company in

16 Russia?

17 A. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t be able to comment, since, as

18 a lawyer, I do not have any information with regard to

19 the markets of valuation companies, so I wouldn’t be

20 able to comment. I could only say that that is

21 a certified agency that is entitled to operate in the

22 market.

23 Q. Isn’t it the case, Mrs Kosova, that at the same time the

24 Bank had in its possession another valuation report

25 whereby the same assets were valued much higher. I will

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 be corrected if I am mistaken on figures, but I think it 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Ah.
2 is something between RUB 3 billion and RUB 4 billion, 2 MR STROILOV: At tab 1 you will have the Russian version of
3 closer to 4, if I am not mistaken. I am talking about 3 that report. Then there is this cover letter we see on
4 the Lair report. 4 the screen, that will be at page 2 of that —
5 MR LORD: I think the date and the document should be put to 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Perhaps the witness could be handed
6 the witness, in fairness. The implication is that it is 6 that. (Handed)
7 at the same time. 7 Do you have it?
8 MR STROILOV: No, it isn’t. I’m not suggesting it is at the 8 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord, it should be noted this is one of
9 same time. I am talking about the valuation reports 9 the documents we have been asking about the provenance
10 which were originally relied on by the Bank when the 10 of. Dr Arkhangelsky produced a host of documents in
11 pledges were registered. I am asked to find the actual 11 re-examination in France, we have asked them to identify
12 date. It may take a few seconds for me to find the 12 the disclosure and that matter has still not been
13 report. (Pause) 13 satisfactorily addressed. So that is the status of this
14 If we could look at — for some reason, I have found 14 particular document, so your Lordship knows. It means
15 the document, I don’t have the proper reference for it. 15 that we will have to return to the matter of that
16 MR LORD: Which document are you after, Mr Stroilov? Is it 16 housekeeping more urgently this morning.
17 Lair or is it a GVA Sawyer report? 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Just so I know whether there is
18 MR STROILOV: It is Lair. 18 anything in this, is there a worry lest the Russian and
19 MR LORD: Is it the August 2008 report? 19 the English are different?
20 MR STROILOV: Yes. 20 MR STROILOV: No. Well, it is not quite the same document.
21 MR LORD: {D64/1002/1} 21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sorry.
22 MR STROILOV: I am grateful, my Lord. 22 MR STROILOV: The Russian version the entire report, but
23 MR LORD: Is that the one? 23 this cover letter is included in it, but the English
24 MR STROILOV: Well, I was looking at something different, 24 version, as I understand it, is just the cover letter.
25 but I’m not suggesting to take the witness through the 25 My Lord, if that is considered important, if you can

29

1 entire report, I just want to establish the fact that at

2 the same time the same assets had been valued by another

3 valuer in July 2008, and at that time they were valued

4 at — I was wrong. It’s almost RUB 5 billion. If you

5 scroll down one page, you will see the figure. One page

6 down.

7 A. Sir, do you have the text of that document in Russian,

8 please?

9 Q. Well, I am looking — there is a custom bundle called

10 «Documents handed up by the defendants on

11 24 February 2016». I am sure there will be the Russian

12 text somewhere in the trial bundle as well.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think it’s at 1004, isn’t it? Maybe

14 I’m wrong.

15 MR STROILOV: 1004. That will be — could we try it? It’s

16 on the other screen.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It may be just — I don’t think it is.

18 MR STROILOV: On the other screen?

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, it isn’t.

20 MR STROILOV: I beg your pardon, my Lord.

21 Isn’t it D30— no, that seems to be different.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Does anyone know where the Russian

23 version of the Lair report —

24 MR STROILOV: My Lord, there is one in the bundle called

25 «Documents handed up by the defendants on 24 February».

31

1 give me ten minutes and I will locate everything. I am

2 sure that report was not only disclosed, but quite

3 fiercely debated throughout these proceedings. So

4 I am …

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Would you like to take a break now?

6 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, could we have a break because we

7 are getting into a bit of a mess here.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

9 MR LORD: There are other reports, there is the GVA Sawyer

10 report, I’m concerned about whether we’ve seen Russian

11 where this has been a disclosed version, there’s

12 a Russian Lair version and it’s raising a number of

13 matters that really need to be cleared away. It doesn’t

14 have to stop this witness we can clarify it now over

15 a short break but it will mean that some orders will be

16 sought this morning about some of this disclosure in

17 re-examination in France.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Very good.

19 The original Lair report, was it in Russian or in

20 English?

21 MR STROILOV: In Russian.

22 MR LORD: I am not sure. My Lord, I need to check on that

23 because it was produced, obviously, for the purpose of

24 various western bank financing.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 MR LORD: So I am not sure. It may have been disclosed in 1 the same in substance, is it?
2 Russian, I’m not saying it wasn’t, but I had always 2 MR STROILOV: It doesn’t look in the English version,
3 worked on the English version which had been prepared as 3 because I think this is machine translation as opposed
4 part of, as your Lordship will remember, the financing 4 to human translation.
5 push to try and get western banks — certainly the 2008 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.
6 one that we are looking at now as opposed to other 6 MR STROILOV: Just because some concerns were raised to
7 versions of it. 7 provenance.
8 MR STROILOV: Let me check as well. I don’t think that’s 8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is this English one a machine?
9 right. 9 MR STROILOV: I am afraid it is. For the moment I am only
10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Whichever version it was, one would 10 interested in the figure.
11 expect it to be within the Bank’s disclosure, and if 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, very good.
12 there were English and Russian it must have been in the 12 MR STROILOV: If others have other concerns …
13 Bank’s disclosure, so someone will be able to find it. 13 So, Ms Kosova, you can see that this was valued at
14 MR STROILOV: As concerns have been raised, I will just 14 the time — there are slightly different figures because
15 locate the disclosure reference and everything. 15 the market value was assessed to be in the region of
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right, we will break for ten 16 5 billion, and what is called the liquidation value is
17 minutes. 17 just above RUB 3 billion; can you see that?
18 (11.16 am) 18 A. Yes, I can see this.
19 (A short break) 19 Q. Obviously Lair is a very well known and reputable
20 (11.30 am) 20 Russian valuer, isn’t it?
21 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship, apologies about 21 A. Again, I am a lawyer, so I would be hard put to say
22 this. I think I need to let you know that, even though 22 whether they are good or not so good. I have not worked
23 you have seen the empty chair on the screen — 23 with valuers directly.
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I understand that’s a historic 24 Having said that, I do know that, for the purposes
25 picture. 25 of valuing borrowers’ assets for the year 2008, the Bank

33

1 MR STROILOV: Yes, it is. In reality, Dr Arkhangelsky is

2 there, and I understand he hears us —

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

4 MR STROILOV: — and he sees us as well, so it’s just some

5 technical irregularity.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

7 MR STROILOV: All right, my Lord.

8 Let me continue. Now, if we could go — I’m

9 grateful to my learned friends for helping with this —

10 to {D54/944/1}, I think, for the English version, and

11 {D54/944/91} for the Russian version. Yes. Obviously

12 that is an imperfect translation, but there isn’t much

13 I want to go through.

14 So, Mrs Kosova, you can see this is a 2008 report by

15 the company called Lair. That relates to the same

16 property which was sold in 2012, and that was the report

17 on which the Bank relied when accepting the pledge.

18 If we could scroll down two pages in the Russian

19 version, and one page in the English {D54/944/93},

20 {D54/944/2}. No go back, I think, in the English

21 version.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m so sorry to be silly, but is this

23 a different valuation than we saw at {D64/1102/1}?

24 MR STROILOV: I think it’s the same, my Lord.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It doesn’t look the same, but it is

35

1 did accept the valuation reports provided by this

2 particular company.

3 Q. Obviously, you will recall that the valuation of ADK, on

4 the issue relied in 2012, was a lot lower than this

5 valuation. So you had two different valuations, or the

6 Bank had in its possession two different valuation

7 reports giving very different figures. One says almost

8 5 billion. Another says something between 600 million,

9 and 700 million. So there is obviously a discrepancy,

10 isn’t there?

11 A. Yes, there is a difference, judging from the valuers’

12 reports.

13 Q. It is the case, isn’t it, that as valuers Lair and ADK

14 are in completely different leagues. Lair is well

15 known, it is within the first — well, to speak roughly,

16 as among Russian valuation companies, Lair is within

17 top 10; ADK is not even within the top 100; would you

18 accept that?

19 A. Once again, if I may, I am a lawyer. I do not work with

20 valuers or valuation companies. I am not an expert with

21 respect to the valuation market at all, so it would be

22 very difficult for me to offer any comment here.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Had you heard of Lair?

24 A. Yes, I have, obviously. The Bank did accept valuation

25 reports filed by that company in 2007 and 2008. So the

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 borrowers did provide reports filed by that company when

2 they were trying to pledge their assets as collateral,

3 and the Bank did accept those reports.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Had you heard of ADK?

5 A. Yes, I have heard about ADK as well. But, so far as

6 I can recall, I heard about ADK later on because after

7 the 2008 crisis, problems arose with respect to the

8 realisation of distressed borrowers’ assets, the Bank

9 did analyse the reasons behind that, the reasons behind

10 the disconnect, the differences between the valuations,

11 ie the price that the Bank could expect to get at

12 an auction, and they compared that with the valuation

13 reports that it had received when it was accepting

14 collateral, and they came to the conclusion that Lair

15 had overstated the prices, and after that, the Bank

16 stopped accepting Lair’s reports when it was considering

17 accepting certain assets as collateral.

18 MR STROILOV: Should I get on, or …?

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I’m sorry.

20 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I’m grateful.

21 Now, obviously as you have said, your task was to

22 look at that auction as a lawyer and not as a business

23 person; is that what you are saying, really, when you

24 decline to comment, really, on values and this kind of

25 thing?

1 the auction sale of one of the Onega Terminal assets.

2 So Russian Auction House on 26 October 2009.

3 Now, as you can see, that records as if there were

4 two bidders. If we could scroll down or, ideally, half

5 scroll down so that we have the upper half of the next

6 page on each screen, if that is possible, that would be

7 ideal. If not, just scroll down to the next page

8 {D132/2174/2}, {D132/2174/4}.

9 So as you can see, that leaves two bidders, Kiperort

10 and Solo; can you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Both of these are Renord companies, aren’t they?

13 A. At this point in time, I do know that they are.

14 Q. You can see that the representative of Solo was a lady

15 called Arinina, LV Arinina?

16 A. Yes, I can see that.

17 Q. The field for the representative of Kiperort is left

18 blank.

19 A. Yes, I can see that.

20 Q. Let’s check, it appears that the asset was sold one

21 auction step above the starting price.

22 A. Yes, it looks like it was the case.

23 Q. So do I understand correctly that under the Russian law,

24 the auction is only valid if there are two bidders? Is

25 that your understanding as well?

37 39

1 A. What I’m saying is that I’m not an expert in the area of

2 valuation or valuation companies. Therefore, I cannot

3 sit in judgment as to whether or not Lair was in the

4 first league, in the top 10, or whether it was

5 a reputable company or not, including vis-a-vis ADK.

6 Q. Are you satisfied that the auction was lawful?

7 A. Yes, absolutely.

8 Q. Do you regard a collusive sale at a gross undervalue as

9 lawful?

10 A. I have no reason to believe that there was a collusion

11 or a gross undervalue. I knew that the sale was

12 conducted based on the law, pursuant to the valuation.

13 It was a public sale, interest was shown by participants

14 and the actual price was formed as a result of the

15 public sale. So I have no reason to believe that

16 anything unlawful had happened.

17 Q. Now, if I could very briefly get back to Russian Auction

18 House sale of Scan assets, so we are back to 2009, and

19 I’m sorry I am not keeping it properly chronological.

20 Just a second, Mrs Kosova, I just want to show you the

21 auction minutes again. (Pause)

22 I am sorry about the delay. If we could go to

23 {D132/2174/1} on one screen, and {D132/2174/3} on the

24 other screen.

25 So, as you can see, this seems to be the protocol of

1 A. I do not recall exactly what the statute says about

2 this. There may be instances where there may be just

3 one bidder, and that’s okay, but I really have no

4 comment to offer. I just do not recall the position.

5 Q. Well, but do you accept that, looking at these minutes,

6 on any fair view of the substance of things, this was

7 an auction with one bidder, wasn’t it?

8 A. No, I would not agree with that. There are two

9 corporate entities that are listed here as participants,

10 irrespective of the fact that they may be part of the

11 same Renord Group of companies, as I know it was the

12 fact, sitting here today. But they are still standalone

13 entities; they are independent participants.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can a limited company in Russia appear

15 otherwise than under a power of attorney? How do you

16 know that the person standing up represents the company?

17 A. I understand that a set of documents have to be filed

18 with respect to the participant of the bidder. There’s

19 a whole set of corporate documents, I’m not aware of the

20 complete list of documents that need to be filed, and

21 I would presume that the person acting on behalf of the

22 company must have some sort of a power of attorney.

23 I simply do not know very well what the procedure is

24 for electronic sales, but judging from what I read in

25 the minutes, this was not an e-sale.

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 MR STROILOV: If you could — again, I don’t think we need

2 to worry about the English version, if we could scroll

3 up the Russian version again, just to the first page or

4 just slightly move it so that we see more of the first

5 page {D132/2174/3}. I just wanted to check with you the

6 members of the commission who were responsible for the

7 auction, so as you can see, it appears that there were

8 three people, and Mr Raev and Mrs Kubareva were

9 representatives of Russian Auction House, and

10 Mrs Grosheva was representing the Bank. So these were

11 the commission who were actually conducting the auction.

12 Does that look right to you?

13 A. I have no reason not to believe the minutes. If the

14 minute says that this was the composition of the

15 commission, then that must have been the case.

16 Q. Thank you. Now, just again for completeness of the

17 picture, if we could go in literally the next document,

18 {D132/2176/1}, and {D132/2176/3} on the other screen.

19 So that’s the other protocol for the next slot, and

20 that’s Sestroretsk property.

21 Again, the position is exactly the same: the same

22 commission, the same date. If we scroll down we see

23 that there are the same bidders. Solo has

24 a representative, Kiperort is registered as being

25 without a representative.

1 A. No, not at all.

2 Q. As you can see, it is alleged here that these companies

3 are connected with the bank.

4 A. I don’t think it says that they are linked with the

5 Bank. It just says that they are related to the

6 investment company, Renord-Invest.

7 Q. I think it is a fair reading of this article — if you

8 disagree, say so — that what is suggested here is that

9 the Bank is cleaning up its own balance sheet and its

10 business, and that’s why it wants to get rid of the

11 companies with the record of dealing with the assets of

12 its former — with the distressed assets of its former

13 borrowers, such as Oslo Marine, and a number of others

14 are named.

15 So do you accept that’s the purpose of those

16 bankruptcies?

17 A. At the very beginning of your question, I think you said

18 this is what the article says. Well, number one, my

19 reading of the article is different. From the literally

20 reading of the text, it does not follow that this is

21 what you say is written here. Now, with respect to the

22 bankruptcy, I really have no comments to offer because

23 I was not involved in this.

24 Q. Right, if you could call on the screen the transcript of

25 yesterday, and if we could have, if possible, page 17 on

41 43

1 For completeness, the next document, so

2 {D132/2177/1} — no, that doesn’t seem to be right,

3 sorry.

4 All right, I think I can move on.

5 Are you not concerned about the lawfulness and

6 propriety of that auction on the basis of what you have

7 seen, Mrs Kosova?

8 A. No, I have no concerns.

9 Q. No doubts? No lingering concerns?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Right. Could we have a look — I am afraid it is,

12 again, a terrible translation, but if we could have

13 a look at {D174/2907/1} on one screen, and {D174/2907/2}

14 on the other.

15 So that’s an article published in the newspaper

16 called Delovoy Petersburg in September 2015. So Delovoy

17 Petersburg is a reputable business publication in

18 St Petersburg, isn’t it?

19 A. Well, it’s one of the publications. They publish

20 business related information.

21 Q. Yes. So you can see what is reported here is that in

22 2015 the Bank initiated bankruptcy proceedings against

23 both Solo and Kiperort.

24 A. Yes, I can see that.

25 Q. Were you involved in those bankruptcy proceedings?

1 one screen and page 18 on the other, or both pages on

2 the same screen, whatever, I need pages 17 and 18 of

3 yesterday’s transcript. {Day25/17:1}, {Day25/18:25}

4 So yesterday I asked you about certain agreements on

5 assignment of loans from the Bank to a company called

6 Mercury, as you can see here. Well, should I read it

7 out so that it is translated to you? So, starting at

8 line 22, page 17:

9 «Now, as you can see, that’s an agreement on the

10 assignment of rights to a company called Mercury,

11 assignment of the Bank’s rights as the creditor, and one

12 of the loan agreements, to a company called Mercury. Do

13 you recall anything about this agreement?»

14 You respond:

15 «I first saw this agreement in the case materials

16 and I do not recall anything about the period of time

17 involved here because at that time I was not part of the

18 proceedings.»

19 Mrs Kosova, are you sure this is the correct answer?

20 A. Yes, I am. It is true that I first saw this contract

21 when I started working on these proceedings. I have no

22 recollection about this contract in the previous months

23 or years. I do not recall working on this contract in

24 any way. I think that there may be a discrepancy here,

25 the way I understand the English text here, it says at

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 that time I was not part of the proceedings. What

2 I meant was that I wasn’t involved in the process of

3 preparation or drafting of that assignment contract.

4 That’s what I meant.

5 Q. Can we look at {D148/2466.2/0.1} on one screen and

6 {D148/2466.2/1} on the other. My numbering has gone

7 wrong on the computer, as it happens, but I hope it is

8 page 1.

9 So these seems to be the minutes of the big credit

10 committee meeting on 6 June 2011, and if you look at the

11 list of those present, the main list, it shows the

12 second name from the bottom seems to be your name. Just

13 discounting Mr Kolpachkov, the list of those present,

14 you have Savina, and just above Savina we have you; is

15 that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Then if we could scroll down two pages.

18 I think we hear Russian. If that can be fixed by

19 the translators.

20 THE INTERPRETER: My apologies. It is fixed.

21 MR STROILOV: Thank you. So if you can see item 23, that is

22 the decision to recommend to the management board to

23 assign those rights to Mercury in both cases, approved

24 unanimously; do you recall that meeting?

25 A. I do not recall the actual meeting. However, taking

1 decision has been made.

2 Subsequently, it was the normal working process, the

3 agreement was drafted, and the lawyers had to approve

4 it. It had to be coordinated with the lawyers, and in

5 the actual solution as to a specific legal risk, it’s

6 not something that follows from the decision here. The

7 assignment can be made and the Bank’s rights do not

8 suffer in this regard because of that.

9 Q. Well, if you recall the actual agreement, I can take you

10 to it, it appears that the Bank sells its rights under

11 a loan agreement just for 3 per cent of the amount of

12 the loan. Isn’t that somewhat prejudicial to the Bank’s

13 rights, in your opinion?

14 A. From the legal perspective if the agreement has been

15 drafted in accordance with the law, the right is not

16 prejudiced. The value question does not pertain to the

17 legal service. The economics, the processes, that was

18 something that the business department dealt with.

19 Most likely it was explained as to why the value was

20 so low. Most likely it was in the materials in some

21 opinion from the client monitoring directorate. Usually

22 they always described the situation, and I presume that

23 it was more advantageous for the Bank to assign its

24 rights even at that value, to assign that loan rather

25 than to keep it on the books as a debt.

45 47

1 into account what it says in the minutes, I was present

2 at the meeting. I now do not recall the discussion of

3 that particular matter, and I can say that the matter

4 about the assignment was discussed, as I can see from

5 the minutes. However, the actual assignment agreement

6 or working, drafting the agreement, it wasn’t something

7 done by me. I was present at the major credit committee

8 during the question being discussed, but I did not work

9 on the assignment agreement itself.

10 Q. So it looks like this issue was not really regarded as

11 a legal department issue; it was rather seen as a client

12 monitoring department matter. Would that be a correct

13 understanding of a responsibility allocation in the

14 Bank?

15 A. As far as I can see, based on the person presenting, it

16 was prepared by the client monitoring department and,

17 accordingly, the matter was worked on in detail by that

18 very directorate. The legal service was considering the

19 matter from the viewpoint of legal perspective, so that

20 the Bank would not suffer in the event of assignment.

21 From the legal point, everything had to be done

22 correctly, from the legal standpoint, and I presume that

23 the actual assignment agreement was approved by one of

24 my employees in the ongoing matters when it was already

25 prepared, ie after that committee meeting, when the

1 Q. So you were satisfied, as part of obviously the reason

2 you are there, participating in that committee, is

3 really to look at the legal propriety of the

4 transaction. So as far as you are concerned, you were

5 satisfied it was all above board?

6 A. I think yes. I don’t think there were any problems of

7 a legal nature with regard to this matter. Of course

8 possibly, as the major credit committee member, of

9 course the issue of value could have caused a question,

10 but I presume that an explanation was proffered by the

11 service or a business department that prepared the

12 matter.

13 Q. Now, if I could just quickly ask you about the sale of

14 the Pravdy office. If we could look at your witness

15 statement at paragraphs 57 to 60, the reference to

16 English, that will be {B1/3/9}, and in the Russian

17 version I expect that will be somewhere in the region of

18 39, or thereabouts, but if you could find paragraph 56

19 {B1/3/38}.

20 If you could scroll down one page on both pages, to

21 look at paragraphs 59 and 60 {B1/3/10}, {B1/3/39}, just

22 to remind you what we are talking about.

23 Now, Pravdy Street is one building, isn’t it? It is

24 one and the same building, even though it was split into

25 several lots?

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 A. Apparently this is the case. Based on the address that

2 is Pravdy Street 22A, and it is just several non

3 residential premises and one residential premises.

4 Q. So the building is obviously — would achieve maximum

5 value as a whole rather than parts of it go to one

6 buyer, other parts to the buyer. Obviously, do you see

7 the logic of it, economically?

8 A. In theory it could be, however, there are different

9 situations when it would be harder to sell the building

10 together than to sell it as separate premises. I think

11 everyone would depend on a specific situation, but again

12 I am not an expert on the matter. I am simply stating

13 my vision, my understanding, and in this particular

14 case, however, I would not be able to say now whether

15 the premises, if one were to add them up, would add to

16 one whole building.

17 Judging by the numbering here, 3 and 4 and 5 and 6

18 and 16, and et cetera, it’s unlikely to be one building.

19 Most likely they were separate premises in a building.

20 Q. Now, you say in paragraph 59.1, that BarD LLC and

21 Stimul LLC are not owned or controlled by the Bank. So

22 what is the source of your knowledge in relation to

23 this, as such?

24 A. This is my understanding. As far as I understood, based

25 on the case materials, they were not owned by the Bank,

1 Q. What is the source of your vision and understanding?

2 A. My general understanding and possibly the documents.

3 Q. What documents, and what general understanding? I’m

4 sorry, what is the source of the knowledge you profess

5 to have in your witness statement?

6 A. Now I cannot quote any specific document or refer to it,

7 but I can say that that was my understanding; that the

8 Bank was not a part of it in any way and did not control

9 them. I did not have such information.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are being asked what the source of

11 your understanding was? (Pause)

12 A. Well, it is difficult for me to recollect now. Possibly

13 I have seen some documents about the owners of these

14 companies.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But you confirmed this — you don’t

16 say it’s your understanding: you give it as direct

17 evidence. You do not qualify it in any way and you did

18 look at the witness statement and confirm it on oath

19 yesterday. It is, I think, important for me to

20 understand whether you have any basis for this and, if

21 so, what basis.

22 If you have no basis and you were simply told to say

23 this, you must tell me.

24 A. No, no one told me to say this. Yesterday I said that

25 that was my understanding.

49 51
1 certainly were not owned or controlled by the Bank. 1 MR STROILOV: My Lord, should I continue? Would you like
2 Q. What do you mean by «based on the case materials»? Can 2 to —
3 you be more specific? 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Ms Kosova, should I really
4 A. As far as I recall, Renord clarified with regard to 4 conclude that you have said this but you cannot really
5 companies owned by it. 5 substantiate it? Is that what I should conclude?
6 Q. I’m sorry, so are you saying that BarD and Stimul are 6 I don’t want to be unfair to you if you need time to
7 Renord companies; is that what you are saying? 7 think about this, but at the moment I am rather drawing
8 A. No. I would not be able to say that. I do not remember 8 the conclusion that you can’t really identify for me the
9 whether they are Renord companies or not, but speaking 9 source or basis of your understanding, in this witness
10 by the case materials, I had an understanding that it’s 10 statement; and that is so not only as regards these
11 not connected with the Bank in any way, and I did not 11 companies, but other companies where you use the same
12 have such information from the Bank. 12 formulation.
13 Q. I’m sorry, so I think you remember a question from 13 If you think I am wrong about that and that’s not
14 yesterday. In relation to some companies you felt able 14 the intent of what you want me to go away with, you must
15 to say it has no connection to the Bank. In relation to 15 tell me. (Pause)
16 other companies you use different wording: it is not 16 Well, I don’t want to — it may be that what I shall
17 owned or controlled by the Bank. 17 do is — it may be that your legal team have been able
18 So your evidence in relation to these two companies 18 to identify documents which you may wish to be taken to,
19 is it is not owned or controlled, so clearly you have 19 in which case that will be a matter for re-examination.
20 given some thought to ownership of those companies, or 20 Shall we leave it there? Is there anything else you
21 control for this matter. 21 want to add now? You get another chance in
22 A. I think that this phrase means not that I gave it some 22 re-examination when your own counsel can ask you
23 thought about who owned them, but I simply stated my 23 questions.
24 vision, my understanding, about their ownership by the 24 A. Okay, my Lord.
25 Bank, or rather that they were not owned by the Bank. 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.
50 52
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 MR STROILOV: I think I will, with your Lordship’s

2 permission, I would like to take it a little further.

3 I think you have indicated in answering this

4 question earlier that you — I think the one source you

5 mentioned was a clarification by Renord. If we could go

6 to — perhaps it’s best to look at the [draft]

7 transcript, page 50 of today.

8 So when you say that your source is case materials,

9 I am asking you can you be more specific, that’s at

10 line 5, and you said, line 7:

11 «As far as I recall, Renord clarified with regard to

12 companies owned by it.»

13 So do I understand that correctly, that to establish

14 ownership or control of various companies by the Bank or

15 otherwise, you actually made enquiries to Renord as the

16 first point of contact; is that correct a correct

17 understanding of your sources?

18 A. The first source most likely was not Renord, but Renord

19 in any case confirmed it because the Bank itself does

20 not have any information and cannot find it with regard

21 to the final beneficiaries — ultimate beneficiaries.

22 Q. So there is the first source which you cannot identify,

23 but then you do remember that Renord corroborated

24 whatever you got from that first source, which you don’t

25 remember; is that your evidence?

1 September 2015? Yes or no?

2 A. I was working with this case and, accordingly, all the

3 necessary steps that the Bank should have undertaken,

4 I was responsible for these steps.

5 Q. I just need to find what I have in mind, sorry, my Lord.

6 (Pause)

7 I do apologise, my Lord. I have lost the reference.

8 But you were — in terms of disclosure within the

9 Bank, you were responsible for searches for the relevant

10 documents, were you not?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, if we could — if I could just go through this list

13 in this schedule, and you could describe to the court

14 what steps, generally speaking, what searches to your

15 knowledge were carried out in the Bank for the specific

16 categories listed here. If you can see and if you look

17 at schedule C, I don’t know, let me read it for you,

18 I don’t know how far you understand it. I should

19 imagine this schedule is very well known to you, but

20 just in case you need translation, I will read it out

21 for you. So paragraph 1:

22 «Any documents relating to the agreement between the

23 Bank and Oslo Marine Group in December 2008.»

24 So in September/October/November last year, what

25 searches were carried out for these documents to your

53 55
1 A. I think so. 1 recollection?
2 Q. Thank you. Could we now go to {J1/20/1}. Now, that is 2 A. As far as I recollect the Bank did several searches of
3 the order made by this court on — it is dated 3 the relevant documents, and all the credit files were
4 23 September and 23 October, but my understanding is 4 handed over and the search was carried out on electronic
5 that the parts I want to take you to actually relate to 5 media. Then, as far as I understand, in accordance with
6 the orders made on 23 September. If we could scroll 6 this order, unfortunately I cannot evaluate it, because
7 down to page 5 {J1/20/5}, in paragraph 12 there were 7 my English isn’t good enough, additional searches of
8 various orders for disclosure made by this court, 8 documentation have also been carried out.
9 ordering the claimants to disclose certain things. 9 The Bank, following a request from the solicitors,
10 What I am interested in are the operative words, 10 has performed certain actions and was sending documents,
11 which I would like to draw your attention to, are these, 11 was making electronic searches, was requesting and
12 in paragraph 12: 12 checking archives, and was undertaking all the relevant
13 «by no later than 5 pm on 4 November 2015, the 13 steps.
14 claimants shall …» 14 Q. Well, isn’t this too general? I should imagine that if
15 Then if you skip to paragraph (d): 15 you were really, as the court was told, you were working
16 «Carry out such further searches as are reasonable 16 on this full-time for quite a period of time,
17 for the categories of documents listed in schedule C 17 practically full-time, surely you can tell the court
18 hereto.» 18 more about what searches were carried out in relation to
19 Now, if we could scroll down to schedule C at 19 paragraph 1, so documents relevant to the agreement in
20 {J1/20/12}. Mrs Kosova, I understand that, really, 20 December 2008?
21 following the making of this order, you personally were 21 A. The December 2008 agreement is not a very concrete
22 working full-time on implementing it; is that a correct 22 formulation either. The Bank — the way I understand
23 understanding? (Pause) 23 it, the Bank was checking on the documents. The Bank
24 Mrs Kosova, yes or no: were you working full-time on 24 originally, at the start of the search process, it made
25 implementing the disclosure order made in 25 available all the loan files.
54 56
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 Q. I am sorry, Mrs Kosova, will you answer the question? 1 some basis for it, to suggest that the depiction given
2 I’m asking you about the searches at the end of 2 in the witness statements provided by Mr McGregor are
3 September and October. 3 not entirely accurate. But I cannot remember, I must
4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think she was, Mr Stroilov. It may 4 say, the extent to which they described the efforts of
5 be that the difficulty is that one might expect that 5 this witness or those working under her, and I think
6 most of the files, if not all of the files, were 6 I need to remind myself of that, probably.
7 transmitted to the solicitors, and I think she was 7 MR STROILOV: If we could. I think I have found the
8 trying to explain that. 8 reference I wanted to look at. So that will be the
9 You have a legitimate query as to whether the Bank 9 fifth witness statement of Mr McGregor at {H2/32/2}.
10 then had another search in case something had slipped 10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I can’t remember that. They were
11 out of the net of the documents that were sent some time 11 the ones Mr Lord referred us to.
12 ago, or at that time, to the solicitors. 12 MR STROILOV: That’s one of those and I am grateful for it.
13 Is that right? Is that what you were trying to say? 13 As you will see, and I think the witness needs to
14 I don’t mean it rudely, you were saying it, I think, 14 see that as well, in paragraph 5, Mr McGregor made the
15 before you were interrupted; yes? 15 reference to the order, when he reminds your Lordship
16 A. Yes. 16 briefly of the background and what was done prior to
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that right? 17 the order, and then in paragraph 6 he says this, and let
18 A. Yes. 18 me read it verbatim so that it is translated to the
19 MR LORD: Also, my Lord, there are witness statements from 19 witness:
20 the solicitors that set out the searches that were done. 20 «Since the CMC [and that refers to the hearing on
21 This is always an area that comes very disclose to 21 23 September, if I’m not mistaken] BSP has put a large
22 descending into privileged matters. It is a very 22 amount of resource into the searches described in this
23 sensitive area. It would be fair, in my submission, to 23 Witness Statement. Specifically 16 members of the IT
24 bear in mind that body of evidence to see if there is 24 Directorate have worked a total of 475 hours, including
25 actually a challenge to that, if that is actually being 25 weekend working. This has diverted the resources from

57

1 challenged. It is a bit unfair just to say to this

2 witness «Tell us all about what was essentially

3 a privileged search to comply with a court order», and

4 that needs a bit of care. So I don’t want this witness

5 to be asked questions and suddenly we are straight into

6 a series of privileged matters.

7 There are lengthy statements, Mr McGregor’s fifth

8 statement at {H2/2/32} and his sixth statement at

9 {H2/2/33} that set out in the conventional way the

10 searches were carried out. If it is to be said the

11 searches were not carried out, that needs to be put to

12 the witness, and that would serve as a sort of check on

13 that.

14 But I am worried about where this is going and to

15 expect this witness to remember all the micro searches

16 that were done, effectively in a privileged process with

17 London solicitors to comply with an order, that is not

18 a fair line of questioning, and it is a dangerous one.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I think it is legitimate, given

20 the evidence which this witness has given as to the

21 limitations on her knowledge about quite a broad slate

22 of things, just to find out quite what the nature of her

23 involvement was and how she undertook it. I quite

24 understand that it won’t want and it isn’t right or fair

25 to delve into privileged material nor, unless there is

59

1 the everyday functions of the IT Directorate that are

2 critical to BSP’s operations. Further, that Tatyana

3 Kosova (BSP’s In-House Legal Counsel) estimates that she

4 has been employed full-time in this exercise.»

5 That statement is made on 4 November, so my reading

6 of it was that, since the end of September and

7 throughout October, you were working full-time in

8 seeking to comply with the court’s order for specific

9 disclosure, were you?

10 A. Correct, at that time it was a priority matter,

11 therefore I did spend a lot of time doing this. There’s

12 just one clarification that I would like to add. At

13 that time I was no longer in-house legal counsel. I was

14 not general counsel. I was already an adviser to the

15 deputy chairman of the board. So I was dealing with the

16 disclosure matters.

17 Q. My Lord, just so that you have the picture in mind,

18 obviously I am anxious, as well, to go in close to

19 privilege.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

21 MR STROILOV: But I think it’s fair to say that Mr McGregor

22 identifies —

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Has disclosed the machinery, that’s

24 right.

25 MR STROILOV: But he also identifies that, it seems from his

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 statements, at least, and I need to check what he says

2 about sources, but I think in a lot of cases he

3 identifies this witness as his source, or more generally

4 the Bank’s legal department. So it’s legitimate,

5 really, now that I have a chance to ask this witness

6 about it.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, it is true that at 3.3 he says

8 that much of what he says in addition to his meetings

9 and a visit to BSP’s archive, is based on instructions

10 and information provided by this witness, who he

11 describes is by now an adviser to the deputy chairman of

12 the management board, which he also describes as BSP’s

13 in-house legal counsel.

14 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That is so.

16 MR STROILOV: Of course, what I’m trying to avoid, obviously

17 I don’t want to know the instructions which the witness

18 gave to Mr McGregor, but that’s why I am doing it,

19 rightly or wrongly, without reference, actually, or

20 without a lot of reference to what Mr McGregor says.

21 I rather want …

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Subject to anything Mr Lord may say,

23 I think you are entitled to explore, within reasonable

24 limits, what this witness did or caused to be done, not

25 what she was advised to do or anything like it, but what

1 arrangements?

2 A. Yes, if I understand this provision of the order

3 correctly. Repo transactions in the context of these

4 proceedings.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What, you had not heard that there had

6 been repo arrangements in these proceedings? Is that

7 what you are saying, or are you saying that repo

8 arrangements were not things that you had come across in

9 any context before? I am trying to understand what you

10 are telling me, or whether you are telling me both.

11 A. Something may have been lost in translation.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sorry.

13 A. Let me say that again. I am referring to the rules and

14 regulations, internal rules and regulations, if

15 I understand this particular clause, in the English

16 language. So what I’m saying is, I’m referring to the

17 rules, internal banking rules or regulations governing

18 repo transactions that may be related to these

19 proceedings.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Just to clarify, you said that

21 throughout your career in the Bank, you had never

22 encountered, you had never come across such documents as

23 internal rules or guidance documents in relation to repo

24 arrangements with borrowers; is that right? You have

25 never come across such things?

61 63

1 she did do is a legitimate enquiry. But it may be that,

2 you know, it may be quite a difficult thing to describe.

3 MR LORD: Exactly, that is the point. Fairness to the

4 witness, a big task like this, she would normally

5 have — one would … well, it goes without saying that

6 at a micro level it would be very difficult for somebody

7 to remember blow by blow, as opposed to generally, how

8 much time and resource was devoted. So as long as the

9 questions are fair, then I will abide by your Lordship’s

10 direction.

11 MR STROILOV: If you could now go back to {J1/20/12}.

12 I think you have answered me on paragraph 1,

13 paragraph 2:

14 «Any internal rules or guidance documents in

15 relation to ‘repo’ arrangements with borrowers.»

16 Do you remember taking any steps to ascertain

17 whether any such rules or guidance existed in October?

18 A. I did check on the documents contained in the electronic

19 database of the Bank’s internal regulations and by-laws

20 to determine whether such a document had ever existed,

21 even though, speaking from memory, throughout my career

22 in the Bank, I had never encountered, I had never come

23 across such documents.

24 Q. Right.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What, documents relating to repo

1 A. Yes, correct.

2 MR STROILOV: Just to take it a little further, because I am

3 also puzzled. So you are not — are you saying that

4 there are some internal rules or guidance which relate

5 to repo but which you considered not to be relevant to

6 this case; is that what you are saying?

7 A. So far as I know, when conducting financial market

8 separations, there is this thing called repo

9 transactions. So everything related to financial

10 markets and financial instruments is perhaps reflected

11 in those rules and regulations.

12 But this has nothing to do with these transactions.

13 The transactions that were used with respect to those

14 borrowers.

15 Q. Right. If I move on to paragraph 3, you were ordered to

16 carry out a specific search for:

17 «Any documents relating to the Bank’s decision to

18 refuse an extension of repayment of loans by OMG

19 companies in March 2009.»

20 So do you recall any specific steps you have taken

21 in October or — in or around October 2005 to comply

22 with this specific paragraph?

23 A. You may be referring to 2015 rather than 2005.

24 Q. I’m sorry, yes, of course. 2015, yes.

25 A. I worked on the basis of the request received from the

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 solicitors, and consequently there were some requests to 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, you are entitled to rely on
2 check on all the minutes of the collegial bodies of the 2 Mr McGregor’s description of what was done. If you
3 Bank, and for that I procured for the solicitors to be 3 think that that description suggests some defect in
4 able to visit the archives because those documents, the 4 an important area, you are entitled to ask about it.
5 documents for those years, are now in the archives, and 5 But just to go through confirming what Mr McGregor said
6 that included Russian lawyers, EPAM law offices. They 6 was done was done, or that more than what Mr McGregor
7 were also granted access to the archives to conduct some 7 said was done was done, seems not, to me, to advance the
8 work with these documents, so that also took a lot of 8 position.
9 time. 9 MR LORD: Also, my Lord, it is right to note that there was
10 Q. Within the archives, so what would you be doing? How 10 another witness statement of Mr McGregor dealing with
11 would you be looking for documents relating to the 11 further queries that arose. So one would have to look
12 Bank’s decision to refuse extension? 12 at that, in my respectful submission, in the round,
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How is that going to help? 13 really.
14 MR STROILOV: All right. 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I mean, I suppose we are going
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, different folk do different 15 to go on after the short adjournment and I will read
16 things, but … 16 these, if you supply me H2, I will read them.
17 MR STROILOV: I’m testing compliance, really. 17 I mean, I think I must urge you, Mr Stroilov —
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think this witness is saying that 18 I quite understand that this witness has taken
19 substantial efforts, including by affording access to 19 responsibility for this process and was the person who
20 the archives, was given, and it may be more relevant to 20 one would expect to take responsibility, and you are
21 ask about particular areas, including what steps were 21 entitled, given the emphasis you put on what you say was
22 taken to find out about any arrangements with 22 inadequate disclosure, to test that within reason, and
23 Renord-Invest companies. 23 I should have thought you may wish to focus on the
24 MR STROILOV: Yes, well I’m just going down the list. 24 efforts with regard to the Renord companies.
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know, but to what end? 25 But we can’t sort of go on and on, with respect,
65 67

1 MR STROILOV: Just to see if the order was complied with.

2 Really, I don’t want — well, I think on the basis of

3 reading Mr McGregor’s statement, it seems to me that

4 there have been very few focused searches on specific

5 subjects, really, and I haven’t reached that. What I am

6 looking at is the sixth, I think, statement. No,

7 I think it’s the fifth statement, and I think he

8 identifies — I think if you go to {H2/32/32}, so in

9 paragraph 23.10, it is explained that he sets out the

10 additional search terms which were used, and then over

11 the page {H2/32/33} there is a list of the key

12 custodians. So the number of custodians was very

13 limited.

14 If we could use both screens, if we can go back to

15 schedule C at {J1/20/12}.

16 So you can see that this, really it’s just some, and

17 if we could scroll back to the additional search terms

18 again, the witness statement screen one page up

19 {H2/32/32}. That seems to be just some of the

20 subparagraphs in paragraph 6, and there doesn’t seem to

21 be any further compliance with other —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What are you trying to establish with

23 this witness; that more than what Mr McGregor says was

24 done was done, or what?

25 MR STROILOV: Yes, I see the problem. Yes.

1 cross-testing Mr McGregor’s word.

2 MR STROILOV: I didn’t mean to do that, really. What

3 I wanted — perhaps I just need to put the relevant

4 parts of Mr McGregor’s statement to the witness and then

5 put certain propositions to her. I suppose that may be

6 the way …

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It seems to me that what you have said

8 is you think that some things which were required to be

9 done were not done, and that there is no record for

10 their having been done in Mr McGregor’s statement.

11 Now, you can quiz the witness about that, but not

12 about things which were said to have been done which she

13 confirms, I take it, have been done.

14 MR STROILOV: Yes, that’s the point.

15 Just so you know, I am concerned about putting large

16 bits — incidentally, I think there is a Russian version

17 of Mr McGregor’s statement, so that may be helpful.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, how much more time have you got,

19 because I think in happier days, that is yesterday, you

20 thought the worst possible case was an hour and a half,

21 and you floated the notion of an hour —

22 MR STROILOV: Yes, I am afraid so.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — and we have been, you know, less

24 a break, nearly three.

25 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

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

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 Well, I must confess that I think half an hour ago 1 MR STROILOV: I will go there as well.
2 I told my learned friend I would need 20 minutes. Now 2 The Russian is — I am just thinking how to do it.
3 I think I need 20 minutes. Well, hopefully this time 3 We need a third screen, don’t we?
4 it’s a real 20 minutes. 4 We will go through schedule C and then, if
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. What I am going to do is I am 5 necessary, we will — okay, let’s go through schedule C
6 going to break now at come back at 1.55 pm, and I am 6 first and then we will get to the witness statement of
7 going to ask for H2 and J1, please, and at least I will 7 Mr McGregor, so hopefully everyone will remember what is
8 then be more up to speed on the witness statements that 8 in there.
9 have been given, describing the process. 9 Let me read it to you. We are in trouble. Isn’t
10 MR STROILOV: Yes. 10 there a Russian version of this schedule? Did you use
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, it seems to me, if I may say 11 a Russian version when you were working on it,
12 so, that it seems that quite an extensive process was 12 Mrs Kosova; do you recall there being one?
13 done, but equally it may not have covered all the parts 13 A. I do not recall that.
14 in which you are interested. I don’t know whether it 14 Q. Let me just read it for you so that it is translated and
15 did or not. 15 that will refresh your recollection of what categories
16 MR STROILOV: All right, I will give it some further 16 you were required to look for, if you don’t mind.
17 thought. 17 I just don’t want the language difficulties to get in
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Then 20 minutes, half an hour. I have 18 the way.
19 some questions, Mr Lord may have some questions, 19 So, my Lord, we have gone to point 3, so we are done
20 especially on matters where the witness’s recollection 20 with that next, point 4:
21 may have to be prompted, and we then have housekeeping. 21 «Any documents relating to the Bank’s decision to
22 I hope I made clear, I must rise at the allotted time 22 transfer the Scan shareholding from the Original
23 today, at 4.30, so I hope there is no danger that we are 23 Purchasers to the Subsequent Purchasers;
24 going to go over. I am also concerned for you because 24 «5. Any documents relating to the Bank’s
25 I know you have quite a lot of prep on other witnesses. 25 decision(s) to replace the management of
69 71
1 MR STROILOV: Quite, my Lord. I do think it will be 1 the Western Terminal and/or Scan.
2 20 minutes and not longer. 2 «6. Any documents relating to any of the following
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There is light at the end of the 3 transactions (‘Western Terminal transfers’).»
4 tunnel. 4 Then there is a list of Western Terminal transfers
5 (12.55 pm) 5 which we may need to look at in more detail later on.
6 (The Luncheon Adjournment) 6 Then at 7 we have:
7 (1.55 pm) 7 «Any documents relating to any of the following
8 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. 8 transactions (‘Scan/Onega transfers’).»
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 9 Then you will recall there are various transfers of
10 MR STROILOV: If we could go back to the disclosure order — 10 Scan assets and other assets at Onega Terminal.
11 I’m sorry, my computer is being slow in operating on 11 Then 8, if you can scroll down one page {J1/20/13}:
12 this, but hopefully it will be all right any second. 12 «Any documents relating to any dealings the
13 Apologies, my Lord, it is something technical, it’s 13 claimants had, in relation to the repo arrangements or
14 going slowly. 14 with the shares or assets the subject of the repo
15 So that will be {J1/20/10}, let me find the 15 arrangements, or any matters listed in paragraphs 1-7 of
16 schedule. No, that’s schedule A, and if we scroll down 16 this Schedule, with …»
17 to {J1/20/12} we get back to schedule C. 17 Then there is a rather long list of various entities
18 Now, if we could now look at the fifth witness 18 and individuals starting from Renord, Mr Smirnov,
19 statement of Mr McGregor, which is at {H2/32/1} in the 19 Mr Sklyarevsky, Mr Zelyenov, then a number of companies
20 first instance, and if we could get to paragraph 23.10. 20 featuring in this case, Russian Auction House in (l),
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I hope it is not causing a problem my 21 Mr Andrey Stepanenko in (m), Mrs Matvienko in (n) and
22 having hijacked this file. You are all right, are you, 22 Vladislav Piotrovsky in (o); you do recall all of that,
23 with the screen, rather than seeing it here? 23 don’t you?
24 MR STROILOV: There will be a Russian version, yes. 24 I would like now to look — I’m sure you know it
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you so much. 25 well, you were working on it, so I just want to refresh
70 72
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 your recollection.

2 If we now go to Mr McGregor’s {H2/32/74} for the

3 Russian version, and earlier than that, there is

4 an English version and I need paragraph 23.10

5 {H2/32/32}. That describes what you actually did to

6 carry out these focused searches. So you can see that

7 a number of new, or seven new keywords were identified.

8 Then in paragraph 23.12 you will see that there are

9 a list of key custodians were identified, and if —

10 I wonder if the Russian version could be half scrolled

11 down so that we can see the whole list in 23.12

12 {H2/32/33}, {H2/32/75}. That doesn’t seem to be

13 complete. Yes, that’s brilliant. So you have the full

14 list.

15 You have seen that, you have read to

16 Mrs Stalevskaya, haven’t you? Over the page we have

17 Ms Yashkina and Ms Stalevskaya, so let’s just remember

18 that and go back to page 74, just so that we see the

19 keywords.

20 And in the English version if we could go one page

21 up as well.

22 What I want to put to you, Mrs Kosova, is that these

23 searches, none of these searches amount to a focused

24 search for any documents relating to the agreement

25 between the Bank and Oslo Marine Group in December 2008;

1 of this order, and prior to that there was an order for

2 standard disclosure, and I am not challenging that there

3 have been efforts to comply with that. I am talking now

4 about particular compliance with this particular

5 provision of the order.

6 MR LORD: I’m sorry, my Lord, but there were many other

7 keywords that were put in. It’s not fair to suggest

8 that these are the only words that have been put in, the

9 only searches have ever been these terms and appears to

10 be what Mr Stroilov is submitting, unless I have

11 misunderstood him.

12 MR STROILOV: What I am submitting is that, in compliance

13 with this particular order, that is what has been done.

14 What has been done previously, and in terms of complying

15 with standard disclosure, that’s a different matter.

16 After that, this order was made. So I am limiting this

17 enquiry to what has been done pursuant to this

18 particular order.

19 It’s no good to say: well, this order shouldn’t have

20 been made, it should have been made more clearly.

21 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I’m not submitting that. What

22 I am submitting is that you cannot submit more

23 additional search terms on the basis those are not wide

24 enough, if those additional search terms are being

25 applied to supplement or augment existing searches that

73 75
1 do you accept that? 1 have been carried out. It’s not fair to say: you
2 A. I do not know what you mean when you say «Focused 2 haven’t looked carefully enough for something, look at
3 search». Every effort was made to identify the 3 these six search terms, if the truth is those are the
4 documents, and therefore keywords for the search were 4 six search terms you have applied on top of a whole host
5 identified as well. The custodians were selected where 5 of other searches you have already done that would feed
6 that was doable at all, and therefore I believe that 6 that overall search process. That’s the point.
7 sufficient efforts have been made, sufficient steps have 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Mr Stroilov, disclosure is
8 been taken, to identify the documents. The documents 8 inevitably a cumulative business, and unless you
9 that could have been identified. 9 identify some missing bit, it wouldn’t really be right
10 Q. Well, what I am putting to you is that searching the 10 or reasonable or proportionate, would it, to make
11 accounts of these custodians, of these six custodians 11 everyone in compliance with one order to do everything
12 against these seven keywords, was extremely unlikely to 12 again, including those things they have done before.
13 return any documents relating to the agreement between 13 Mr McGregor explains that it might have been
14 the Bank and OMG in December; do you agree with that? 14 possible in certain instances to go through the whole
15 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, it is on top of other searches, 15 thing again, but he also explains why that was not
16 I think. I think that’s right. I don’t want to 16 considered proportionate and feasible. That’s the first
17 interrupt, but I do think it is important for what is 17 general point.
18 quite micro, granular cross-examination — it’s not 18 The second point is that obviously the search terms
19 a memory test. As your Lordship said earlier, I think 19 were many more than these, but they had been searched.
20 questions have to be put fairly rather than taking 20 The third is that I thought that — I mean, if you
21 a particular gobbet of a statement and implicitly 21 had problems with the search terms as being inadequate
22 submitting that that is all that was done in relation to 22 for your purposes, might you not have said that at the
23 a particular line of enquiry. I think that would be 23 time?
24 unfair, my Lord. 24 MR STROILOV: My Lord, we did, and that’s why you made that
25 MR STROILOV: With respect, my Lord, there were other parts 25 order.
74 76
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But that order … 1 I will tell you what my feelings are having re-read —
2 MR STROILOV: By definition, obviously compliance with this 2 quickly, because they are quite dense — the witness
3 order is what has taken place after this order. 3 statements over the short adjournment.
4 Obviously what is said about the previous searches being 4 It seemed to me that considerable care had been
5 sufficient, that’s an argument against this order, isn’t 5 taken to comply with the order in terms of the
6 it? 6 identified areas, but I was still intrigued by the
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The thing is that you can’t look at 7 position with respect to the efforts made to identify
8 everything in a vacuum. You can’t say that in order to 8 not only documents which might be in the possession of
9 comply properly with this order you have to, as it were, 9 the various Renord Group companies or their owners, but
10 repeat everything that you have already done. As 10 any records within the Bank relating to repo
11 a matter of fact, in various instances they thought of 11 transactions, and in particular the Renord Group.
12 repeating, given the variety of times on which you have 12 On those matters very few documents have been
13 suggested that disclosure was inadequate. They 13 provided. That may be because there aren’t any, but
14 determined against that, except in certain, specific 14 that may of itself be something you wish to explore.
15 instances, on grounds of proportionality and on grounds 15 MR STROILOV: Well, considering the limitations which have
16 of satisfaction that the previous exercise had been 16 been indicated, I am not quite sure how to explore this.
17 sufficient, not perfect, but sufficient. 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, what limitations do you feel
18 MR STROILOV: Yes, and I am testing the adequacy of that 18 have been imposed?
19 decision. 19 MR STROILOV: Well, if I cannot cross-examine on the basis
20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You must, within reason — and we are 20 that, insofar as compliance with the order is concerned,
21 stretching reason, to some extent. I am not going to 21 then only what has occurred after the order counts,
22 dissuade you from this for the moment, but isn’t your 22 really, because otherwise it is simply an argument
23 real focus, or might you consider your real focus as 23 against making this order, to say that: well, standard
24 being, to find out a little bit more as to the efforts 24 disclosure has been —
25 made and the context in which the Bank thought it was 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you have identified things which
77 79
1 making the efforts to obtain documentation from the 1 were required to be done by the order and which were not
2 owners and the companies in the Renord Group? 2 done either pursuant to that order or pursuant to
3 MR STROILOV: Well, no, I don’t think I want to 3 standard disclosure or any previous orders, well and
4 cross-examine on that. I will be making submissions on 4 good.
5 the basis of what is there, I don’t think I want to 5 But to ask this witness by reference to the
6 cross-examine — 6 additional search words why it is that those additional
7 MR LORD: Well, that’s very important, because what is put 7 search words might be deficient is not really to produce
8 and not put is going to be important here, so I put 8 or provide the witness with the whole story, is it? Do
9 a marker down there, I am afraid. 9 you see what I mean?
10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You know what that signifies, 10 MR STROILOV: I would rather be hoping that the witness
11 Mr Stroilov: that if you determine not to put things, 11 knows the whole story. So far as we are told, she was
12 that is the sort of paradigm of not thereafter being 12 in control of the disclosure. So insofar as the answer,
13 allowed to ask the court to make the findings or draw 13 I would rather — well, she can give it.
14 inferences from matters not put. The witness may have 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Have you got lots of questions on
15 some answer to them, and if you have closed your eyes to 15 this?
16 that possibility, it’s not really fair for me to leap to 16 MR STROILOV: I’m not sure. It may be a matter for
17 conclusions in respect of the matters intentionally 17 submissions, really.
18 omitted, is it? Do you see what I mean? 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t want you to feel that you are
19 MR STROILOV: I do. 19 being cut off. I want you to feel that you are being
20 Right, I will then leave this order aside. 20 given a generous ambit, but I’m not sure where we are
21 I suppose if, having read what you have read, my Lord, 21 going. You see, ultimately your cross-examination has
22 if there are matters which you think would be helpful, 22 to teach me something.
23 I will leave it to you. 23 MR STROILOV: Yes. I mean, it seems to be, really — and
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: To assist you, whilst the submissions 24 I don’t mean it critically in any way, we seem to be
25 of each of you could well change my provisional view, 25 constantly, really, it seems to be mutating into
78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 exchange of submissions and we may as well postpone it

2 then.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I leave it to you. If you want to

4 carry on for five or ten exploring what you have

5 identified to be things which slip between the stools of

6 standard disclosure and this order, or which were not

7 performed pursuant to this order, well and good. That’s

8 entirely fair.

9 But I think one just has to be mindful that

10 disclosure was probably an enormous task and it’s not

11 really fair to have a sort of quiz about it without

12 a particular objective having been identified; do you

13 see what I mean?

14 MR STROILOV: Well — okay, I will do my best.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.

16 MR STROILOV: Mrs Kosova, obviously you were responsible for

17 disclosure on the Bank’s side, weren’t you? Now, I put

18 it to you that that disclosure has resulted in us seeing

19 no more than a handful of documents concerning the

20 agreement between the Bank and OMG in December 2008; do

21 you accept that?

22 A. I do not recall exactly how many documents were

23 disclosed as a result of that search, that additional

24 search, so I really do not know how many of those

25 documents were.

1 referring to instructions from the Bank to any of the

2 original purchasers, or anyone connected with them

3 within the ambit of the control of the Bank, has been

4 given and made. That’s what you are really being asked

5 in this question; is that not right?

6 MR STROILOV: Quite, my Lord, yes.

7 A. The number of people, the ambit of people who may have

8 had those documents was identified. A search was

9 conducted within the ambit of those people, including

10 Malysheva, Mironova, amongst others, Mr Savelyev and,

11 therefore, we thought, we presumed that that would allow

12 us to identify all the documents that may have been

13 generated by the Bank if any had been generated by the

14 Bank in the first place, and that might have been

15 available to the Bank on the basis of that particular

16 search.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So I can take it, when seeking to

18 adjudicate this matter, that, apart from the few

19 documents in that regard which have been disclosed, all

20 and any other instructions were left unrecorded and were

21 entirely dependent on oral conversations between the

22 Bank and those companies or people? I can take that?

23 A. Yes, I think so, my Lord.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I can take it that you, as the head of

25 the legal department, as general counsel, in checking to

81 83

1 Q. Now, and I don’t recall seeing in your disclosure any

2 documents relating to the Bank’s decision to transfer

3 the Scan shareholding from the original purchasers to

4 the subsequent purchasers; what do you say to that?

5 A. Such documents may not have been generated by the Bank

6 at all. I mean, in terms of a bank decision as such.

7 Q. Are you really saying that this kind of transaction

8 which we know took place on the Bank’s instructions,

9 there is no documentary record of it; is that what you

10 are saying?

11 A. Because I was not involved in this process, I am afraid

12 I do not know anything about the discussions that took

13 place or what decisions were being made, but, come what

14 may, this is a question with respect to companies and

15 the Bank is not a party hereto. Therefore, that may be

16 the reason why the Bank did not have those documents

17 available to it.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did you regard the original purchasers

19 as able to make their own decisions without instructions

20 from the Bank?

21 A. I don’t think so. I think they did receive instructions

22 from the Bank.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. You are being asked whether

24 you are entirely satisfied, in which case the basis for

25 your satisfaction, that all documents recording or

1 see that the company’s property and the shape of the

2 Bank’s property in respect of these shares, did not have

3 to be tracked by formal writing and of clear record as

4 to what was to be done with those shares; is that right?

5 THE INTERPRETER: I’m so sorry, my Lord, this is the

6 interpreter speaking. Could you repeat your question,

7 please? I’m so sorry.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Can I take it that you, as the

9 head of the legal department, as general counsel, in

10 checking to see that the Bank’s property, that is the

11 shares the subject of the repo transactions, were being

12 safeguarded, did not consider that any instructions in

13 respect of that property had to be recorded in writing?

14 A. At that time I was not involved in this process, ie the

15 transfer of the shares, from those companies, the

16 original purchasers to the subsequent purchasers.

17 Therefore, I did not run all those checks at that time.

18 When we were conducting the search we were operating on

19 the assumption that there are certain areas and there

20 are certain people who should be searched with respect

21 to those documents, with a view to identifying those

22 documents.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did you quiz those people as to

24 whether they had given or were aware of any such written

25 instructions?

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 A. Yes, we did.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And in no case did they indicate any

3 documents except for those that you have disclosed?

4 A. No.

5 MR STROILOV: I am grateful, my Lord. Should I carry on?

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I mean if that’s covered that

7 area, are there other areas you wish to cover?

8 MR STROILOV: Yes, there are a few. I hopefully will be

9 quick.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right.

11 MR STROILOV: I just put it to you, Mrs Kosova, that in the

12 Bank’s disclosure I have seen no documents at all which

13 would be relevant to the Bank’s decision or decisions to

14 replace the management of Western Terminal or Scan.

15 Does that mean that all the decisions and discussions

16 were oral and there is nothing in writing, or have you

17 simply failed to disclose the documents?

18 A. We did not identify those documents and I am sure that

19 all the — I presume, rather, that all the instructions

20 were issued in the oral form.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Or, alternatively, the relevant

22 companies within the Renord Group or their controllers

23 were simply allowed to get on with whatever they wished

24 to do. There are three possibilities, aren’t there:

25 written instructions, oral instructions, they could do

1 In particular, if you look at (h), the auction sale,

2 which is said to be quite an important step for the

3 Bank, realisation of one of the most substantial assets

4 in 2012, the auction sale of Western Terminal.

5 I think the documents, the relevant documents in

6 your disclosure, are limited or nearly limited to these

7 three protocols which we have seen today in court.

8 Isn’t that odd?

9 A. I don’t think this is odd because, so far as the

10 auctions are concerned, we have all the documents from

11 the bailiffs service, and those are obviously the main

12 documents that I believe are available to the Bank with

13 respect to that sale because that all was organised and

14 conducted by the bailiffs service.

15 So we have those documents emanating from the

16 bailiffs service, and they fully corroborate that the

17 sale had actually taken place.

18 Q. Well, the court will decide about that.

19 If we could half scroll down to the next page so

20 that we have the whole of paragraph 7 on the screen

21 {J1/20/13}. If we could have the top of the page in the

22 bottom half of the screen. So again, if we look through

23 the list in paragraph 7, I put it to you that there are

24 extremely few documents in relation to any other

25 transactions with former Scan assets or other Onega

85 87
1 what they wanted. I can take it that where there aren’t 1 Terminal assets. There is only a handful of documents
2 written instructions disclosed there were no such 2 in your disclosure on that. Doesn’t this suggest that
3 written instructions, and unless I am given evidence as 3 the Bank has something to hide?
4 to oral instructions, there were no oral instructions, 4 A. I don’t think so. I think the Bank had conducted
5 which leaves the third thing. 5 extensive search and it had disclosed all the documents
6 A. I believe that oral instructions were actually issued. 6 based on that search.
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What’s the ground for that? 7 Q. Isn’t it the case that a huge number of documents, of
8 A. Based on the witness statements, I understand that the 8 potentially relevant documents, was destroyed in the
9 instructions that had been issued had been issued 9 Bank between 2008 and now?
10 orally. 10 A. No, this is not the case.
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So what you are saying is you are not 11 Q. At what time did you instruct the relevant custodians
12 giving me any separate evidence, you are just saying if 12 that they must not destroy any relevant documents, if
13 other people have said there were instructions, read 13 you understand the question? If not, just ask me to
14 that and remember that, yes? You are not, yourself, 14 reformulate it.
15 giving any evidence of any instructions; is that right? 15 A. So far as I know, in late 2012 the matter raised by the
16 A. No. 16 lawyers emerged for the first time, and that was the
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, okay. 17 matter related to the disclosure and, at that time,
18 MR STROILOV: If you could please call back on the screen 18 Mr Balandin had oversight of this, and so Mr Balandin
19 {J1/20/12}, I don’t know if — hopefully you are 19 was taking those steps.
20 familiar enough with this schedule to grasp the general 20 Subsequently, I think in the second half of 2014,
21 meaning of the list in paragraph 6. If you are not, say 21 and I am not sure about the exact date, I sent out
22 so. What I want to put to you is that there are 22 information or, rather, instructions. I sent out
23 extremely few documents in relation to these 23 instructions to all the custodians advising them about
24 transactions. In some cases, really, one or two 24 the need to preserve all the documents.
25 documents in your disclosure. 25 Q. That was in 2013, did you say? I’m sorry, I may have
86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 misheard. 1 bit concerned at some of the questions. Huge numbers of
2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The second half of 2014. 2 documents were destroyed, and the implication is,
3 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful, my Lord. 3 really, that there has been a deliberate destruction of
4 So prior to that, the custodians were not warned not 4 documents, page 88, line 3 [draft transcript] today. To
5 to destroy documents, were they? 5 be fair to the witness, the questioner can’t have it
6 MR LORD: My Lord, again, it is set out in Mr McGregor’s 6 both ways. They can’t say a question about something,
7 sixth statement. Your Lordship has read that. Again, 7 and then she does the best she can and say «Ah, well
8 I don’t want to stop legitimate questions, I really 8 what do you know about it?» If she doesn’t know about
9 don’t, but it is not a memory test and it is not meant 9 it, she shouldn’t be asked about it, and if she is asked
10 to get into privileged matters. I don’t mind proper 10 to, if you like, go outside exactly what she can
11 questions being put but I don’t want this then to 11 remember today doing herself, then she has to be given
12 unravel and it then to be said that there’s been 12 a little bit of fairness and a little bit of context
13 a waiver of privilege and this really gets out of hand, 13 when she tries to help the question. I understand she
14 really. So I am in your Lordship’s hands. 14 is likely to want to help questions, particularly from
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think Mr Stroilov is very anxious 15 your Lordship.
16 not to pierce privilege and would, therefore, not take 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see that the question was, isn’t the
17 a point in that regard. 17 case that a huge number of documents was destroyed, and
18 I do think that a lot of these matters have been 18 she said no.
19 addressed, for better or worse, in the fifth and six 19 MR LORD: Relevant documents were destroyed. So the
20 witness statement of Mr McGregor. I do not think it is 20 implication being that there has been a deliberate
21 consistent, as far as I read it, with that witness 21 decision to shred evidence. That’s essentially that
22 statement for this witness to be able to say she is 22 point.
23 quite sure there has been no document destruction, and 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t think that is implicit, but
24 that is worth exploring if Mr Stroilov wishes to do so. 24 let’s not argue about it.
25 MR LORD: Yes, I wanted to make sure that — 25 Just for my clarity, I think it follows, doesn’t it,
89 91

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: My understanding from this — and I’m

2 sorry to interrupt — Ms Kosova, is that it comes as

3 some surprise within Russia and, as a matter of fact,

4 within other countries that there are rules in this

5 country as to preservation of documents once the

6 certainty or likelihood of proceedings is evident, and

7 certainly once proceedings have commenced. Now, that is

8 not an universal rule; that just happens to be

9 a domestic rule.

10 Because in proceedings which are taking place here,

11 we put a great deal of emphasis on that rule, it is

12 usual to ensure and require that anyone involved in the

13 oversight of the proceedings has made quite clear to all

14 concerned that whatever might be their usual

15 expectations in that context, no documents are to be

16 destroyed.

17 Now, bearing in mind you do not give the ultimate

18 warning until mid-2014, and given the unusualness of the

19 English process, I have to say that I am a little bit

20 surprised that you feel able to tell me or assert with

21 any confidence that no documents were destroyed; would

22 you like to — you know, maybe I have misunderstood.

23 MR LORD: I am not sure she said that, my Lord.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.

25 MR LORD: We will look at the transcript, but I am a little

1 and you correct me if I am wrong, it follows from the

2 difference in practice and from the fact that, for

3 whatever reason it wasn’t until halfway through 2014

4 that focus was brought such as to ensure document

5 preservation? So you can’t really be sure whether there

6 were documents destroyed or not; is that fair?

7 A. Not exactly, my Lord.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

9 A. In the second half of 2014, a circular warning, written

10 warning letter, was distributed amongst all the

11 custodians, but when, for the first time, the matter of

12 disclosure was raised, Mr Balandin had oversight of this

13 and, so far as I can recall, he issued an instruction to

14 make sure that all the documents relevant to the

15 proceedings need to be searched for and identified, and

16 the bulk of the documentation was then gathered,

17 a search was conducted and it was an extensive search

18 using a large number of key search words, and the paper

19 documents were made available to the solicitors.

20 So the Bank proceeded on the understanding that all

21 the main, relevant documents had been identified,

22 selected and can in no way, under no circumstances, be

23 destroyed.

24 Later on when we started working with RPC

25 solicitors, a written warning was sent out and

90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 an additional search was conducted, and it was

2 an extensive search, once again using a large number of

3 keywords, and some additional search was conducted, and

4 then, as a result of that, additional documents were

5 added, additional documents were identified.

6 Therefore, there is no reason to believe that

7 a large number or, as has been said, a huge number of

8 documents has been destroyed. There is no reason for

9 that whatsoever.

10 MR STROILOV: May I continue, my Lord?

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

12 MR STROILOV: At what time, Mrs Kosova, was — I am only

13 asking you about the time, not the contents of advice,

14 but at what time did the Bank begin to be advised by

15 English solicitors, any English solicitors, in relation

16 to this dispute? In whatever jurisdiction, not

17 necessarily here — here, BVI, France, whatever — but

18 at what time did any English solicitors become involved?

19 A. Could you be more specific when you say «this dispute»?

20 Are you referring to the dispute related to any

21 jurisdictions with respect to OMG companies, or this

22 particular trial here in this court?

23 Q. Any jurisdiction, that’s what I mean. The dispute

24 between the Bank of St Petersburg and OMG, generally

25 speaking, it was subject to many proceedings and many

1 firm, but I do not think it was their office, actually.

2 I do not recall that exactly.

3 MR STROILOV: Now, Mrs Kosova, isn’t it the case that, with

4 respect, contrary to what my Lord has assumed, it is

5 an universal practice, including in Russia, once there

6 is litigation, to avoid destroying relevant documents?

7 A. We do not have that practice obtaining in Russia with

8 respect to the other jurisdictions. The way

9 I understand it now, this is not a universally applied

10 practice, but in Russia in principle the matter is not

11 addressed in these terms. Every party has to gather its

12 own evidence, it has to disclose it to the court.

13 Q. Now, from the disclosure that has been given this

14 autumn, towards the end of 2015, I gather that there

15 were about 22 meetings of the management board where OMG

16 matters were considered; does that sound right? I don’t

17 ask you to remember each of them, but does that sound

18 like the right number?

19 A. I’m not sure about the number, but a number of documents

20 were disclosed with respect to the meetings of the

21 various collegiate bodies of the Bank.

22 Q. Quite right, and that revealed that seven meetings of

23 the management board considering OMG matters had not

24 been disclosed previously.

25 A. Yes.

93 95

1 jurisdictions, but I am trying to establish when did

2 English solicitors first become involved?

3 A. I believe that it was at the end of 2011, if my

4 recollection is correct.

5 Q. That was Baker & McKenzie, wasn’t it?

6 A. Yes, it was Baker & McKenzie.

7 Q. So that was after the BVI proceedings were commenced,

8 isn’t that right?

9 A. Speaking from memory, it was in connection with the

10 proceedings that had been issued in the British Virgin

11 Islands.

12 Q. Prior to that, isn’t it the case that Baker & McKenzie

13 were also representing the Bank in the French

14 enforcement proceedings?

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Isn’t this dealt with in Mr McGregor’s

16 sixth, I think it is, witness statement?

17 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, but that is — well, a lot of

18 Mr McGregor’s evidence is hearsay evidence of this

19 witness. So I am entitled, really, to cross-examine her

20 on that, am I not?

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. All right, okay.

22 A. Prior to the end of 2011 we had been working with

23 Baker & McKenzie, but it was their St Petersburg office,

24 ie the Russian lawyers within Baker & McKenzie.

25 I know that in France they did involve their partner

1 Q. It also transpired that the so-called board packs which

2 Mr McGregor refers to, we can look at it if necessary,

3 but the documents actually considered by the board at

4 those meetings, were deleted annually until very

5 recently when RPC came on the record; is that the

6 correct understanding?

7 A. Not exactly. The board packs that you are referring to

8 are not standalone documents that exist, only in the

9 sense that they are being discussed at the board. All

10 those documents are part of the loan files, therefore

11 when the board or a committee is discussing a matter,

12 an item on its agenda, then an information pack is

13 provided, including all sorts of reports and opinions

14 for the attention of the members of the board, of the

15 committee. Then when the decision is made, if and when

16 it is made, then they become part of the loan dossier,

17 the loan file, and then they are preserved in that file.

18 Therefore, the materials that were attached to the

19 documents pack that was made available to the members of

20 the collegiate body during their respective meetings, so

21 saying that it’s deleted, or it’s … so the fact that

22 those documents, which are contained in the packs made

23 available to the members of the board and other

24 collegiate bodies, are destroyed on an annual basis,

25 this does not at all mean that they are lost in

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 principle. In other words, the documents themselves,

2 the primary documents, are still in the loan files.

3 Q. I’m not quite sure what you are saying. Are you saying

4 that the packs provided to the board are then included

5 in the loan file, or are you just assuming that

6 everything that was provided to the board had been in

7 the loan files previously; do you understand the

8 question? I’m not quite sure which comes first.

9 A. So before a matter can be put on the agenda of the

10 board, a committee or other collegiate body, a number of

11 documents, including reports and opinions, have to be

12 put in place.

13 Copies of those reports, scanned copies, electronic

14 copies of those documents, are made available to the

15 members of that particular body to enable, say, the

16 members of the board to have access to the necessary

17 information. Now, once they have made their decision,

18 and to the extent that this has been a decision in the

19 positive, ie to go ahead, those reports then migrate to

20 the loan files, and they are treated as the originals,

21 whereas the scanned copies of those documents, which had

22 been attached to the packs made available to the members

23 of the board, are destroyed at the expiration of 365

24 days.

25 Q. So if what you are saying is true, how come that having

1 would be for SKIF to decide? Is that the view you took

2 when deciding whether you could press your request?

3 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, there was a request made.

4 Your Lordship settled the letters of request.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Not much came out. I wondered

6 whether … it’s a perfectly legitimate question,

7 Mr Lord. The question is — I will split it up into two

8 parts. You gave me the impression that you considered

9 that it was a matter for SKIF in its discretion to

10 decide whether to release documents at the request of

11 the Bank; have I understood your answer?

12 A. My answer was to say that the Bank cannot speak for

13 SKIF, or cannot give its consent for the documents in

14 the possession of SKIF to be disclosed.

15 Now, if the bank asks SKIF, and if those documents

16 are relevant and if SKIF has no objection, for whatever

17 reasons, maybe commercial, secrets, confidentiality or

18 whatever, then perhaps most likely SKIF would give its

19 consent, yes.

20 Q. But you did not consider that the Bank had a right to

21 insist against SKIF’s declining to provide them; is that

22 right?

23 A. I do not believe the Bank has a right to insist because

24 this is part of SKIF’s commercial operations.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Even in respect of documents relating,

97 99

1 received the disclosure of loan files, seven management

2 board meetings remained undisclosed? We didn’t find any

3 trace of them there and we didn’t know about them until

4 the end of 2015.

5 A. I am not sure I can tell you why they were not

6 disclosed. I may presume, I may speculate, that some of

7 the transactions may not have been implemented at all,

8 so that may be part of the reason.

9 Q. Mrs Kosova, isn’t it the case that if the Bank asked

10 Renord for access to its files for the purposes of

11 disclosure, there would have been no problem in Renord

12 providing these documents?

13 A. Now, whether Renord would agree, or give their consent,

14 and because we are not talking about Renord’s loan

15 transactions that need to be disclosed because they are

16 not relevant to the proceedings.

17 Q. If you asked SKIF for their files relevant to this case,

18 there would have been no problem in you obtaining access

19 to these documents and the right to copy them, would

20 there?

21 A. Well, it’s really up to SKIF to decide. It’s within

22 their discretion.

23 Now, whether the documents are relevant to the

24 proceedings or not would also be quite material here.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If they were relevant do you think it

1 or exclusively relating, to the repo arrangements and

2 the shares which were parked with the various

3 Renord-Invest companies or SKIF?

4 A. We believed that if SKIF does not give its consent, it

5 was not within the Bank’s right to insist.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And the same report —

7 A. The request had been sent out.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And that was that?

9 A. Yes.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That applies to Renord as well as

11 SKIF, or Renord companies as well as SKIF?

12 A. Yes.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No more that the bank could do?

14 A. I don’t think so. There was no way they could force

15 their hand.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is it the position, so far as you are

17 aware, under Russian law and practice, that if an agent

18 holds documents, it can refuse to provide them to its

19 principal?

20 A. If we are talking about an agency relationship and the

21 principal’s documents, then the agent cannot refuse to

22 do that because they belong to the principal.

23 Having said that, if we are talking about documents

24 that belong to the other party, I then don’t think that

25 you can demand that.

98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Only documents relevant to the agency?

2 A. Yes.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.

4 MR STROILOV: May I?

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did you turn your mind to the question

6 whether there was such a relationship between the Bank

7 and SKIF, or the Bank and any of the Renord companies,

8 whether initial or subsequent purchasers?

9 Did you consider that? (Pause)

10 A. Well, in principle I had never received any information

11 to that effect and, therefore, I never turned my mind to

12 that, because the question simply did not arise.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

14 MR STROILOV: May I, my Lord?

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, of course.

16 MR STROILOV: Then, Mrs Kosova, when you referred to the

17 requests being made to SKIF and Renord, are you talking

18 about letters sent out this October, I think, pursuant

19 to my Lord’s order?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you want to look at it to refresh your recollections,

22 or are you comfortable answering the question?

23 A. Yes, those were the letters.

24 Q. Apart from sending those letters as requested, did you

25 ask — did the Bank ever ask SKIF or Renord for

1 parts of the same business, and you want to conceal

2 this. That’s why there is so little disclosure.

3 A. No. I disagree with this.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 Now, if we could go to … could we go to {J1/1/1}.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are we still on disclosure?

7 MR STROILOV: No, my Lord. I have two short lines,

8 hopefully five minutes each, and then I am finished.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So we have left disclosure now?

10 MR STROILOV: I have left disclosure, yes, my Lord.

11 So this is the freezing order made in these

12 proceedings. I am sure you know a lot about it. There

13 must be a Russian version, I don’t think it is in the

14 trial bundle, regrettably.

15 Now, if we could scroll down to page 11 {J1/1/11},

16 this is the list of undertakings which the Bank gave at

17 the time it obtained the freezing order; does that make

18 sense, Mrs Kosova?

19 A. Unfortunately I can hardly read this kind of document in

20 English and I do not recall this document by heart.

21 Q. I will read to you what I am interested in.

22 Undertaking 6 is:

23 «The applicant will not without the permission of

24 the court use any information obtained as a result of

25 this order for the purpose of any civil or criminal

101 103

1 documents or to give access to documents or provide

2 copies of documents to assist the Bank with its

3 disclosure?

4 A. I am not sure about Mr Balandin, who had oversight of

5 the proceedings before me. He may have sent that kind

6 of request. But I simply have no knowledge of this.

7 Q. I put it to you, Mrs Kosova, that nothing could be

8 easier than for the Bank to obtain these documents from

9 Renord or from SKIF. It would have happened

10 automatically. It wouldn’t be refused.

11 A. This is not something that I would be happy to assert.

12 Q. The reason the Bank didn’t do so is because the Bank

13 didn’t want the court to have the full picture.

14 A. No, I disagree with this statement.

15 Q. I also put it to you that the Bank should have disclosed

16 a lot more documents about its relations with Renord and

17 SKIF generally.

18 A. Well, this may be your view of the matter. I can simply

19 repeat that an extensive search had been conducted and

20 the steps that I believe had been taken, I think, have

21 been adequate, and they have been sufficient in order to

22 identify and gather all the documentation that was

23 available.

24 Q. The reason is, Mrs Kosova, that in reality Renord and

25 SKIF are parts of the Bank’s business. So they are

1 proceedings which do not relate to the subject matter of

2 these proceedings, either in England and Wales, or in

3 any other jurisdiction.»

4 Can you see that?

5 A. Yes, I can.

6 Q. Now — and, again, be careful and remember privilege —

7 but the Bank was — in early 2014, the defendants

8 informed the bank that they had just received

9 information that a substantial asset, called Vyborg

10 Port, had been transferred out of the possession of

11 OMG Ports in some mysterious circumstances; do you

12 recall that?

13 A. Yes, I do recall this instance.

14 Q. I think — did you understand that information being

15 disclosed to the Bank because there was a freezing order

16 in place?

17 A. I don’t think so. Mind you, we also had the judgment to

18 recognise and enforce the BVI judgments in Russia with

19 respect to the compensation of the expenses, and the

20 Bank had the right to take the necessary steps to have

21 this order implemented.

22 Q. That wasn’t the question. Why, in your opinion, did the

23 defendants tell the Bank about this development with

24 Vyborg Port?

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you asking her to speculate

102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 on …?

2 MR STROILOV: No, I just want to see how the Bank saw their

3 disclosure.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. What, how did the Bank react

5 to?

6 MR STROILOV: No, rather what was the perception of the

7 Bank?

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.

9 MR STROILOV: At the time you received this information, did

10 you think the defendants are just sharing information

11 with you out of kindness, or do you think they are doing

12 it because that’s what they have to do under the

13 freezing order; does that make sense?

14 A. So far as I can recall, the Bank received a judgment

15 handed down by the Russian court with respect to the

16 recognition and enforcement of the BVI judgment with

17 respect to the compensation of the costs incurred. The

18 Bank had the right to enforce its rights vis-a-vis the

19 participatory interests, and at that time I believe

20 a letter was also received from the respondents, where

21 certain questions were raised. The letter was addressed

22 to the Bank. The letter said that those shares had been

23 sold and some questions were addressed to the Bank.

24 Certain speculation was expressed, and the question was:

25 why have those shares been sold?

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, what’s your present estimate for

2 how much longer? We are rather overrunning today,

3 aren’t we?

4 MR STROILOV: Yes. Well I still think it is five to ten

5 minutes. Sometimes things just take much longer than

6 I expect.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. Well, the light at the end

8 of the tunnel is still promised but has not yet been

9 reached, Ms Kosova. So we are going to have a break and

10 then I’m hoping that within about ten minutes or so

11 Mr Stroilov will have finished his questions, then

12 Mr Lord will have some questions and then I shall have

13 some questions.

14 I’m getting a bit worried about housekeeping. Are

15 there matters of great urgency to deal with which you

16 can allude to in open court?

17 MR LORD: I think there are. I think there’s the matter

18 that I can allude to but only allude to in open court,

19 and the timetabling, which I think need to be grappled

20 with today, for the first two weeks after Easter.

21 Mr Stroilov has given me some helpful indications,

22 I think we can plug in some dates after Easter, I think,

23 today.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I, with apologies for my own

25 delay, and in the recognition that this may go over the

105 107

1 So the Bank was being asked to explain why, in other

2 words, an accusation was being levelled against the

3 Bank, and so that was the perception that the Bank had

4 with respect to that document.

5 Q. I am afraid I will have to take you to correspondence,

6 my Lord, and I’m sorry it will delay things. I think

7 the inter partes — if anyone is listening, the inter

8 partes correspondence bundle is very difficult to

9 navigate because it changes constantly, and I would hope

10 that someone would think on how to organise it better,

11 because one has links and then …

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, when it is updated, do the

13 links go peculiar?

14 MR STROILOV: Yes, they all go to the wrong directions and

15 then it becomes very difficult to … so I just hope

16 someone will think on how to perfect this.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is this a good time for a break?

18 MR STROILOV: Well, I was rather hoping to finish before the

19 break, but probably I cannot.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, if you can. You said five or

21 ten minutes, but that was five or ten minutes ago.

22 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I’m sorry …

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s all right.

24 MR STROILOV: Perhaps if we have a break now that will speed

25 things up in the round.

1 top, or simply not make sense, pass for your combined

2 consideration some amendments to the question as to the

3 Russian transcripts, or availability.

4 My anxiety is to ensure the tightest possible

5 control over those, and the object of my amendments is

6 to seek to secure that. If you think they go over the

7 top, feel no anxiety in saying so. If they are

8 altogether too restrictive, having regard to the needs

9 of the parties or anybody else, say so. It’s put

10 forward simply as a possibility and not anything by way

11 of insistence, or even very firm steer, just to see that

12 we can reach a landing on this in case it is important.

13 MR BIRT: We will look at it.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sorry about my handwriting. We will

15 be a short ten minutes, so we will reconvene at 3.25 pm

16 and hope we can get this sorted.

17 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

18 (3.16 pm)

19 (A short break)

20 (3.25 pm)

21 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. I will press on,

22 hopefully it won’t be long now.

23 Could we have on the screen {I1/1/0.6}. So,

24 Mrs Kosova, I am afraid again there is no Russian text,

25 but I think you are familiar with this e-mail, aren’t

106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 you?

2 A. I think I was familiar with it.

3 Q. Should I read it just to refresh your recollection?

4 I don’t want to be unfair so that you have to go by

5 foreign language. It is an e-mail to me from

6 Baker & McKenzie of 13 February 2014, and it states:

7 «The defendants have just been informed by a Russian

8 legal representative of OMG Ports that one or both

9 Vyborg Port companies (Vyborg Port LLC and/or Port

10 Equipment LLC) are no longer legally owned by OMG Ports

11 LLC. It appears that the shares have been transferred

12 to another company or companies, whose name(s) is/are at

13 present unknown.

14 «The defendants would like to put it on the record

15 that if any such transaction has taken place, it was

16 without their knowledge or approval and has not been

17 authorised by either of them in any way. For the

18 avoidance of doubt, Mr Arkhangelsky has not authorised

19 any such transaction in his capacity as the director

20 general of OMG Ports or in his personal capacity.

21 «In view of the importance of this matter and the

22 possibly allegations of breach of the Freezing Order,

23 I copy this to the Clerk of the Learned Judge for his

24 information.

25 «The defendants are urgently investigating this

1 It was a Russian court judgment to enforce that, and

2 then we received — this letter was received and then

3 there was some additional, subsequent correspondence

4 whereby defendants let it be known that the shares had

5 been sold for reasons unknown to them, and that they did

6 not know anything about this.

7 So therefore this letter asks information from the

8 Bank as to whether the Bank is aware of this. At that

9 point in time the Bank knew nothing about this, and this

10 situation came to the attention of the Bank only after

11 the letter had been received signed by the defendants.

12 Q. All right. Thank you.

13 Now, if we could go to {D173/2897/1}, and on the

14 other screen if we could try {D173/2897/22}. If we

15 could scroll down a couple of pages on the Russian

16 screen {D173/2897/21}. I meant scroll up, but I must

17 have misspoken. Can you scroll up one more

18 {D173/2897/20}? Can we try {D173/2897/19}?

19 So that is a document issued by the investigator,

20 Levitskaya, so isn’t it the case, Mrs Kosova, that

21 having learned about this matter from the defendants as

22 part of these proceedings, the Bank then complained to

23 Investigator Levitskaya about this?

24 A. When the Bank learned about this, it first asked

25 questions with the defendants. It said that the Bank

109 111

1 worrying matter and will inform you and the Court when

2 any further details emerge.

3 «In view of your clients’ previous concealment of

4 information with regard to the status of Monaco Overseas

5 Trading and the history of various events (including

6 court proceedings) taking place in Russia without the

7 Defendants’ knowledge but with your Clients’ active

8 participation, it is not inappropriate to ask how much

9 (if anything) your clients know about this apparent

10 recent transaction in relation to the shareholding in

11 Vyborg Port LLC and/or Port Equipment LLC. If you or

12 your clients have any information at all, we request

13 that you disclose it now. The Defendants, who are

14 extremely concerned about this matter, also intend to

15 act with complete transparency.»

16 So I may have misunderstood, Mrs Kosova, but did you

17 indicate before the break that, at the time you received

18 this e-mail, you already knew about the transfer of

19 Vyborg Port companies from BVI enforcement — from the

20 enforcement proceedings in relation to BVI costs order;

21 is that what you said?

22 A. No. What I was saying was that some time around that

23 time, and I’m not sure about the dates, a Russian court

24 recognised and enforced the BVI court order with respect

25 to the costs, the costs order.

1 had no information about this available to it. The Bank

2 also asked for that information to be provided, and

3 asked to be explained how this had happened, how this

4 had come to their attention, then the parties exchanged

5 some correspondence for a certain period of time.

6 Then information was received that the defendants

7 were not aware of anything and they had not given any

8 authorisation for that to happen, and so far as I can

9 recall, they demanded that, and so the Bank provided

10 that information, saying that they were suspicious and

11 they thought that the Bank knew about this and,

12 moreover, may have caused this to happen.

13 Q. Mrs Kosova, did the Bank, or did it not, provide that

14 information to Investigator Levitskaya; yes or no?

15 A. In order to establish this fact, and because what was at

16 stake was the loss of an asset, the Bank was actually

17 assisting Mr Arkhangelsky because Mr Arkhangelsky said

18 that he was not aware of anything, that he had lost

19 possession of some assets.

20 Q. Is that a yes?

21 A. So the bank sent an application to the law enforcement

22 agencies asking them to establish the fact, to confirm

23 the fact that an asset had been unlawfully disposed of.

24 Q. Did you reveal to Lt-Colonel Levitskaya the contents of

25 the inter-party correspondence in these proceedings in

110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 relation to this matter?

2 A. So far as I can recall, the correspondence containing

3 the information that a sale had taken place was made

4 available, yes, just to confirm the fact that the assets

5 had been somehow disposed of.

6 Q. Did you have the permission of this court to reveal this

7 information to Lt-Colonel Levitskaya?

8 A. I do not believe that there was any order issued by the

9 court to that effect or any authorisation or leave given

10 by the court to that effect.

11 Q. To your knowledge did the defendants give consent to

12 that information being shared with Lt-Colonel

13 Levitskaya?

14 A. So far as I know, the defendants only asked questions of

15 the Bank with respect to the loss of those shares.

16 Q. Thank you. Can we scroll down two pages on each screen

17 {D173/2897/3}, {D173/2897/21}. I wonder if the Russian

18 version can perhaps be scrolled down one more page

19 {D173/2897/22}.

20 So you can see there is a massive paragraph about

21 your interview, Mrs Kosova, isn’t there? If you read

22 through the first half of it, really, to the sentence

23 which starts discussing the BVI costs case. If you can

24 just read it through until that. So the last sentence

25 would be:

1 Generally speaking, you are aware of them, aren’t you?

2 A. By and large at that time I did have that information

3 available. I do not recall where that information came

4 to me from. I knew that this was being challenged and

5 that a number of proceedings had been issued.

6 Q. Initially those claims were quite successful in Russian

7 Arbitrazh courts, were they not?

8 A. I have nothing to say about this because I played no

9 role in those proceedings and I did not have any

10 information about those apart from the general

11 information to the effect that such claims had been

12 brought.

13 Q. Isn’t it the case that Russian Arbitrazh court, that’s

14 to say commercial courts, are known to be more

15 independent and less susceptible to political influences

16 than courts of general jurisdiction? Would you agree

17 with that?

18 A. I will not because I simply am not aware of any

19 political pressure being brought to bear.

20 Q. On any courts in Russia, you think Russian courts are

21 totally independent and impartial.

22 A. With respect to any courts.

23 Q. I’m asking a general question. So is it your evidence

24 that you believe Russian courts are totally independent

25 and upright, in general; is that what you are saying?

113 115

1 «… if they know anything about the disposal of

2 shares in Vyborg Port, Vyborg Port LLC and Port

3 Equipment LLC.»

4 Just say when you have finished reading. (Pause)

5 Have you finished, Ms Kosova?

6 A. Not yet. Bear with me one second, please. (Pause)

7 Yes, I am done. Thank you.

8 Q. So is that an accurate summary of what you communicated

9 to the investigator?

10 A. Yes, it is.

11 Q. Right. Thank you. I think it’s just two minutes, then

12 it will be over.

13 Just a few more questions on the Russian

14 proceedings. I think we discussed it yesterday, and

15 I think your evidence was that you were aware, or are

16 now aware, of various claims brought by

17 Mrs Arkhangelskaya or OMG companies in Russian Arbitrazh

18 courts in relation to the events we are considering now,

19 in relation to repo, transfer of shares and change of

20 management in Western Terminal and this kind of thing;

21 do you recall that?

22 A. I’m sorry, what are you asking me: whether I recall that

23 or not?

24 Q. There were a number of claims by Mrs Arkhangelskaya and

25 OMG companies in Russian Arbitrazh courts in 2009.

1 A. Yes, I think this is the case.

2 Q. Now, the Bank’s claims against various OMG companies and

3 Mr Arkhangelsky, they were all considered by district

4 courts. I think possibly with one exception, I think

5 PetroLes was in Arbitrazh court, but all other claims

6 were in district courts; isn’t that the case?

7 A. Yes. It was mainly district, although the Bank’s claims

8 were mainly heard by district courts of general

9 jurisdiction —

10 Q. And —

11 A. — because the claim was against an individual,

12 therefore, according to our procedural laws, the claims

13 had to be brought with district courts of general

14 jurisdiction, so that was done as per the statute book.

15 Q. The Bank was successful in the courts of general

16 jurisdiction, I think, virtually at every stage, wasn’t

17 it?

18 A. So far as I can recall, all enforcement claims had been

19 granted, yes.

20 Q. So do I understand correctly that the reason and the

21 only reason why it was the claims were brought in

22 district courts rather than Arbitrazh courts, was

23 because it was alleged that they were personal

24 guarantees; is that a correct understanding?

25 A. Yes, under Russian law if a claim is brought against

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 an individual, a natural person, then only the local

2 court of general jurisdiction has jurisdiction to hear

3 the dispute.

4 Q. That was one of the reasons why it was important to have

5 personal guarantees from Mr Arkhangelsky; would you

6 agree with that?

7 A. No.

8 Q. That’s one of the reasons why the Bank caused those

9 guarantees to be forged; isn’t that right?

10 A. No. The reason that the claim was brought with a local

11 court of jurisdiction was because there was a personal

12 guarantee. At the time the guarantee was issued,

13 I don’t think anyone will believe that a dispute was

14 going to arise, and the reason that the Bank decides to

15 accept or not accept a pledge by way of security for

16 a loan, are completely different. It has nothing to do

17 with the fact that some proceedings are expected to

18 occur some time further down the line. This would be

19 absurd to say that.

20 MR STROILOV: Thank you very much, and I am sorry it has

21 taken me so long.

22 MR LORD: Does your Lordship have any questions for this

23 witness?

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you not?

25 MR LORD: I don’t, no, my Lord.

1 required to enter into.

2 Now, personally, I also attended meetings of the

3 management board and, at some point in time, I started

4 taking part in the meetings of the BKK where loans were

5 discussed and approved. So that’s, by and large, my

6 function. In other words, I was in charge of the legal

7 support for all internal procedures within the Bank,

8 plus litigation and arbitration. That was also part of

9 my responsibility.

10 Now, as to my role as the adviser to the deputy

11 chairman of the board, I was in charge of just a number

12 of specific matters, including these proceedings here.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So your responsibility in respect of

14 these proceedings, you viewed as an incident of your

15 role as an adviser to the deputy manager rather than as

16 general counsel?

17 A. Correct.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. I wanted to ask you, something

19 you just mentioned there, because I was looking at these

20 very, very helpful reporting structures, which you

21 probably haven’t seen, which are in colour, but at some

22 point you were brought in as a full member, not just as

23 someone invited to attend, but as a full member of the

24 major credit committee, some time in late 2010, and you

25 may still be on that; are you?

117 119
1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Yes, I do. I am sorry to keep 1 A. No.
2 you. 2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you a member?
3 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD 3 A. No, no longer.
4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I just want to get firm in my mind, 4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: When did you cease to be?
5 and I am sorry to ask this, because it is probably my 5 A. Once I became adviser to the deputy chairman, I ceased
6 not fully understanding what I was being told, but 6 to be a member of the BKK. I was a member of the BKK
7 I want to get firm in my mind what the difference in 7 ex-officio as it were, because at that point in time,
8 role between your role as general counsel, if I can put 8 the rules and regulations were that the BKK, the major
9 it that way, and your role as an adviser to the deputy 9 loan committee must include the director of the legal
10 chairman of the management board, first Mr Skatin and 10 department, ie general counsel.
11 then Mrs Malysheva and so on. Can you explain where the 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. Maybe my colour plan needs
12 dividing lines were and where you received your 12 a bit of correction, but in any event you are no longer,
13 responsibilities to differ? 13 and from the moment that you became the adviser to the
14 A. In my capacity as the director of the legal department, 14 deputy chairman, you weren’t a member of that committee?
15 I was in charge of the operational unit which provides 15 A. No.
16 legal support for all internal processes taking place 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.
17 within the Bank, and also all litigation and 17 Could we have a quick look at the transcript of
18 arbitration; in other words those lawyers who reported 18 yesterday at, I think, {Day25/14:1}. This is really
19 to me, reviewed all the internal documentation of the 19 a point of detail, but you said that the legal
20 Bank, issued consents and approvals, took part in the 20 department was a very large unit; can you give me a feel
21 drafting and the adoption of the various regulations and 21 for how many people are employed by it, or in it?
22 rules, took part in the generation of documents with 22 A. When I was director of the department, we had between 40
23 respect to the various banking procedures. They took 23 and 60 people, depending on the specific time frame; now
24 part in the approval of all sorts of contracts, be it 24 it may be more.
25 commercial contracts or loan contracts that the Bank was 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Was that all on one floor in
118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 one unit? Was it open plan? How did you arrange

2 yourselves?

3 A. The directorate occupied a number of offices and very

4 often several departments shared the same floor. But

5 those people who were members of the legal departments,

6 and they worked with the offices of the Bank, those were

7 obviously stationed in the offices because all the work

8 they needed to do in terms of reviewing documentation

9 and approving documentation, it was all not in the

10 headquarters; it was in the various offices.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Amongst the 40 or 60 there was Mrs —

12 I do apologise for my pronunciation — Talmakayeva; is

13 that right?

14 A. Talmakayeva, right.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, she reported to you, she was part

16 of that department, was she?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Can we just have a quick look at

19 {D134/2202/1}, which you were taken to at the beginning

20 of the day. Could we have the Russian version as well,

21 please {D134/2202/2}. Is the handwriting at the bottom,

22 which is what I wanted to ask you about, my

23 understanding of your answers was that this is

24 Ms Talmakayeva’s handwriting.

25 A. Yes.

1 judgment.

2 So I would have probably refrained from issuing any

3 opinions, but Mrs Talmakayeva decided that she was

4 qualified to do that and it’s her right and it was up to

5 the department, the core department, as it were, to take

6 or not to take this into account.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have it right, have I, from this,

8 that she, Mrs Talmakayeva, was head of the legal

9 practice division of the legal directorate, so that was

10 a division within your overall control; is that right?

11 A. That is right.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But, in any event, her perception of

13 her role doesn’t encourage you or cause you in any way

14 to depart from your evidence to me that, so far as you

15 were concerned, that was no part of your role, to

16 comment on these quasi commercial considerations?

17 A. Absolutely, because this is not a legal risk. This was

18 not part of our responsibilities. Having said that,

19 obviously if she had that opinion, there was nothing

20 stopping her expressing that opinion.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

22 Can you be reminded of {A1/6/5} and again

23 I apologise if I was told the answer and didn’t take

24 a proper note. This was the responses to the requests

25 for further information that you were asked a lot of

121 123

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: She has noted in the English

2 translation, which may not be perfect:

3 «The risks need to be taken into consideration that

4 are associated with reducing the auction sale price due

5 to the encumbrance in the form of long-term lease.»

6 Now, you have confirmed that she is a lawyer.

7 A. Yes.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I was just wondering in general terms,

9 I suppose, why you didn’t feel that was part of your

10 work to advise about those quasi commercial matters,

11 whereas she did regard it as her work. I was really

12 asking you to reconsider quite the extent of your role.

13 A. Well, this risk is really not a legal risk, so

14 Mrs Talmakayeva was not required to flag this up. She

15 didn’t have to. She just made a decision on her own to

16 flag this risk up.

17 I, in my capacity as a lawyer, had I been required

18 to express my consent, I most likely would not have

19 flagged this up because, as I was working with various

20 people and as the matters were being discussed, I recall

21 that there may be different circumstances. Every case

22 is unique. For instance, where you rent out an asset,

23 it may result in the value going up or down, and because

24 I am not an expert in this, I am not a business person,

25 I’m not an economist, so I am not qualified to sit in

1 questions about yesterday. You signed it, as you can

2 see from page {A1/6/9}, and you did so in your capacity

3 as adviser to, I think, Mrs Mironova.

4 You confirm various issues as to the position of

5 various Renord companies, as you see from page 5, you

6 state in various places that it was known by, in the

7 case of Assets Management Agency, I think, Mr Smirnov,

8 and then in (3) Akva-Ladoga, and then in (4) Medinvest,

9 and in (5) Gelios, and in (6) Graham-Bell, and in (7)

10 Sevzapalians and others.

11 What was your source of information for giving that

12 representation to the court?

13 A. My source was the official data that I received from the

14 Russian lawyers, plus the requests and the answers to

15 the requests received from the various companies,

16 Mr Smirnov, Mr Sklyarevsky.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Those are written answers from those

18 two? What form did that information from, for example,

19 Mr Smirnov and Mr Sklyarevsky, take?

20 A. Speaking from memory, questions were asked of them and

21 Mr Smirnov provided written confirmation with respect to

22 the identity of the owners.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In his witness statement or some other

24 place? Is this in the evidence?

25 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I know your Lordship won’t be sort

122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 of asking about privilege. 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think I do.
2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No. 2 MR LORD: I know it is after the event but, in terms of
3 MR LORD: I don’t know where one draws the line here, 3 where this information has come from I don’t want
4 really. It seems information has been provided 4 your Lordship not to ask questions without being
5 potentially to this witness that she has. 5 apprised of perhaps all the relevant background. That’s
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, so it was brought into being 6 paragraph 41 at {B2/12/8}, where Mr Smirnov confirms
7 as — I mean, she has given a warranty of truth, is the 7 the —
8 worry. I am perfectly prepared to — 8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Paragraph 41?
9 MR LORD: I understand, my Lord, and I’m not trying to stop 9 MR LORD: 41, at the top of the page, where he confirms the
10 the … 10 part 18 reply that your Lordship is now asking this
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I certainly don’t want to pry into 11 witness questions about.
12 privilege. 12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Zelyenov and his — are they
13 MR LORD: I understand that, my Lord, and I’m not at all 13 confirmed anywhere?
14 objecting to finding the source of the information I’m 14 MR LORD: Mr Zelyenov hasn’t given a statement. I think
15 just trying to make sure we don’t suddenly leap into 15 Mr Sklyarevsky probably does confirm the position but
16 lots of swapping of information and checks done by 16 I would need to check if he confirms the SKIF position.
17 lawyers and things which may or may not be something 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I would be grateful for that.
18 your Lordship wants to ask about. 18 But from your own knowledge, is this right, what you
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Certainly I would not wish to ask 19 were able to answer was by reference to record
20 anything which is privileged. 20 ownership, that is to say not control or anything else;
21 MR LORD: I understand. Could your Lordship look at the 21 simply title to the relevant shares; have I got that
22 beginning — I’m prompted to ask your Lordship, with 22 right?
23 respect to, read the beginning of the part 18 reply, 23 A. Correct.
24 about where the Bank has gone to find the information? 24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sometimes I think in this
25 I think it might be right to show the witness that or 25 jurisdiction, when banks are in this sort of difficulty,
125 127

1 certainly for your Lordship to see that before —

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I think that’s actually so — do

3 you want to go to {A1/6/2} and shall I read the answer

4 to you so that you are fully reminded in the Russian:

5 «None of the Defendants’ requests concerns matters

6 which are reasonably necessary and/or proportionate to

7 enable the Defendants to prepare their own case or

8 understand the case that they have to meet.»

9 Then this is the next sentence, which is of

10 particular importance:

11 «Moreover, the requests are for information that

12 relates to companies not owned or controlled by the Bank

13 and in respect of which the Bank has had to seek

14 information and confirmation of its understanding of the

15 position. The Bank has done its best to answer the

16 requests to the best of its knowledge and understanding

17 at the present time. It reserves the right to amend or

18 add to this information in the event that it receives

19 further information relating to these requests. Without

20 prejudice to the foregoing, the Bank responds as

21 follows.»

22 Is that the bit? Any more?

23 MR LORD: No, my Lord, that’s enough, and obviously

24 your Lordship knows that Mr Smirnov in his witness

25 statement confirms the position.

1 very large loans, unpaid, difficulty of knowing quite

2 what to do, whether to recover, whether to extend,

3 et cetera, a sort of audit of all the available

4 documentation, particularly the legal documentation, is

5 done to verify exactly what all the security

6 documentation, and therefore the remedies available to

7 the Bank, are.

8 Can you recall whether that was done in this case?

9 I don’t find evidence of it, but I would like to know

10 what the position is.

11 A. We do not run audits. This is not a measure that is

12 available to us. In the context that your Lordship has

13 just referred to, ie the legal audit.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, I didn’t mean a formal statutory

15 audit by auditors, I meant a very careful review by

16 legal and any other relevant department to identify

17 exactly what the security position of the Bank is, so

18 that it can be checked off and the Bank knows exactly

19 what its legal position is likely to be on the footing

20 of its documentation. Was that standard practice or

21 done in this case?

22 A. Yes, this is something that is usually done. I wouldn’t

23 call it an audit. We would call it review and analysis,

24 because it’s not as wide-ranging as an audit. It’s just

25 an analysis, a review on the basis of the existing

126 128
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 documents. This is something that is usually done by 1 the branches and offices need to take were obviously set
2 the functional department, which is in charge of client 2 out in the relevant regulations.
3 work. 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.
4 So it would be either the relevant branch or office, 4 I got a little confused, and it may not matter, as
5 with respect to our bank, and also when all distressed 5 to the different insolvency processes to which you
6 asset work was delegated to the client monitoring 6 refer. For example, in paragraph 27 of your witness
7 division, then that kind of review was conducted by that 7 statement with regard to Vyborg Shipping, you refer to
8 division. 8 Mr Fedichev and he was the court-appointed
9 MR LORD: My Lord, I know your Lordship has this evidence, 9 administrator, but in other areas you refer to
10 but Ms Volodina gives evidence about the review that all 10 receivership, appointed by the arbitral court, the
11 the — well, the investigation the Bank carried out. 11 arbitration court, that’s in paragraph 57, just to take
12 It’s {B1/5/16}. 12 an example, which seemed to follow insolvency.
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. I’m sorry, okay. B1? 13 They both appeared to be court sponsored processes.
14 MR LORD: {B1/5/16}, Ms Volodina. Paragraph 18. You can 14 Can you tell me what the difference is, or isn’t there
15 see what is said there but she exhibits {D129/2087/1}. 15 really a difference? Are they a word describing the
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The various files. 16 same function?
17 MR LORD: There was a bit of a review, I think, about really 17 A. It is the same procedure. It’s part of bankruptcy, by
18 what had happened in this case. I hope that’s what 18 and large, and at any rate it’s the court that decides
19 your Lordship is asking about. It’s certainly in the 19 that this procedure needs to be initiated. So the
20 same area. 20 person or the entity or the debtor is declared unable to
21 {B1/5/16}, paragraph 80. Then in the margin she 21 perform their obligations, and a certain stage of
22 exhibits, she says at the end: 22 bankruptcy is then introduced.
23 «I refer to a report detailing these points.» 23 So it’s all different stages in the bankruptcy
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I hadn’t picked that up. Thank you 24 process.
25 very much. 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Should I be — do they have different

129

1 MR LORD: {D129/2087/1}.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have that, thank you.

3 Paragraph 13 of your witness statement and, again

4 if, the answer is available elsewhere do feel free to

5 interrupt, you explained to me about the fact that the

6 personal guarantees took a standard form. You say in

7 the last sentence:

8 «The lawyers working at the branch level would also

9 have reviewed those personal guarantees to ensure that

10 all of the relevant points had been addressed and to

11 approve the documents from a legal perspective.»

12 Was there any standard protocol in the Bank as to

13 what precautions to verify signatures and to ensure

14 spousal consents were in due form?

15 A. There is a regulation in force in the Bank. It’s

16 a whole document that relates to loans being issued by

17 the Bank, and this addresses all such matters, including

18 the security that has to be provided, and that can or

19 cannot be accepted by the Bank, and also the instances

20 where and how the documents need to be signed.

21 Obviously, this document has gone through a number of

22 iterations, so I am not sure I recall exactly what

23 version — which version of which document said at what

24 point in time. But on the whole, by and large, these

25 provisions with respect to the protocol or actions that

131

1 functions or powers, a receiver or an administrator, or

2 is it really different words for the same function?

3 A. The receiver is a separate person, so for every

4 stage …

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There’s a different person?

6 A. There may be a different person. It doesn’t have to be

7 a different person, but this is always available.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

9 Who nominates, who suggests the name of

10 administrator or receiver? Is it the creditor or

11 principal creditor?

12 A. It is proposed by the applicant, whoever applies for

13 bankruptcy. It can be the debtor himself or a creditor,

14 or one of the creditors, and then it is up to the court

15 to decide.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. I see, so if they are

17 undecided, they put forward two suggestions and the

18 court simply says which one it is to be; is that right?

19 A. As a rule, when the bankruptcy procedures are

20 introduced, you always have an applicant, because there

21 is no dispute by and large, but then the law allows the

22 court to change the administrator if he commits a breach

23 or something, but then, again, that requires

24 an application to be made by the creditor.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you, that sounds quite like the

130 132
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 position here.

2 You were asked questions today, very recently, about

3 the selection of a state court, if I can call it that,

4 and an Arbitrazh court; have I got it right that if

5 there is a personal claim, any personal claim, the

6 Arbitrazh courts have no jurisdiction to hear it, they

7 can only hear exclusively non-individual claims; is that

8 right?

9 A. Yes, that is correct.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So when Mrs Arkhangelskaya went to the

11 Arbitrazh court in respect of the signatures, that was

12 permissible, was it, on the footing that it related to

13 whether a company was bound, and it didn’t involve any

14 personal claim otherwise; have I got it right? I was

15 just trying to work out what the dividing lines were.

16 A. Absolutely, because that used to be a corporate — that

17 was a corporate dispute, and corporate disputes are

18 something that Arbitrazh courts have jurisdiction over,

19 irrespective of who the applicant or the claimant is.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

21 I just want to make sure that you have had every

22 opportunity to explain to me why you were not concerned

23 that, as regards the arrangements between the Bank and

24 the initial and subsequent purchasers, there was no

25 written definition of their relationship in law.

1 A. Yes. In order to enforce an asset you need a court

2 judgment whereby the court confirms the rights of the

3 pledger, then you need to receive what is called a writ

4 of execution, an enforcement letter, by the court. Then

5 you take that letter to the bailiffs service and then,

6 based on that letter, they start what they call

7 execution proceedings or enforcement proceedings.

8 Then the bailiffs, acting on the basis of their

9 rules and regulations, do whatever they need to do.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Notwithstanding that it has its own

11 momentum and direction, if someone in the position of

12 a bank had grounds for concern as to whether the bidding

13 process at the auction was entirely appropriate, if it

14 was concerned as it to any arrangements between the

15 parties or as to whether there were sufficient bidders

16 to satisfy the effective quorum, what would a bank

17 regard its duties to itself, in a sense, to be? Would

18 there be a means of alerting the authorities?

19 A. Well, obviously if there is a breach, then the Bank has

20 to file a complaint with the bailiffs service. That’s

21 step number one, they need to receive an answer, then

22 they may escalate, if there is a higher authority. But

23 if there is a breach that is not cured, or a major

24 breach which is very serious, then a court complaint

25 procedure is always open to the applicant.

133 135

1 A. I don’t think I have anything to add to what I’ve said.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s just, as it was the Bank’s

3 property, because it had under the purchase side of the

4 repurchase arrangements, acquired the shares, and if

5 there was any unpledged property they could be valuable,

6 banks are very often anxious to ensure that their

7 property is not held by third parties otherwise than

8 pursuant to very clearly defined legal relationships.

9 That was what prompted my wanting to be quite sure that

10 I understood your position, but you don’t want to add

11 anything?

12 A. So far as I understand the position now, and I was not

13 aware of this at that time, because these bank clients

14 were companies that the Bank had trust and confidence

15 in, I believe that that was the reason that no written

16 contracts were entered into.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

18 The final question you may not be able to answer,

19 but it is the court auction process, which you have

20 explained the Bank’s role, as I understand it, is to

21 demonstrate its entitlement to the debt and to its

22 enforcement, and then the process of enforcement is,

23 unless the parties otherwise agree, directed by the

24 court and performed by the bailiffs. That is, as

25 I understand it, in a nutshell.

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Well, with apologies for

2 asking some questions which are plain in the voluminous

3 documentation, I think those are my questions.

4 Do they give rise to any further questions for this

5 witness?

6 MR STROILOV: Not from me, my Lord.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No. Ms Kosova, you have had a very

8 long and tiring tour and I’m very grateful to you. I’m

9 glad that at least it has come to an end now, even if

10 much later than both you and I might have expected and,

11 indeed, hoped. But thank you very much for your

12 assistance.

13 You are free to go.

14 (The witness withdrew)

15 Housekeeping

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In the dying embers of the day, so far

17 as I am concerned, is there anything I can usefully do?

18 MR LORD: My Lord, there is the issue about the medical

19 report.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I have read that. Is anything —

21 do you want to move into private to ask me what we do

22 about it?

23 MR LORD: Yes, and in particular how we resolve the issue of

24 the inter partes sight of it so we can move on in the

25 litigation on an inter partes footing.

134 136
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I am being stupid about it.

2 What is the inter partes issue about it? Do you want to

3 move into private?

4 MR LORD: Certainly, yes.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: From here we will talk in private.

6 (Hearing in private)

7 [REDACTED]

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [REDACTED]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

137 139
1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
138 140
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
141 143
1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
142 144
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
145 147
1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
146 148
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
149 151
1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
150 152
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15 (4.50 pm)
16 16 (The court adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday,
17 17 16 March 2016)
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
153 155
1 [REDACTED] 1 INDEX
2 2 PAGE
3 3 MS TATIANA EVGENIEVNA KOSOVA …………………….2
(Continued)
4 4 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV …………..2
5
5 (Continued)
6 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD …………118
7 6 Housekeeping …………………………………136
8 7 (Hearing in private) ………………………….137
9 8
10 9
11 10
12 11
13 12
14 13
15 14
16 15
17 16
18 17
18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
154 156
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

157

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

A

A1/6/2 (1) 126:3 A1/6/5 (1) 123:22 A1/6/9 (1) 124:2 abide (1) 62:9

able (16) 8:12 11:18 26:12 28:17,20 33:13 49:14 50:8 50:14 52:17 65:4 82:19 89:22 90:20 127:19 134:18

absolutely (3) 38:7 123:17 133:16 absurd (1) 117:19

accept (13) 7:15 25:18 25:20 36:1,18,24 37:3 40:5 43:15 74:1 81:21 117:15 117:15

accepted (1) 130:19 accepting (4) 34:17 37:13,16,17

access (6) 65:7,19 97:16 98:10,18 102:1

account (2) 46:1 123:6

accounts (1) 74:11 accredited (1) 18:21 accurate (2) 59:3

114:8 accusation (1) 106:2 achieve (1) 49:4 acquired (1) 134:4 act (2) 22:5 110:15 acting (3) 23:8 40:21

135:8 actions (2) 56:10

130:25 active (1) 110:7

activities (2) 11:21 12:5

acts (1) 21:25 actual (9) 4:15 9:9

29:11 38:14 45:25 46:5,23 47:5,9

add (7) 49:15,15 52:21 60:12 126:18 134:1,10

added (1) 93:5 addition (1) 61:8 additional (14) 14:1

56:7 66:10,17 75:23,24 80:6,6 81:23 93:1,3,4,5 111:3

address (1) 49:1 addressed (7) 16:8

31:13 89:19 95:11 105:21,23 130:10 addresses (1) 130:17

adequacy (1) 77:18 adequate (1) 102:21 adjourned (1) 155:16 adjournment (3)

67:15 70:6 79:3 adjudicate (1) 83:18

ADK (8) 28:13 36:3,13 36:17 37:4,5,6 38:5

administrator (4)

131:9 132:1,10,22

admitted (1) 7:13 adoption (1) 118:21 advance (1) 67:7 advantageous (1)

47:23 advice (1) 93:13 advise (1) 122:10

advised (2) 61:25 134:18 135:21 Arkhangelsky’s (1)
93:14 answered (1) 62:12 18:6
adviser (9) 15:16 answering (2) 53:3 arose (2) 37:7 67:11
60:14 61:11 118:9 101:22 arrange (1) 121:1
119:10,15 120:5,13 answers (4) 2:7 arrangements (12)
124:3 121:23 124:14,17 62:15 63:1,6,8,24
advising (1) 88:23 anxiety (2) 108:4,7 65:22 72:13,15
affording (1) 65:19 anxious (3) 60:18 100:1 133:23 134:4
afraid (12) 1:13 11:8 89:15 134:6 135:14
14:15 17:19 21:21 anybody (1) 108:9 arrest (1) 6:5
35:9 42:11 68:22 anyone’s (1) 14:17 article (4) 42:15 43:7
78:9 82:11 106:5 Anyway (1) 14:7 43:18,19
108:24 apart (3) 83:18 101:24 ascertain (1) 62:16
agencies (1) 112:22 115:10 aside (1) 78:20
agency (6) 18:20,25 apologies (5) 33:21 asked (25) 1:9 6:4,9
28:21 100:20 101:1 45:20 70:13 107:24 6:25 8:3 11:13
124:7 136:1 29:11 31:11 44:4
agenda (3) 6:17 96:12 apologise (4) 1:20 51:10 58:5 82:23
97:9 55:7 121:12 123:23 83:4 91:9,9 98:9,17
agent (2) 100:17,21 apparent (1) 110:9 106:1 111:24 112:2
Agentstvo (1) 28:14 apparently (2) 23:13 112:3 113:14
ago (7) 3:6 4:14 9:10 49:1 123:25 124:20
22:19 57:12 69:1 appear (1) 40:14 133:2
106:21 appeared (1) 131:13 asking (14) 26:16 31:9
agree (7) 2:5 40:8 appears (6) 24:24 53:9 57:2 93:13
74:14 98:13 115:16 39:20 41:7 47:10 104:25 112:22
117:6 134:23 75:9 109:11 114:22 115:23
agreed (1) 1:7 applicant (5) 103:23 122:12 125:1
agreement (18) 11:11 132:12,20 133:19 127:10 129:19
44:9,13,15 46:5,6,9 135:25 136:2
46:23 47:3,9,11,14 application (2) 112:21 asks (2) 99:15 111:7
55:22 56:19,21 132:24 assert (2) 90:20
73:24 74:13 81:20 applied (3) 75:25 76:4 102:11
agreements (2) 44:4 95:9 asserted (1) 24:16
44:12 applies (2) 100:10 assessed (1) 35:15
Ah (2) 31:1 91:7 132:12 asset (8) 27:2 39:20
ahead (1) 97:19 appointed (2) 27:19 104:9 112:16,23
Akva-Ladoga (1) 124:8 131:10 122:22 129:6 135:1
alerting (1) 135:18 appreciate (1) 1:24 assets (29) 7:13,17
allegations (1) 109:22 apprised (1) 127:5 8:4 10:5 16:19 17:6
alleged (3) 28:3 43:2 approach (2) 10:16,18 17:7,12 18:10,21
116:23 appropriate (2) 1:8 28:25 30:2 35:25
allocation (1) 46:13 135:13 37:2,8,17 38:18
allotted (1) 69:22 approval (2) 109:16 39:1 43:11,12
allow (1) 83:11 118:24 72:10,10,14 87:3
allowed (3) 21:11 approvals (1) 118:20 87:25 88:1 112:19
78:13 85:23 approve (2) 47:3 113:4 124:7
allows (1) 132:21 130:11 assign (3) 45:23 47:23
allude (3) 107:16,18 approved (4) 26:22 47:24
107:18 45:23 46:23 119:5 assignment (10) 44:5
alternatively (1) 85:21 approving (1) 121:9 44:10,11 45:3 46:4
altogether (1) 108:8 approximately (1) 46:5,9,20,23 47:7
ambit (4) 80:20 83:3,7 26:16 assist (2) 78:24 102:2
83:9 arbitral (1) 131:10 assistance (1) 136:12
Ameli (1) 18:7 arbitration (3) 118:18 assisting (1) 112:17
amend (1) 126:17 119:8 131:11 assists (1) 1:16
amendments (2) Arbitrazh (10) 114:17 associated (1) 122:4
108:2,5 114:25 115:7,13 assume (1) 11:22
amount (3) 47:11 116:5,22 133:4,6 assumed (1) 95:4
59:22 73:23 133:11,18 assuming (1) 97:5
analyse (2) 19:19 37:9 archive (1) 61:9 assumption (1) 84:19
analyses (1) 13:15 archives (6) 56:12 attached (3) 18:25
analysing (2) 13:2,24 65:4,5,7,10,20 96:18 97:22
analysis (6) 11:20 area (6) 38:1 57:21,23 attend (2) 22:16
12:4,11,20 128:23 67:4 85:7 129:20 119:23
128:25 areas (6) 15:24 65:21 attended (1) 119:2
analysts (1) 12:22 79:6 84:19 85:7 attention (4) 54:11
and/or (4) 72:1 109:9 131:9 96:14 111:10 112:4
110:11 126:6 argue (1) 91:24 attorney (2) 40:15,22
Andrey (1) 72:21 argument (2) 77:5 auction (28) 7:6 17:8
announcement (1) 79:22 18:17 20:16 21:5
22:3 Arinina (2) 39:15,15 24:13 26:25 28:3
annual (1) 96:24 Arkhangelskaya (4) 37:12,22 38:6,17
annually (1) 96:4 18:8 114:17,24 38:21 39:1,2,21,24
answer (15) 23:24,25 133:10 40:7 41:7,9,11 42:6
44:19 57:1 78:15 Arkhangelsky (8) 18:8 72:20 87:1,4 122:4
80:12 99:11,12 31:10 34:1 109:18 134:19 135:13
123:23 126:3,15 112:17,17 116:3 auctions (3) 18:23
127:19 130:4 117:5 20:15 87:10

audit (5) 128:3,13,15

128:23,24 auditors (1) 128:15 audits (1) 128:11 augment (1) 75:25 August (1) 29:19 authorisation (2)

112:8 113:9 authorised (2) 109:17

109:18 authorities (1) 135:18 authority (1) 135:22 automatically (1)

102:10

autumn (2) 17:17 95:14

availability (1) 108:3 available (25) 12:19

13:3,5,22 14:21 21:13 25:7 56:25 82:17 83:15 87:12 92:19 96:19,23 97:14,22 102:23 112:1 113:4 115:3 128:3,6,12 130:4 132:7

average (1) 6:18 avoid (2) 61:16 95:6 avoidance (1) 109:18 aware (12) 9:22 40:19

84:24 100:17 111:8 112:7,18 114:15,16 115:1,18 134:13

B

b (2) 24:14,15 B1 (1) 129:13
B1/3/10 (1) 48:21 B1/3/38 (1) 48:19 B1/3/39 (1) 48:21 B1/3/9 (1) 48:16 B1/5/16 (3) 129:12,14

129:21

B2/12/8 (1) 127:6 back (14) 2:2 5:14

6:22 34:20 38:17 38:18 62:11 66:14 66:17 69:6 70:10 70:17 73:18 86:18

backdated (1) 28:4 background (2) 59:16

127:5 badly (1) 3:5 bailiff (1) 27:11

bailiffs (14) 17:13 21:25 23:1,5,8 25:9 27:9 87:11,14,16 134:24 135:5,8,20

Baker (12) 18:6 23:16 23:22 24:7,10 25:12 94:5,6,12,23 94:24 109:6

balance (1) 43:9 Balandin (7) 15:19

16:4,11 88:18,18 92:12 102:4

bank (172) 2:21 5:22 8:3,10 9:13,14,16 10:5,10,21 13:2,20 14:3,8,9 15:13 24:11,15,24 25:6,8 26:4,12 27:20,22 28:13,24 29:10 32:24 34:17 35:25 36:6,24 37:3,8,11 37:15 41:10 42:22 43:3,5,9 44:5 46:14 46:20 47:10,23

49:21,25 50:1,11 134:15
50:12,15,17,25,25 believed (1) 100:4
51:8 53:14,19 55:3 belong (2) 100:22,24
55:9,15,23 56:2,9 beneficiaries (2) 53:21
56:22,23,23 57:9 53:21
62:22 63:21 65:3 best (5) 53:6 81:14
73:25 74:14 77:25 91:7 126:15,16
79:10 81:20 82:5,6 better (3) 4:25 89:19
82:15,16,20,22 106:10
83:1,3,13,14,15,22 bid (2) 20:1 21:17
87:3,12 88:3,4,9 bidder (10) 19:17 21:4
92:20 93:14,24 23:13 24:17,21
94:13 95:21 98:9 27:1 28:2 40:3,7,18
99:11,12,15,20,23 bidders (6) 25:18 39:4
100:13 101:6,7,25 39:9,24 41:23
102:2,8,12,12,15 135:15
103:16 104:7,8,15 bidding (3) 19:22,24
104:20,23 105:2,4 135:12
105:7,14,18,22,23 bids (3) 19:16 20:1
106:1,3,3 111:8,8,9 21:11
111:10,22,24,25 big (2) 45:9 62:4
112:1,9,11,13,16 billion (6) 29:2,2 30:4
112:21 113:15 35:16,17 36:8
116:15 117:8,14 BIRT (1) 108:13
118:17,20,25 119:7 bit (16) 19:14 22:19
121:6 125:24 22:23 32:7 58:1,4
126:12,13,15,20 76:9 77:24 90:19
128:7,17,18 129:5 91:1,12,12 107:14
129:11 130:12,15 120:12 126:22
130:17,19 133:23 129:17
134:13,14 135:12 bits (1) 68:16
135:16,19 BKK (6) 12:20 13:17
Bank’s (30) 5:17 7:1 119:4 120:6,6,8
9:18 18:5 23:19 blank (2) 14:20 39:18
26:6 33:11,13 blow (2) 62:7,7
44:11 47:7,12 61:4 board (32) 2:13,16,24
62:19 64:17 65:12 5:24 6:2,5,7,8,14
71:21,24 81:17 15:16 45:22 48:5
82:2,8 84:2,10 60:15 61:12 95:15
85:12,13 100:5 95:23 96:1,3,7,9,11
102:25 116:2,7 96:14,23 97:4,6,10
134:2,20 97:16,23 98:2
banking (2) 63:17 118:10 119:3,11
118:23 board’s (1) 2:19
bankruptcies (1) bodies (3) 65:2 95:21
43:16 96:24
bankruptcy (8) 42:22 body (5) 11:3 57:24
42:25 43:22 131:17 96:20 97:10,15
131:22,23 132:13 book (2) 22:9 116:14
132:19 books (1) 47:25
banks (3) 33:5 127:25 borrowers (5) 37:1
134:6 43:13 62:15 63:24
BarD (2) 49:20 50:6 64:14
based (13) 4:15,21 borrowers’ (2) 35:25
21:6 23:9 38:12 37:8
46:15 49:1,24 50:2 bottom (3) 45:12
61:9 86:8 88:6 87:22 121:21
135:6 bought (1) 27:2
basis (18) 7:24 21:25 bound (1) 133:13
42:6 51:20,21,22 branch (2) 129:4
52:9 59:1 64:25 130:8
66:2 75:23 78:5 branches (1) 131:1
79:19 82:24 83:15 breach (6) 23:8
96:24 128:25 135:8 109:22 132:22
bear (4) 9:13 57:24 135:19,23,24
114:6 115:19 breaching (1) 23:1
bearing (1) 90:17 break (13) 32:5,6,15
beg (1) 30:20 33:16,19 68:24
began (1) 15:16 69:6 106:17,19,24
beginning (4) 43:17 107:9 108:19
121:19 125:22,23 110:17
behalf (1) 40:21 breaking (1) 23:1
believe (18) 9:25 23:3 briefly (3) 6:22 38:17
23:7 38:10,15 59:16
41:13 74:6 86:6 brilliant (1) 73:13
87:12 93:6 94:3 British (1) 94:10
99:23 102:20 broad (1) 58:21
105:19 113:8 brought (10) 92:4
115:24 117:13 114:16 115:12,19

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

158

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

116:13,21,25 117:10 119:22 125:6

BSP (1) 59:21

BSP’s (4) 60:2,3 61:9 61:12

building (7) 48:23,24 49:4,9,16,18,19

bulk (1) 92:16 bundle (5) 30:9,12,24

103:14 106:8 business (12) 12:8

27:13 37:22 42:17 42:20 43:10 47:18 48:11 76:8 102:25 103:1 122:24

businesses (1) 15:21 buyer (2) 49:6,6

BVI (8) 93:17 94:7 104:18 105:16 110:19,20,24 113:23

by-laws (1) 62:19

C

C (7) 54:17,19 55:17 66:15 70:17 71:4,5
call (6) 43:24 86:18 128:23,23 133:3 135:6

called (16) 7:14 12:14 19:14 28:13 30:9 30:24 34:15 35:16 39:15 42:16 44:5 44:10,12 64:8 104:9 135:3

capacity (8) 13:18 16:2,5 109:19,20 118:14 122:17 124:2

care (3) 27:14 58:4 79:4

career (2) 62:21 63:21 careful (2) 104:6

128:15 carefully (1) 76:2

carried (10) 3:9 55:15 55:25 56:4,8,18 58:10,11 76:1 129:11

carry (5) 54:16 64:16 73:6 81:4 85:5

case (45) 7:16 12:8 14:7 27:23 28:23 36:13 39:22 41:15 44:15 49:1,14,25 50:2,10 52:19 53:8 53:19 55:2,20 57:10 64:6 68:20 72:20 82:24 85:2 88:7,10 91:17 94:12 95:3 98:9,17 108:12 111:20 113:23 115:13 116:1,6 122:21 124:7 126:7,8 128:8,21 129:18

cases (3) 45:23 61:2 86:24

categories (3) 54:17 55:16 71:15

cause (1) 123:13 caused (5) 11:7 48:9

61:24 112:12 117:8 causing (1) 70:21 cease (1) 120:4 ceased (1) 120:5

cent (1) 47:11

certain (16) 12:18 clients (3) 110:9,12 complained (2) 23:21 connection (4) 14:18 corrected (3) 1:8,24
16:6 22:1 37:17 134:13 111:22 22:12 50:15 94:9 29:1
44:4 54:9 56:10 clients’ (2) 110:3,7 complaint (3) 24:5 consent (14) 8:3,25 correction (2) 1:5
68:5 76:14 77:14 close (1) 60:18 135:20,24 9:15,16 11:4,24,25 120:12
84:19,20 105:21,24 closed (1) 78:15 complaints (1) 24:4 13:23 98:13 99:13 correctly (5) 39:23
112:5 131:21 closer (1) 29:3 complete (6) 25:25 99:19 100:4 113:11 46:22 53:13 63:3
certainly (9) 10:25 CMC (1) 59:20 26:9,23 40:20 122:18 116:20
33:5 50:1 90:7 collateral (3) 37:2,14 73:13 110:15 consents (2) 118:20 correspondence (8)
125:11,19 126:1 37:17 completely (2) 36:14 130:14 16:8,9 106:5,8
129:19 137:4 collegial (1) 65:2 117:16 consequently (2) 111:3 112:5,25
certainty (1) 90:6 collegiate (4) 95:21 completeness (5) 20:5 21:12 65:1 113:2
certified (1) 28:21 96:20,24 97:10 25:14,24 41:16 consider (4) 77:23 corresponding (1)
cetera (2) 49:18 128:3 collusion (1) 38:10 42:1 84:12 99:20 101:9 24:12
chain (1) 11:10 collusive (1) 38:8 complexity (1) 6:17 considerable (1) 79:4 corroborate (1) 87:16
chair (1) 33:23 colour (2) 119:21 compliance (10) 22:7 consideration (2) corroborated (1)
chairman (11) 5:2,3 120:11 22:8 26:23 65:17 108:2 122:3 53:23
5:24 6:2 15:16 combined (1) 108:1 66:21 75:4,12 considerations (1) costs (5) 105:17
60:15 61:11 118:10 come (11) 6:22 62:22 76:11 77:2 79:20 123:16 110:20,25,25
119:11 120:5,14 63:8,22,25 69:6 complied (1) 66:1 considered (11) 4:7 113:23
challenge (2) 26:11 82:13 97:25 112:4 comply (7) 58:3,17 4:20 11:6 12:16 counsel (12) 15:14
57:25 127:3 136:9 60:8 64:21 75:3 31:25 64:5 76:16 16:5 52:22 60:3,13
challenged (2) 58:1 comes (3) 57:21 90:2 77:9 79:5 95:16 96:3 99:8 60:14 61:13 83:25
115:4 97:8 complying (1) 75:14 116:3 84:9 118:8 119:16
challenging (1) 75:2 comfortable (1) composition (1) 41:14 considering (5) 37:16 120:10
chance (2) 52:21 61:5 101:22 computer (2) 45:7 46:18 79:15 95:23 countries (1) 90:4
change (4) 9:19 78:25 commenced (2) 90:7 70:11 114:18 country (1) 90:5
114:19 132:22 94:7 conceal (1) 103:1 consistent (1) 89:21 counts (1) 79:21
changed (1) 2:2 comment (10) 21:18 concealment (1) constantly (2) 80:25 couple (2) 6:22
changes (2) 10:12 21:19 25:3,10 110:3 106:9 111:15
106:9 28:17,20 36:22 concern (4) 10:14 contact (1) 53:16 course (9) 1:23 10:20
charge (7) 12:23 37:24 40:4 123:16 11:7 14:3 135:12 contacted (1) 27:22 16:16 27:4 48:7,9
16:22,24 118:15 comments (1) 43:22 concerned (18) 3:7 contained (3) 12:7 61:16 64:24 101:15
119:6,11 129:2 commercial (6) 99:17 10:4,8,9 32:10 42:5 62:18 96:22 court (51) 17:13 26:2
check (11) 2:25 24:14 99:24 115:14 48:4 68:15 69:24 containing (1) 113:2 26:6,22 27:20 54:3
32:22 33:8 39:20 118:25 122:10 79:20 87:10 90:14 contents (2) 93:13 54:8 55:13 56:15
41:5 58:12 61:1 123:16 91:1 110:14 123:15 112:24 56:17 58:3 78:13
62:18 65:2 127:16 commission (6) 19:11 133:22 135:14 context (8) 11:3 16:25 87:7,18 93:22
checked (1) 128:18 27:10 41:6,11,15 136:17 63:3,9 77:25 90:15 95:12 102:13
checking (4) 56:12,23 41:22 concerning (2) 6:24 91:12 128:12 103:24 105:15
83:25 84:10 commissioned (1) 81:19 continuation (1) 24:3 107:16,18 110:1,6
checks (2) 84:17 28:13 concerns (6) 33:14 continue (3) 34:8 52:1 110:23,24 111:1
125:16 commits (1) 132:22 35:6,12 42:8,9 93:10 113:6,9,10 115:13
chronological (1) committee (12) 9:11 126:5 Continued (4) 2:6,9 116:5 117:2,11
38:19 45:10 46:7,25 48:2 conclude (2) 52:4,5 156:3,4 124:12 131:10,11
chronology (1) 11:14 48:8 96:11,15 conclusion (2) 37:14 contract (6) 20:13,16 131:13,18 132:14
circle (3) 22:20,23 97:10 119:24 120:9 52:8 44:20,22,23 45:3 132:18,22 133:3,4
23:3 120:14 conclusions (1) 78:17 contracts (4) 118:24 133:11 134:19,24
circular (1) 92:9 communicated (1) concrete (1) 56:21 118:25,25 134:16 135:1,2,4,24
circumstances (5) 114:8 conduct (8) 11:20 contrary (1) 95:4 155:16
6:11 13:18 92:22 companies (48) 10:6,6 12:4 15:18,20 control (8) 50:21 51:8 court’s (1) 60:8
104:11 122:21 21:10 27:12 28:19 16:12 17:5 22:10 53:14 80:12 83:3 court-appointed (1)
civil (1) 103:25 36:16,20 38:2 65:7 108:5 123:10 131:8
claim (9) 7:1,1 11:10 39:12 40:11 43:2 conducted (13) 12:21 127:20 courts (18) 114:18,25
116:11,25 117:10 43:11 50:5,7,9,14 18:17 22:7,24 controlled (7) 25:18 115:7,14,16,20,20
133:5,5,14 50:16,18,20 51:14 38:12 83:9 87:14 25:21 49:21 50:1 115:22,24 116:4,6
claimant (1) 133:19 52:11,11 53:12,14 88:4 92:17 93:1,3 50:17,19 126:12 116:8,13,15,22,22
claimants (3) 54:9,14 64:19 65:23 67:24 102:19 129:7 controllers (1) 85:22 133:6,18
72:13 72:19 78:2 79:9 conducting (3) 41:11 controls (1) 10:18 cover (4) 31:3,23,24
claimed (1) 16:18 82:14 83:22 84:15 64:7 84:18 conventional (1) 58:9 85:7
claims (11) 114:16,24 85:22 93:21 100:3 confess (1) 69:1 conversations (1) coverage (1) 26:5
115:6,11 116:2,5,7 100:11 101:7 109:9 confidence (2) 90:21 83:21 covered (2) 69:13
116:12,18,21 133:7 109:12 110:19 134:14 coordinated (1) 47:4 85:6
clarification (2) 53:5 114:17,25 116:2 confidentiality (1) coordinating (2) 16:20 credit (6) 9:11 45:9
60:12 124:5,15 126:12 99:17 16:24 46:7 48:8 56:3
clarified (2) 50:4 134:14 confirm (7) 4:16 8:12 copies (6) 24:13 97:13 119:24
53:11 company (25) 7:14,15 51:18 112:22 113:4 97:13,14,21 102:2 creditor (5) 44:11
clarify (5) 3:1 5:13,18 10:15,18 11:5 124:4 127:15 copy (3) 1:18 98:19 132:10,11,13,24
32:14 63:20 13:20,22 19:14 confirmation (2) 109:23 creditors (1) 132:14
clarity (1) 91:25 27:22 28:13,15 124:21 126:14 core (3) 15:21,22 criminal (1) 103:25
clause (1) 63:15 34:15 36:2,25 37:1 confirmed (4) 51:15 123:5 crisis (1) 37:7
cleaning (1) 43:9 38:5 40:14,16,22 53:19 122:6 127:13 corporate (5) 40:9,19 critical (1) 60:2
clear (3) 69:22 84:3 43:6 44:5,10,12 confirming (2) 19:1 133:16,17,17 critically (1) 80:24
90:13 109:12 133:13 67:5 correct (17) 5:3 14:13 criticism (1) 23:25
cleared (1) 32:13 company’s (1) 84:1 confirms (6) 68:13 44:19 45:15 46:12 criticisms (1) 23:18
clearly (4) 10:7 50:19 compare (1) 7:24 126:25 127:6,9,16 53:16,16 54:22 cross-examination (4)
75:20 134:8 compared (1) 37:12 135:2 60:10 64:1 92:1 2:9 74:18 80:21
Clerk (1) 109:23 compensation (3) confused (1) 131:4 94:4 96:6 116:24 156:4
client (5) 46:11,16 26:13 104:19 connected (4) 3:7 119:17 127:23 cross-examine (4)
47:21 129:2,6 105:17 43:3 50:11 83:2 133:9 78:4,6 79:19 94:19

cross-testing (1) 68:1 cumulative (1) 76:8 cured (1) 135:23 current (1) 18:24 currently (2) 3:8 7:16 custodians (10) 66:12

66:12 73:9 74:5,11 74:11 88:11,23 89:4 92:11

custom (1) 30:9 cut (1) 80:19

D

d (1) 54:15

D113/1648.2/0.1 (2)

3:24 5:15

D113/1648.2/0.2 (1)

4:6

D113/1648.2/0.4 (1)

4:9

D113/1648.2/1 (2)

3:24 5:16

D113/1648.2/2 (1) 4:6 D113/1648.2/4 (1) 4:9

D129/2087/1 (2)

129:15 130:1

D132/2174/1 (1)

38:23

D132/2174/2 (1) 39:8

D132/2174/3 (2)

38:23 41:5

D132/2174/4 (1) 39:8

D132/2176/1 (1)

41:18

D132/2176/3 (1)

41:18

D132/2177/1 (1) 42:2

D134/2202/1 (1)

121:19

D134/2202/2 (1)

121:21

D148/2466.2/0.1 (1)

45:5

D148/2466.2/1 (1)

45:6

D159/2682.2/0.1 (1)

8:16

D159/2682.2/0.5 (1)

8:24

D159/2682.2/1 (1)

8:16

D159/2682.2/5 (1)

8:24

D160/2702/1 (1) 28:9

D160/2702/5 (1)

28:10

D161/2715/1 (1)

25:15

D161/2715/2 (1) 26:1

D161/2715/3 (1)

25:16

D161/2715/4 (1) 26:1 D161/2718/1 (1) 19:9 D161/2718/2 (1) 20:5

D161/2718/3 (1)

19:10

D161/2718/4 (1) 20:5

D161/2718/5 (1)

20:11

D161/2718/6 (1)

20:23

D161/2718/7 (1) 21:1

D161/2718/8 (1)

20:11

D161/2718/9 (1)

20:23

D173/2897/1 (1)

111:13

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

159

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

D173/2897/19 (1) 110:13 111:4,11,21 devoted (1) 62:8 113:5
111:18 111:25 112:6 differ (1) 118:13 dispute (8) 93:16,19
D173/2897/20 (1) 113:11,14 126:7 difference (5) 36:11 93:20,23 117:3,13
111:18 Defendants’ (2) 110:7 92:2 118:7 131:14 132:21 133:17
D173/2897/21 (2) 126:5 131:15 disputes (1) 133:17
111:16 113:17 deficient (1) 80:7 differences (1) 37:10 dissuade (1) 77:22
D173/2897/22 (2) defined (1) 134:8 different (25) 12:21 distressed (3) 37:8
111:14 113:19 definitely (2) 14:6 29:24 30:21 31:19 43:12 129:5
D173/2897/3 (1) 16:6 34:23 35:14 36:5,6 distributed (1) 92:10
113:17 definition (2) 77:2 36:7,14 43:19 49:8 district (6) 116:3,6,7,8
D174/2907/1 (1) 133:25 50:16 65:15,15 116:13,22
42:13 delay (3) 38:22 106:6 75:15 117:16 diverted (1) 59:25
D174/2907/2 (1) 107:25 122:21 131:5,23,25 dividing (2) 118:12
42:13 delegated (1) 129:6 132:2,5,6,7 133:15
D30— (1) 30:21 deleted (2) 96:4,21 difficult (8) 7:22 21:6 division (4) 123:9,10
D54/944/1 (1) 34:10 deliberate (2) 91:3,20 36:22 51:12 62:2,6 129:7,8
D54/944/2 (1) 34:20 Delovoy (2) 42:16,16 106:8,15 doable (1) 74:6
D54/944/91 (1) 34:11 Delovykh (1) 28:14 difficulties (1) 71:17 document (32) 7:10
D54/944/93 (1) 34:19 delve (1) 58:25 difficulty (3) 57:5 7:11 8:21 19:20
D64/1002/1 (1) 29:21 demand (1) 100:25 127:25 128:1 20:21 21:13,15,19
D64/1102/1 (1) 34:23 demanded (1) 112:9 diligence (4) 12:14,15 24:17 25:5 26:1
danger (1) 69:23 demonstrate (1) 12:17 13:8 27:24 28:2 29:5,15
dangerous (1) 58:18 134:21 direct (2) 25:4 51:16 29:16 30:7 31:14
data (1) 124:13 dense (1) 79:2 directed (1) 134:23 31:20 41:17 42:1
database (1) 62:19 deny (2) 4:10,17 direction (2) 62:10 51:6 62:20 89:23
date (8) 8:8 17:10,11 depart (1) 123:14 135:11 92:4 103:19,20
28:3 29:5,12 41:22 department (26) 5:8 directions (1) 106:14 106:4 111:19
88:21 5:11 12:8,9 13:1 directly (1) 35:23 130:16,21,23
dated (4) 18:4 23:16 14:8 16:3,21 18:19 director (11) 5:10,17 documentary (2)
27:25 54:3 46:11,12,16 47:18 5:18,20 6:12 12:22 24:20 82:9
dates (3) 25:13 48:11 61:4 83:25 15:14 109:19 documentation (18)
107:22 110:23 84:9 118:14 120:10 118:14 120:9,22 12:18,19 13:2,3,5
day (2) 121:20 136:16 120:20,22 121:16 directorate (12) 5:17 22:18 56:8 78:1
Day25/14:1 (1) 123:5,5 128:16 5:19,21,25 6:1 92:16 102:22
120:18 129:2 15:15 46:18 47:21 118:19 121:8,9
Day25/17:1 (1) 44:3 departments (4) 59:24 60:1 121:3 128:4,4,6,20 136:3
Day25/18:25 (1) 44:3 12:22 13:8 121:4,5 123:9 documents (131) 7:6
days (2) 68:19 97:24 depend (1) 49:11 disagree (3) 43:8 7:21,22 8:12 12:21
deal (2) 90:11 107:15 depended (1) 12:7 102:14 103:3 13:16 17:11 21:7
dealing (3) 43:11 dependent (1) 83:21 disclose (6) 21:20 21:20 25:7,9 30:10
60:15 67:10 depending (3) 6:16 54:9 57:21 85:17 30:25 31:9,10
dealings (1) 72:12 17:4 120:23 95:12 110:13 40:17,19,20 51:2,3
dealt (2) 47:18 94:15 depends (1) 13:14 disclosed (16) 32:2,11 51:13 52:18 54:17
debated (1) 32:3 depiction (1) 59:1 33:1 60:23 81:23 55:10,22,25 56:3
debt (3) 12:22 47:25 deputy (13) 5:2,3,23 83:19 85:3 86:2 56:10,19,23 57:11
134:21 6:2,3 15:16 60:15 88:5 95:20,24 98:6 62:14,18,23,25
debtor (2) 131:20 61:11 118:9 119:10 98:15 99:14 102:15 63:22,23 64:17
132:13 119:15 120:5,14 104:15 65:4,5,8,11 71:21
December (7) 7:7 descending (1) 57:22 disclosure (40) 23:19 71:24 72:2,7,12
55:23 56:20,21 describe (4) 16:9 25:4 31:12 32:16 33:11 73:24 74:4,8,8,13
73:25 74:14 81:20 55:13 62:2 33:13,15 54:8,25 79:8,12 81:19,22
decide (5) 87:18 described (4) 6:12 55:8 60:9,16 67:22 81:25 82:2,5,16,25
98:21 99:1,10 47:22 59:4,22 70:10 75:2,15 76:7 83:8,12,19 84:21
132:15 describes (3) 61:11,12 77:13 79:24 80:3 84:22 85:3,12,17
decided (1) 123:3 73:5 80:12 81:6,10,17 85:18 86:23,25
decides (2) 117:14 describing (2) 69:9 81:18 82:1 85:12 87:5,5,10,12,15,24
131:18 131:15 86:25 87:6 88:2,17 88:1,5,7,8,12,24
deciding (1) 99:2 description (3) 19:21 92:12 95:13 98:1 89:5 90:5,15,21
decision (35) 2:12,16 67:2,3 98:11 102:3 103:2 91:2,4,17,19 92:6
2:19,21 3:3 4:10,17 deserves (1) 18:14 103:6,9,10 105:3 92:14,19,21 93:4,5
4:22 11:19,24,25 destroy (2) 88:12 89:5 disconnect (1) 37:10 93:8 95:6,19 96:3,8
12:2,23 13:6,10,12 destroyed (11) 88:8 discounting (1) 45:13 96:10,19,22 97:1,2
13:13,16,17 14:1 90:16,21 91:2,17 discrepancy (2) 36:9 97:11,14,21 98:12
45:22 47:1,6 64:17 91:19 92:6,23 93:8 44:24 98:19,23 99:10,13
65:12 71:21 77:19 96:24 97:23 discretion (2) 98:22 99:15,25 100:18,21
82:2,6 85:13 91:21 destroying (1) 95:6 99:9 100:23 101:1 102:1
96:15 97:17,18 destruction (2) 89:23 discuss (1) 5:4 102:1,2,8,16
122:15 91:3 discussed (10) 2:17 118:22 129:1
decision(s) (1) 71:25 detail (3) 46:17 72:5 4:3 9:24 12:20 46:4 130:11,20
decisions (6) 8:6 12:7 120:19 46:8 96:9 114:14 doing (5) 60:11 61:18
82:13,19 85:13,15 detailed (1) 20:22 119:5 122:20 65:10 91:11 105:11
declared (1) 131:20 detailing (1) 129:23 discussing (2) 96:11 domestic (1) 90:9
decline (1) 37:24 details (2) 19:1 110:2 113:23 dossier (1) 96:16
declining (1) 99:21 determine (2) 62:20 discussion (7) 3:9,9 double-check (1)
default (1) 2:14 78:11 4:15,22 9:9,21 46:2 17:10
defect (1) 67:3 determined (2) 28:12 discussions (4) 8:9,13 doubt (2) 22:6 109:18
defendants (17) 30:10 77:14 82:12 85:15 doubts (1) 42:9
30:25 104:7,23 development (1) disposal (1) 114:1 Dr (2) 31:10 34:1
105:10 109:7,14,25 104:23 disposed (2) 112:23 draft (6) 12:23 13:16

13:17 21:19 53:6 91:4

drafted (2) 47:3,15 drafting (4) 12:23

45:3 46:6 118:21 draw (2) 54:11 78:13 drawing (1) 52:7 draws (1) 125:3

due (6) 12:14,15,17 13:8 122:4 130:14

duly (1) 18:21 duration (1) 25:10 duties (1) 135:17 dying (1) 136:16

E

e-mail (5) 1:14,16 108:25 109:5 110:18

e-sale (1) 40:25 earlier (3) 53:4 73:3

74:19 early (1) 104:7 easier (1) 102:8

Easter (2) 107:20,22 economic (2) 3:11

4:21 economically (1) 49:7 economics (1) 47:17 economist (1) 122:25 effect (5) 3:16 101:11

113:9,10 115:11 effective (1) 135:16 effectively (2) 20:13

58:16 effort (1) 74:3

efforts (8) 59:4 65:19 67:24 74:7 75:3 77:24 78:1 79:7 either (5) 56:22 80:2

104:2 109:17 129:4 electronic (7) 18:18

20:8 40:24 56:4,11 62:18 97:13

emanating (1) 87:15 embers (1) 136:16 emerge (1) 110:2 emerged (2) 15:24

88:16 emphasis (2) 67:21

90:11 employed (2) 60:4

120:21 employees (1) 46:24 empty (1) 33:23 enable (2) 97:15

126:7

enclosed (3) 19:2,4

24:13

encountered (2)

62:22 63:22 encourage (1) 123:13 encumbrance (4) 9:16

9:17 11:6 122:5 ends (1) 20:24 enforce (5) 17:5

104:18 105:18 111:1 135:1

enforced (2) 17:5

110:24

enforcement (17)

16:17,18 17:3 18:22 22:5 26:3,7 94:14 105:16 110:19,20 112:21 116:18 134:22,22 135:4,7

England (2) 17:1

104:2

English (31) 8:22 18:5 18:12,25 20:10,24 25:15 31:19,23 32:20 33:3,12 34:10,19,20 35:2,8 41:2 44:25 48:16 56:7 63:15 73:4,20 90:19 93:15,15,18 94:2 103:20 122:1

enormous (1) 81:10 enquiries (3) 13:11 14:10 53:15

enquiry (3) 62:1 74:23 75:17

ensure (7) 26:4 90:12 92:4 108:4 130:9 130:13 134:6

entailing (1) 2:14 enter (1) 119:1 entered (1) 134:16 entire (2) 30:1 31:22 entirely (5) 59:3 81:8

82:24 83:21 135:13 entities (3) 40:9,13

72:17 entitled (6) 28:21

61:23 67:1,4,21 94:19
entitlement (1)

134:21 entity (1) 131:20 EPAM (1) 65:6 equally (1) 69:13

Equipment (3) 109:10

110:11 114:3

error (1) 1:23 escalate (1) 135:22 especially (2) 11:1

69:20 essentially (3) 7:13

58:2 91:21 establish (7) 7:9 30:1

53:13 66:22 94:1 112:15,22

estate (3) 10:17,24

11:2

estimate (1) 107:1 estimates (1) 60:3 Estonia (1) 6:6

et (2) 49:18 128:3 evaluate (2) 7:23 56:6 event (6) 11:9 46:20

120:12 123:12 126:18 127:2

events (2) 110:5

114:18

Eventually (1) 23:15 everyday (1) 60:1 EVGENIEVNA (2) 2:6

156:3

evidence (21) 21:17 24:21 50:18 51:17 53:25 57:24 58:20 86:3,12,15 91:21 94:18,18 95:12 114:15 115:23 123:14 124:24 128:9 129:9,10

evident (1) 90:6 ex-officio (1) 120:7 exact (2) 26:17 88:21 exactly (14) 8:12

27:21 40:1 41:21 62:3 81:22 91:10 92:7 95:2 96:7 128:5,17,18 130:22

example (3) 124:18 131:6,12

exception (1) 116:4 exchange (1) 81:1 exchanged (1) 112:4 exclusively (2) 100:1

133:7

execution (2) 135:4,7 exercise (2) 60:4

77:16

exhibits (2) 129:15,22 exist (1) 96:8

existed (2) 62:17,20 existing (2) 75:25

128:25 expect (7) 33:11

37:11 48:17 57:5 58:15 67:20 107:6

expectations (1)

90:15

expected (2) 117:17 136:10

expenses (1) 104:19 expert (5) 27:19 36:20 38:1 49:12 122:24

expiration (1) 97:23 explain (6) 18:2,4 57:8

106:1 118:11 133:22

explained (6) 9:5 47:19 66:9 112:3 130:5 134:20

explains (2) 76:13,15 explanation (3) 9:8

23:20 48:10

explore (3) 61:23

79:14,16

exploring (2) 81:4

89:24

express (1) 122:18 expressed (1) 105:24 expressing (1) 123:20 extend (1) 128:2 extending (1) 2:18 extension (9) 2:14,20

3:7 4:7,10,17 5:5 64:18 65:12

extensive (5) 69:12 88:5 92:17 93:2 102:19

extent (6) 14:11 18:12 59:4 77:21 97:18 122:12

extremely (4) 74:12 86:23 87:24 110:14

eyes (1) 78:15

F

fact (14) 21:10 30:1 40:10,12 77:11 90:3 92:2 96:21 112:15,22,23 113:4 117:17 130:5

facts (1) 7:24 failed (1) 85:17 fair (15) 14:12 40:6

43:7 57:23 58:18 58:24 60:21 62:9 75:7 76:1 78:16 81:8,11 91:5 92:6

fairly (1) 74:20 fairness (3) 29:6 62:3

91:12 familiar (3) 86:20

108:25 109:2 far (27) 6:8 16:21

26:21 37:5 46:15 48:4 49:24 50:4 53:11 55:18 56:2,5 64:7 80:11 87:9

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

160

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

88:15 89:21 92:13 folk (1) 65:15 generate (1) 13:25
100:16 105:14 follow (9) 11:9 18:11 generated (3) 82:5
112:8 113:2,14 23:20,20 24:8,19 83:13,13
116:18 123:14 24:22 43:20 131:12 generation (1) 118:22
134:12 136:16 following (5) 18:13 generous (1) 80:20
feasible (1) 76:16 54:21 56:9 72:2,7 genuine (1) 28:2
featuring (1) 72:20 follows (4) 47:6 91:25 getting (2) 32:7
February (3) 30:11,25 92:1 126:21 107:14
109:6 footing (3) 128:19 give (13) 32:1 51:16
federal (2) 18:19 27:9 133:12 136:25 69:16 80:13 90:17
Federation (3) 17:14 force (2) 100:14 98:13 99:13,18
22:6 26:24 130:15 100:4 102:1 113:11
Fedichev (1) 131:8 foregoing (1) 126:20 120:20 136:4
feed (1) 76:5 foreign (1) 109:5 given (22) 13:23
feel (8) 79:17 80:18 foremost (1) 10:21 24:20 50:20 58:19
80:19 90:20 108:7 forged (1) 117:9 58:20 59:1 65:20
120:20 122:9 130:4 form (8) 10:24,25 67:21 69:9 77:12
feelings (1) 79:1 18:18 85:20 122:5 80:20 83:4 84:24
felt (1) 50:14 124:18 130:6,14 86:3 90:18 91:11
field (1) 39:17 formal (2) 84:3 128:14 95:13 107:21 112:7
fiercely (1) 32:3 formed (2) 7:24 38:14 113:9 125:7 127:14
fifth (5) 58:7 59:9 former (3) 43:12,12 gives (1) 129:10
66:7 70:18 89:19 87:25 giving (4) 36:7 86:12
figure (3) 26:17 30:5 formulation (2) 52:12 86:15 124:11
35:10 56:22 glad (1) 136:9
figures (3) 29:1 35:14 forward (2) 108:10 Globus-Invest (3)
36:7 132:17 25:19,22 28:1
file (5) 70:22 96:17,17 found (3) 1:6 29:14 go (42) 3:23 5:14 20:9
97:5 135:20 59:7 20:10 34:8,13,20
filed (4) 36:25 37:1 fourth (1) 8:19 38:22 41:17 49:5
40:17,20 frame (1) 120:23 52:14 53:5 54:2
files (12) 56:3,25 57:6 France (4) 31:11 32:17 55:12 60:18 62:11
57:6 96:10 97:2,7 93:17 94:25 66:8,14 67:5,15,25
97:20 98:1,10,17 free (2) 130:4 136:13 69:24 70:10 71:1,4
129:16 freezing (5) 103:11,17 71:5 73:2,18,20
final (2) 53:21 134:18 104:15 105:13 76:14 91:10 97:19
finance (2) 13:1,19 109:22 103:5,5 106:13,14
financial (15) 3:11,12 French (2) 18:7 94:13 107:25 108:6 109:4
4:21 6:10 11:21 Friday (1) 1:1 111:13 126:3
12:5,18,19,21 13:2 friend (1) 69:2 136:13
13:14,15 64:7,9,10 friends (2) 17:22 34:9 gobbet (1) 74:21
financing (2) 32:24 full (4) 73:13 102:13 goes (1) 62:5
33:4 119:22,23 going (17) 10:8 20:22
find (15) 1:14 7:11 full-time (6) 54:22,24 58:14 65:13,24
29:11,12 33:13 56:16,17 60:4,7 67:14 69:5,6,7,24
48:18 53:20 55:5 fully (5) 15:23 22:7 70:14 77:21 78:8
58:22 65:22 70:15 87:16 118:6 126:4 80:21 107:9 117:14
77:24 98:2 125:24 function (3) 119:6 122:23
128:9 131:16 132:2 good (13) 1:3 2:10,11
finding (1) 125:14 functional (1) 129:2 3:15 32:18 35:11
findings (1) 78:13 functions (2) 60:1 35:22,22 56:7
fingerprint (1) 20:7 132:1 75:19 80:4 81:7
finish (1) 106:18 further (14) 4:8 14:10 106:17
finished (4) 103:8 53:2 54:16 60:2 governing (1) 63:17
107:11 114:4,5 64:2 66:21 67:11 Graham-Bell (1) 124:9
firm (4) 95:1 108:11 69:16 110:2 117:18 granted (2) 65:7
118:4,7 123:25 126:19 116:19
first (28) 6:25 10:21 136:4 granular (1) 74:18
19:8 24:20 25:17 grappled (1) 107:19
27:8 36:15 38:4 G grasp (1) 86:20
41:3,4 44:15,20 gather (3) 95:11,14 grateful (11) 1:19 3:23
53:16,18,22,24 15:8 29:22 34:9
102:22
70:20 71:6 76:16 37:20 59:12 85:5
gathered (1) 92:16
83:14 88:16 92:11 89:3 127:17 136:8
Gelios (1) 124:9
94:2 97:8 107:20 great (2) 90:11 107:15
general (25) 15:12,14
111:24 113:22 Grosheva (1) 41:10
16:5 20:21 51:2,3
118:10 gross (2) 38:8,11
56:14 60:14 76:17
five (6) 20:20 81:4 ground (1) 86:7
83:25 84:9 86:20
103:8 106:20,21 grounds (5) 26:11
109:20 115:10,16
107:4 27:15 77:15,15
115:23,25 116:8,13
fixed (2) 45:18,20 135:12
116:15 117:2 118:8
flag (2) 122:14,16 groundwork (1) 3:22
119:16 120:10
flagged (1) 122:19 group (10) 3:12 6:10
122:8
floated (1) 68:21 10:7 40:11 55:23
generally (12) 10:4,19
floor (2) 120:25 121:4 73:25 78:2 79:9,11
12:14 16:13,15
focus (4) 67:23 77:23 85:22
20:25 55:14 61:3
77:23 92:4 guarantee (2) 117:12
62:7 93:24 102:17
focused (4) 66:4 73:6 117:12
115:1
73:23 74:2 guarantees (5) 116:24

117:5,9 130:6,9 guess (1) 8:23 guidance (5) 1:24

62:14,17 63:23 64:4

GVA (2) 29:17 32:9

H

h (1) 87:1

H2 (2) 67:16 69:7

H2/2/32 (1) 58:8 H2/2/33 (1) 58:9 H2/32/1 (1) 70:19 H2/32/2 (1) 59:9 H2/32/32 (3) 66:8,19

73:5

H2/32/33 (2) 66:11 73:12

H2/32/74 (1) 73:2 H2/32/75 (1) 73:12 half (13) 6:18 39:4,5 68:20 69:1,18 73:10 87:19,22 88:20 89:2 92:9

113:22 halfway (1) 92:3

hand (3) 17:19 89:13 100:15

handed (7) 17:20 30:10,25 31:5,6 56:4 105:15

handful (2) 81:19 88:1 hands (1) 89:14 handwriting (3)

108:14 121:21,24 happen (3) 13:13

112:8,12 happened (11) 2:17

3:6 4:14 9:9,21 15:21 21:22 38:16 102:9 112:3 129:18

happening (1) 16:14 happens (4) 6:16

10:13 45:7 90:8 happier (1) 68:19 happy (1) 102:11 hard (2) 19:19 35:21 harder (1) 49:9 head (5) 5:21 16:2

83:24 84:9 123:8 headed (1) 19:24 headquarters (1)

121:10

hear (4) 45:18 117:2 133:6,7

heard (6) 36:23 37:4,5 37:6 63:5 116:8

hearing (3) 59:20 137:6 156:7

hears (1) 34:2 hearsay (1) 94:18 heart (1) 103:20 held (1) 134:7

help (4) 11:17 65:13 91:13,14

helpful (4) 68:17 78:22 107:21 119:20

helping (1) 34:9 hereto (2) 54:18

82:15 hide (1) 88:3

higher (2) 28:25 135:22

hijacked (1) 70:22 HILDYARD (199) 1:3
1:11,16 2:1 3:13,18 5:1,4,10 11:15,17

12:3,13 13:6 14:2,7 ideally (1) 39:4 109:24 110:4,12
14:14,20,23 15:1,4 identified (12) 73:7,9 111:7 112:1,2,6,10
15:7,9 17:25 30:13 74:5,9 79:6,25 81:5 112:14 113:3,7,12
30:17,19,22 31:1,5 81:12 83:8 92:15 115:2,3,10,11
31:17,21 32:5,8,18 92:21 93:5 123:25 124:11,18
32:25 33:10,16,24 identifies (4) 60:22,25 125:4,14,16,24
34:3,6,22,25 35:5,8 61:3 66:8 126:11,14,18,19
35:11 36:23 37:4 identify (12) 31:11 127:3
37:19 40:14 51:10 52:8,18 53:22 74:3 informed (2) 104:8
51:15 52:3,25 57:4 74:8 76:9 79:7 109:7
57:17 58:19 59:10 83:12 85:18 102:22 initial (2) 101:8
60:20,23 61:7,15 128:16 133:24
61:22 62:25 63:5 identifying (1) 84:21 Initially (1) 115:6
63:12,20 65:13,15 identity (1) 124:22 initiated (2) 42:22
65:18,25 66:22 imagine (3) 17:21 131:19
67:1,14 68:7,18,23 55:19 56:14 insist (3) 99:21,23
69:5,11,18 70:3,9 immediately (1) 1:21 100:5
70:21,25 76:7 77:1 impartial (1) 115:21 insistence (1) 108:11
77:7,20 78:10,24 imperfect (1) 34:12 insofar (3) 11:18
79:17,25 80:14,18 implemented (2) 98:7 79:20 80:12
81:3,15 82:18,23 104:21 insolvency (2) 131:5
83:17,24 84:8,23 implementing (2) 131:12
85:2,6,10,21 86:7 54:22,25 instance (4) 21:9
86:11,17 89:2,15 implication (3) 29:6 70:20 104:13
90:1,24 91:16,23 91:2,20 122:22
92:8 93:11 94:15 implicit (1) 91:23 instances (6) 22:25
94:21 98:25 99:5 implicitly (1) 74:21 40:2 76:14 77:11
99:25 100:6,8,10 importance (2) 109:21 77:15 130:19
100:13,16 101:1,3 126:10 instruct (1) 88:11
101:5,13,15 103:6 important (15) 9:12 instruction (1) 92:13
103:9 104:25 105:4 10:9,10,20 14:5,6 instructions (22) 61:9
105:8 106:12,17,20 31:25 51:19 67:4 61:17 82:8,19,21
106:23 107:1,7,24 74:17 78:7,8 87:2 83:1,20 84:12,25
108:14 117:24 108:12 117:4 85:19,25,25 86:2,3
118:1,3,4 119:13 imposed (1) 79:18 86:4,4,6,9,13,15
119:18 120:2,4,11 impression (1) 99:8 88:22,23
120:16,25 121:11 in-house (3) 60:3,13 instrument (1) 11:1
121:15,18 122:1,8 61:13 instruments (1) 64:10
123:7,12,21 124:17 inadequate (3) 67:22 intend (1) 110:14
124:23 125:2,6,11 76:21 77:13 intent (1) 52:14
125:19 126:2 127:1 inappropriate (1) intentionally (1) 78:17
127:8,12,17,24 110:8 inter (5) 106:7,7
128:14 129:13,16 incident (1) 119:14 136:24,25 137:2
129:24 130:2 131:3 incidentally (1) 68:16 inter-party (1) 112:25
131:25 132:5,8,16 include (2) 12:12 interact (1) 5:7
132:25 133:10,20 120:9 interconnected (1)
134:2,17 135:10 included (3) 31:23 16:16
136:1,7,16,20 65:6 97:4 interest (3) 27:3,6
137:1,5 156:5 including (12) 38:5 38:13
historic (1) 33:24 59:24 65:19,21 interested (6) 27:1,11
history (1) 110:5 76:12 83:9 95:5 35:10 54:10 69:14
holds (1) 100:18 96:13 97:11 110:5 103:21
hope (8) 45:7 69:22 119:12 130:17 interests (1) 105:19
69:23 70:21 106:9 incorrectly (1) 28:1 internal (9) 62:14,19
106:15 108:16 incurred (1) 105:17 63:14,17,23 64:4
129:18 independent (4) 118:16,19 119:7
hoped (1) 136:11 40:13 115:15,21,24 interpreted (1) 2:7
hopefully (7) 69:3 INDEX (1) 156:1 interpreter (5) 1:22
70:12 71:7 85:8 indicate (2) 85:2 2:2 45:20 84:5,6
86:19 103:8 108:22 110:17 interpreter’s (1) 1:23
hoping (3) 80:10 indicated (3) 2:8 53:3 interpreters (2) 17:21
106:18 107:10 79:16 17:23
host (2) 31:10 76:4 indications (1) 107:21 interrupt (3) 74:17
hour (5) 6:18 68:20,21 individual (2) 116:11 90:2 130:5
69:1,18 117:1 interrupted (1) 57:15
hours (2) 6:19 59:24 individuals (1) 72:18 interview (1) 113:21
House (4) 38:18 39:2 inevitably (1) 76:8 intrigued (1) 79:6
41:9 72:20 inference (1) 28:5 introduced (2) 131:22
housekeeping (5) inferences (1) 78:14 132:20
31:16 69:21 107:14 influences (1) 115:15 Invest (5) 9:23 11:10
136:15 156:6 inform (3) 18:7,9 11:25 12:1,2
huge (4) 88:7 91:1,17 110:1 investigating (1)
93:7 information (46) 109:25
human (1) 35:4 13:21 22:16 24:12 investigation (1)
28:18 42:20 50:12 129:11
I 51:9 53:20 61:10 investigator (4)
I1/1/0.6 (1) 108:23 88:22 96:12 97:17 111:19,23 112:14
101:10 103:24 114:9
ideal (1) 39:7
104:9,14 105:9,10 investment (1) 43:6

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

161

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

Investrbank (1) 6:13 60:20,23 61:7,15 58:21 102:6 109:16
invited (2) 4:2 119:23 61:22 62:25 63:5 110:7 113:11
involve (2) 94:25 63:12,20 65:13,15 126:16 127:18
133:13 65:18,25 66:22 known (7) 28:15
involved (10) 16:13 67:1,14 68:7,18,23 35:19 36:15 55:19
42:25 43:23 44:17 69:5,11,18 70:3,9 111:4 115:14 124:6
45:2 82:11 84:14 70:21,25 76:7 77:1 knows (5) 13:14 31:14
90:12 93:18 94:2 77:7,20 78:10,24 80:11 126:24
involvement (1) 58:23 79:17,25 80:14,18 128:18
Irina (1) 15:17 81:3,15 82:18,23 Kolpachkov (4) 8:25
irregularity (1) 34:5 83:17,24 84:8,23 9:5,8 45:13
irrespective (3) 9:18 85:2,6,10,21 86:7 Konsultatsiy (1) 28:14
40:10 133:19 86:11,17 89:2,15 Kontur (4) 19:14
is/are (1) 109:12 90:1,24 91:16,23 20:14 25:19,21
Islands (1) 94:11 92:8 93:11 94:15 Kosova (43) 2:6,10
issue (12) 4:6 10:19 94:21 98:25 99:5 5:16 15:10 18:1
13:25 14:2 17:2 99:25 100:6,8,10 19:23 21:2 22:11
36:4 46:10,11 48:9 100:13,16 101:1,3 22:19 23:11 26:1
136:18,23 137:2 101:5,13,15 103:6 28:23 34:14 35:13
issued (12) 85:20 86:6 103:9 104:25 105:4 38:20 42:7 44:19
86:9,9 92:13 94:10 105:8 106:12,17,20 52:3 54:20,24 57:1
111:19 113:8 115:5 106:23 107:1,7,24 60:3 71:12 73:22
117:12 118:20 108:14 117:24 81:16 85:11 90:2
130:16 118:1,3,4 119:13 93:12 95:3 98:9
issues (3) 6:23 12:16 119:18 120:2,4,11 101:16 102:7,24
124:4 120:16,25 121:11 103:18 107:9
issuing (1) 123:2 121:15,18 122:1,8 108:24 110:16
item (3) 8:24 45:21 123:7,12,21 124:17 111:20 112:13
96:12 124:23 125:2,6,11 113:21 114:5 136:7
iterations (1) 130:22 125:19 126:2 127:1 156:3
127:8,12,17,24 Kubareva (1) 41:8
J 128:14 129:13,16
J1 (1) 69:7 129:24 130:2 131:3 L
131:25 132:5,8,16
J1/1/1 (1) 103:5 l (1) 72:20
132:25 133:10,20
J1/1/11 (1) 103:15 lady (1) 39:14
134:2,17 135:10
J1/20/1 (1) 54:2 Lair (14) 29:4,17,18
136:1,7,16,20
J1/20/10 (1) 70:15 30:23 32:12,19
137:1,5 156:5
J1/20/12 (5) 54:20 34:15 35:19 36:13
justified (1) 8:2
62:11 66:15 70:17 36:14,16,23 37:14
justifying (1) 12:10
86:19 38:3

J1/20/13 (2) 72:11 Lair’s (1) 37:16
K
87:21 landing (1) 108:12

J1/20/5 (1) 54:7 keep (2) 47:25 118:1 language (3) 63:16
joined (1) 27:1 keeping (1) 38:19 71:17 109:5
judge (2) 17:23 key (3) 66:11 73:9 large (12) 59:21 68:15
109:23 92:18 92:18 93:2,7 115:2
judging (3) 36:11 keywords (6) 73:7,19 119:5 120:20 128:1
40:24 49:17 74:4,12 75:7 93:3 130:24 131:18
judgment (9) 17:3,4 kind (8) 10:19 20:19 132:21
38:3 104:17 105:14 37:24 82:7 102:5 lasts (1) 6:19
105:16 111:1 123:1 103:19 114:20 late (2) 88:15 119:24
135:2 129:7 law (20) 10:12 22:7,21
judgments (1) 104:18 kindness (1) 105:11 22:22,25 23:1,2
judicial (3) 16:23 Kiperort (4) 39:9,17 26:8,10,23 27:18
21:24 23:8 41:24 42:23 38:12 39:23 47:15
July (1) 30:3 knew (7) 14:9 16:13 65:6 100:17 112:21
June (2) 8:7 45:10 38:11 110:18 111:9 116:25 132:21
jurisdiction (13) 93:16 112:11 115:4 133:25
93:23 104:3 115:16 know (54) 1:20,20,24 lawful (3) 22:21 38:6
116:9,14,16 117:2 2:16 3:22 7:16,19 38:9
117:2,11 127:25 10:2 14:3,16 19:20 lawfulness (1) 42:5
133:6,18 21:7 25:21 30:22 laws (1) 116:12
jurisdictions (3) 93:21 31:17 33:22 35:24 lawyer (11) 7:23
94:1 95:8 39:13 40:11,16,23 10:20,23 13:18
JUSTICE (199) 1:3,11 55:17,18 61:17 18:7 28:18 35:21
1:16 2:1 3:13,18 62:2 64:7 65:25 36:19 37:22 122:6
5:1,4,10 11:15,17 68:15,23 69:14,25 122:17
12:3,13 13:6 14:2,7 72:24 74:2 78:10 lawyers (11) 16:9
14:14,20,23 15:1,4 81:24 82:8,12 21:21 47:3,4 65:6
15:7,9 17:25 30:13 86:19 88:15 90:22 88:16 94:24 118:18
30:17,19,22 31:1,5 91:8,8 94:25 98:3 124:14 125:17
31:17,21 32:5,8,18 103:12 110:9 111:6 130:8
32:25 33:10,16,24 113:14 114:1 league (1) 38:4
34:3,6,22,25 35:5,8 124:25 125:3 127:2 leagues (1) 36:14
35:11 36:23 37:4 128:9 129:9 leap (2) 78:16 125:15
37:19 40:14 51:10 knowing (1) 128:1 learned (7) 17:22,23
51:15 52:3,25 57:4 knowledge (11) 23:9 34:9 69:2 109:23
57:17 58:19 59:10 49:22 51:4 55:15 111:21,24

lease (1) 122:5 leave (7) 2:4 27:24
52:20 78:20,23 81:3 113:9

leaves (2) 39:9 86:5 left (5) 24:5 39:17 83:20 103:9,10

legal (51) 3:8 4:24 5:8 5:11,17,19,21,21 5:25 6:1 9:12,13 12:16 15:15 16:3,7 16:21 46:11,18,19 46:21,22 47:5,14 47:17 48:3,7 52:17 60:3,13 61:4,13 83:25 84:9 109:8 118:14,16 119:6 120:9,19 121:5 122:13 123:8,9,17 128:4,13,16,19 130:11 134:8

legally (1) 109:10 legitimate (6) 57:9

58:19 61:4 62:1 89:8 99:6

lengthy (1) 58:7 Leningrad (1) 18:20 lest (1) 31:18

let’s (6) 20:20 25:14 39:20 71:5 73:17 91:24

letter (20) 17:19 18:2 18:4 19:3 23:16,22 24:6 31:3,23,24 92:10 105:20,21,22 111:2,7,11 135:4,5 135:6

letters (4) 99:4 101:18 101:23,24

level (4) 27:3,7 62:6 130:8

levelled (1) 106:2 Levitskaya (6) 111:20

111:23 112:14,24 113:7,13

light (2) 70:3 107:7 likelihood (1) 90:6 limitations (3) 58:21

79:15,17

limited (4) 40:14

66:13 87:6,6 limiting (1) 75:16 limits (1) 61:24 line (9) 18:24 44:8

53:10,10 58:18 74:23 91:4 117:18 125:3

lines (4) 1:10 103:7 118:12 133:15 lingering (1) 42:9

linked (1) 43:4 links (2) 106:11,13 liquidation (1) 35:16 list (17) 5:11 8:18

40:20 45:11,11,13 55:12 65:24 66:11 72:4,17 73:9,11,14 86:21 87:23 103:16

listed (5) 8:19 40:9 54:17 55:16 72:15

listening (1) 106:7 literally (2) 41:17

43:19

litigation (12) 15:12 15:20 16:2,12,16 16:22 17:15,18 95:6 118:17 119:8 136:25

little (9) 53:2 64:2

77:24 90:19,25 91:12,12 103:2 131:4

LLC (9) 49:20,21 109:9 109:10,11 110:11 110:11 114:2,3

loan (23) 2:14,18,20 5:5 12:25 13:24 44:12 47:11,12,24 56:25 96:10,16,17 97:2,5,7,20 98:1,14 117:16 118:25 120:9

loans (5) 44:5 64:18 119:4 128:1 130:16

local (2) 117:1,10 locate (3) 24:25 32:1

33:15 located (1) 24:11

logic (2) 18:13 49:7 logical (2) 20:3 23:3 London (1) 58:17 long (11) 3:6 4:14

6:14 9:10 10:16 24:4 62:8 72:17 108:22 117:21 136:8

long-term (1) 122:5 longer (8) 6:19 60:13

70:2 107:2,5 109:10 120:3,12

look (40) 1:19 5:12 7:9 19:2 23:15 25:1 25:14 28:8 29:14 34:25 35:2 37:22 41:12 42:11,13 45:5,10 48:3,14,21 51:18 53:6 55:16 59:8 67:11 70:18 71:16 72:5,24 76:2 77:7 87:1,22 90:25 96:2 101:21 108:13 120:17 121:18 125:21

looked (1) 76:2 looking (7) 29:24 30:9

33:6 40:5 65:11 66:6 119:19

looks (4) 3:25 19:23 39:22 46:10

Lord (113) 1:4,4,18 2:5 3:23 5:6,13 11:12 14:15 15:3 15:11 29:5,16,19 29:21,22,23 30:20 30:24 31:8,8,25 32:6,6,9,22,22 33:1 34:7,24 37:20 52:1 52:24 55:5,7 57:19 57:19 59:11 60:17 61:14,22 62:3 67:9 67:9 68:25 69:19 70:1,13 71:19 74:15,15,24,25 75:6,6,21,21 76:24 78:7,21 83:6,23 84:5 85:5 89:3,6,6 89:25 90:23,23,25 91:19 92:7 93:10 94:17 95:4 99:3,3,7 101:14 103:7,10 106:6,22 107:12,17 108:17 117:22,25 117:25 124:25,25 125:3,9,9,13,13,21 126:23,23 127:2,9 127:14 129:9,9,14 129:17 130:1 136:6 136:18,18,23 137:4

Lord’s (1) 101:19

Lordship (22) 31:14

33:4,21 59:15 70:8 74:19 89:7 91:15 99:4 108:21 117:22 124:25 125:18,21 125:22 126:1,24 127:4,10 128:12 129:9,19

Lordship’s (3) 53:1

62:9 89:14

lose (3) 9:14 10:10,21 loss (2) 112:16 113:15 lost (5) 10:13 55:7

63:11 96:25 112:18 lot (11) 36:4 60:11

61:2,20 65:8 69:25 89:18 94:17 102:16 103:12 123:25

lots (3) 48:25 80:14 125:16

low (2) 27:4 47:20 lower (3) 27:12,15

36:4

Lt-Colonel (3) 112:24 113:7,12

Luncheon (1) 70:6

LV (1) 39:15

M

m (1) 72:21 machine (2) 35:3,8 machinery (1) 60:23 Magnum (4) 14:16,17

17:20 19:3

main (4) 15:24 45:11 87:11 92:21

maintained (1) 11:6 major (6) 9:11 46:7 48:8 119:24 120:8

135:23

making (9) 12:18 13:3 21:14 23:2 54:21 56:11 78:1,4 79:23

Malysheva (7) 5:1,7 5:23 6:3 15:17 83:10 118:11 management (17)

2:13,16,18,24 6:14 18:20 45:22 61:12 71:25 85:14 95:15 95:23 98:1 114:20 118:10 119:3 124:7

manager (1) 119:15

March (5) 1:1 2:13 4:1

64:19 155:17

margin (1) 129:21 Marine (3) 43:13 55:23 73:25 marker (1) 78:9

market (9) 7:18 9:25 26:20,21 28:11,22 35:15 36:21 64:7

markets (2) 28:19 64:10

massive (1) 113:20 material (2) 58:25

98:24 materials (7) 44:15

47:20 49:25 50:2 50:10 53:8 96:18 matter (44) 1:10 2:17 3:6,7 9:9 10:17

11:4 12:9,10,19 31:12,15 46:3,3,12 46:17,19 48:7,12 49:12 50:21 52:19 60:10 75:15 77:11

80:16 83:18 88:15 88:17 90:3 92:11 95:10 96:11 97:9 99:9 102:18 104:1 107:17 109:21 110:1,14 111:21 113:1 131:4

matters (30) 3:11 4:19 4:21,24 6:16 9:20 16:6,7,10 32:13 46:24 57:22 58:6 60:16 69:20 72:15 78:14,17,22 79:12 89:10,18 95:16,23 107:15 119:12 122:10,20 126:5 130:17

Matvienko (1) 72:21 maximum (2) 26:4

49:4

McGregor (15) 59:2,9 59:14 60:21 61:18 61:20 66:23 67:5,6 67:10 70:19 71:7 76:13 89:20 96:2

McGregor’s (11) 58:7 66:3 67:2 68:1,4,10 68:17 73:2 89:6 94:15,18

McKenzie (11) 18:6 23:16,22 24:7,10 94:5,6,12,23,24 109:6

McKenzie’s (1) 25:12 mean (27) 7:3 8:15

13:15 22:14 32:15 50:2 57:14 65:15 67:1,14,17 68:2 69:11 74:2 76:20 78:18 80:9,23,24 81:13 82:6 85:6,15 93:23 96:25 125:7 128:14

meaning (1) 86:21 means (4) 5:21 31:14

50:22 135:18 meant (7) 15:25 26:14

45:2,4 89:9 111:16 128:15

measure (1) 128:11 media (1) 56:5 medical (1) 136:18 Medinvest (1) 124:8 meet (1) 126:8 meeting (13) 2:24 4:1

4:2,13,19 5:5 6:4 6:14 45:10,24,25 46:2,25

meetings (9) 61:8 95:15,20,22 96:4 96:20 98:2 119:2,4

member (8) 9:11 48:8 119:22,23 120:2,6 120:6,14

members (10) 19:10 41:6 59:23 96:14 96:19,23 97:15,16 97:22 121:5

memory (8) 3:15 4:12 12:24 62:21 74:19 89:9 94:9 124:20

mention (2) 4:16 19:16

mentioned (2) 53:5 119:19

Mercury (4) 44:6,10

44:12 45:23

mess (1) 32:7 micro (3) 58:15 62:6

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

162

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

74:18 mid-2014 (1) 90:18 migrate (1) 97:19

million (3) 26:15 36:8 36:9

millions (1) 7:17 mind (12) 13:23 55:5

57:24 60:17 71:16 89:10 90:17 101:5 101:11 104:17 118:4,7

mindful (1) 81:9 minds (1) 11:14 minor (2) 13:25 14:2 minute (6) 3:14 11:15

19:5,8 22:19 41:14 minuted (3) 3:13,18

3:19

minutes (29) 2:25 3:3 3:25 4:15 8:15 19:19 21:8 32:1 33:17 38:21 40:5 40:25 41:13 45:9 46:1,5 65:2 69:2,3 69:4,18 70:2 103:8 106:21,21 107:5,10 108:15 114:11

Mironova (2) 83:10 124:3

misheard (1) 89:1 missing (3) 21:8 23:12

76:9

misspoken (1) 111:17 mistake (1) 3:21 mistaken (3) 29:1,3

59:21

misunderstood (3)

75:11 90:22 110:16 moment (5) 13:7 35:9

52:7 77:22 120:13 momentum (1)

135:11

Monaco (1) 110:4 monitoring (4) 46:12

46:16 47:21 129:6 month (1) 18:11 months (2) 9:23 44:22 morning (5) 1:3 2:10

2:11 31:16 32:16 move (7) 6:21 41:4

42:4 64:15 136:21 136:24 137:3

moved (2) 10:5 15:15 mutating (1) 80:25 mysterious (1) 104:11

N

n (1) 72:21

N22/53/11 (1) 23:15 N22/53/17 (1) 24:3 name (4) 8:19 45:12

45:12 132:9 name(s) (1) 109:12 named (1) 43:14 natural (1) 117:1 nature (3) 3:11 48:7

58:22 navigate (1) 106:9

nearly (2) 68:24 87:6 necessarily (2) 7:12

93:17 necessary (7) 17:5

55:3 71:5 96:2 97:16 104:20 126:6

need (33) 12:11 14:10 17:10,21 32:13,22 33:22 40:20 41:1 44:2 52:6 55:5,20

59:6 61:1 68:3 69:2 69:3 71:3 72:5 73:4 88:24 92:15 98:15 107:19 122:3 127:16 130:20 131:1 135:1,3,9,21
needed (4) 16:6,7

25:8 121:8 needs (7) 22:3 58:4

58:11 59:13 108:8 120:11 131:19

Nefte-Oil (4) 7:14 8:4 9:22 11:23

net (1) 57:11

never (8) 22:25 62:22 62:22 63:21,22,25 101:10,11

new (2) 73:7,7 newspaper (1) 42:15 nominates (1) 132:9 non (1) 49:2 non-individual (1)

133:7

normal (2) 20:14 47:2 normally (2) 6:14 62:4 note (2) 67:9 123:24 noted (2) 31:8 122:1 notion (1) 68:21

Notwithstanding (1)

135:10

November (4) 23:17 24:19 54:13 60:5

number (33) 6:16 19:6,6,7,8 20:12 23:18,21 24:25 25:15 32:12 43:13 43:18 66:12 72:19 73:7 83:7 88:7 91:17 92:18 93:2,7 93:7 95:18,19,19 97:10 114:24 115:5 119:11 121:3 130:21 135:21

numbering (2) 45:6 49:17

numbers (1) 91:1 nutshell (1) 134:25

O

o (1) 72:22

oath (2) 1:9 51:18 object (1) 108:5 objecting (1) 125:14 objection (1) 99:16 objective (1) 81:12 obligations (1) 131:21 obtain (4) 25:8 26:13

78:1 102:8 obtained (2) 103:17

103:24 obtaining (2) 95:7

98:18

obvious (2) 28:5,7 obviously (28) 1:22 2:21 17:15 18:3

27:25 32:23 34:11 35:19 36:3,9,24 37:21 48:1 49:4,6 60:18 61:16 76:18 77:2,4 81:16 87:11 121:7 123:19 126:23 130:21 131:1 135:19

occupied (1) 121:3 occur (1) 117:18 occurred (1) 79:21 October (11) 18:5

21:3,15 39:2 54:4

57:3 60:7 62:17 64:21,21 101:18

odd (2) 87:8,9 oddly (2) 19:4 28:10 offer (7) 21:18,19

25:3,10 36:22 40:4 43:22

Offers (2) 19:12,24 office (4) 48:14 94:23

95:1 129:4 officers (2) 13:1,20 offices (6) 65:6 121:3

121:6,7,10 131:1 official (3) 18:25 19:6
124:13

okay (12) 6:20 40:3 52:24,25 71:5 81:14,15 86:17 90:24 94:21 101:3 129:13

OMG (16) 2:15 18:9 64:18 74:14 81:20 93:21,24 95:15,23 104:11 109:8,10,20 114:17,25 116:2

omitted (1) 78:18 once (10) 16:10 19:11

23:14 36:19 90:5,7 93:2 95:5 97:17 120:5

Onega (3) 39:1 72:10 87:25

ones (1) 59:11 ongoing (1) 46:24 open (6) 14:17 26:25

107:16,18 121:1 135:25

operate (1) 28:21 operating (5) 11:21 12:5,20 70:11

84:18 operational (1)
118:15 operations (2) 60:2

99:24 operative (1) 54:10 opined (1) 12:10 opinion (5) 47:13,21

104:22 123:19,20

opinions (3) 96:13

97:11 123:3

opportunity (1)

133:22

opposed (3) 33:6 35:3 62:7

oral (7) 83:21 85:16 85:20,25 86:4,4,6

orally (1) 86:10 order (52) 13:25 54:3

54:21,25 56:6 58:3 58:17 59:15,17 60:8 63:2 66:1 70:10 75:1,1,5,13 75:16,18,19 76:11 76:25 77:1,3,3,5,8 77:9 78:20 79:5,20 79:21,23 80:1,2 81:6,7 101:19 102:21 103:11,17 103:25 104:15,21 105:13 109:22 110:20,24,25 112:15 113:8 135:1

ordered (1) 64:15 ordering (1) 54:9 orders (4) 32:15 54:6

54:8 80:3 organise (1) 106:10 organised (5) 17:13

18:19 21:23,24 87:13

organising (1) 7:20 original (6) 32:19

71:22 82:3,18 83:2 84:16

originally (3) 25:6 29:10 56:24 originals (1) 97:20

Oslo (3) 43:13 55:23

73:25

outside (1) 91:10 overall (3) 16:11 76:6

123:10 overrunning (1) 107:2 Overseas (1) 110:4 oversee (3) 5:24 26:3

26:6 overseeing (1) 16:1 overseen (1) 5:8

oversight (6) 16:4,11 88:18 90:13 92:12 102:4

overstated (1) 37:15 owned (11) 49:21,25 50:1,5,17,19,23,25

53:12 109:10 126:12

owner (4) 9:19 10:12 11:22 14:9

owner’s (2) 11:21 12:5

owners (4) 51:13 78:2 79:9 124:22

ownership (5) 11:5 50:20,24 53:14 127:20

owns (1) 14:4

P

pack (2) 96:12,19 packs (5) 96:1,7,22
97:4,22

page (44) 4:5 5:14 8:21 14:17,21 19:13,18 20:4,10 20:19,20 24:2 25:15 28:12 30:5,5 31:4 34:19 39:6,7 41:3,5 43:25 44:1,8 45:8 48:20 53:7 54:7 66:11,18 72:11 73:16,18,20 87:19,21 91:4 103:15 113:18 124:2,5 127:9 156:2

pages (9) 4:8 5:14 34:18 44:1,2 45:17 48:20 111:15 113:16

paper (1) 92:18 paperwork (1) 14:1 paradigm (2) 12:16

78:12

paragraph (31) 18:14 18:15 48:18 49:20 54:7,12,15 55:21 56:19 59:14,17 62:12,13 64:15,22 66:9,20 70:20 73:4 73:8 86:21 87:20 87:23 113:20 127:6 127:8 129:14,21 130:3 131:6,11

paragraphs (3) 48:15

48:21 72:15

parallel (1) 17:18

pardon (1) 30:20 pertain (1) 47:16 13:12 26:10 39:6
parked (1) 100:2 Petersburg (5) 42:16 43:25 68:20 76:14
part (35) 3:10 4:20 42:17,18 93:24 108:4
9:13,14 10:7 12:17 94:23 possibly (10) 4:25 8:8
21:11 22:9,15,15 PetroLes (4) 2:14 4:7 9:20 27:21,22 48:8
24:5 25:4 33:4 5:5 116:5 51:2,12 109:22
40:10 44:17 45:1 phrase (1) 50:22 116:4
48:1 51:8 96:10,16 picked (1) 129:24 postpone (1) 81:1
98:8 99:24 111:22 picture (4) 33:25 potentially (2) 88:8
118:20,22,24 119:4 41:17 60:17 102:13 125:5
119:8 121:15 122:9 pierce (1) 89:16 power (2) 40:15,22
123:15,18 125:23 Piotrovsky (1) 72:22 powers (1) 132:1
127:10 131:17 pitched (1) 16:6 practically (1) 56:17
partes (5) 106:7,8 place (22) 2:17 7:7 8:6 practice (7) 92:2 95:5
136:24,25 137:2 9:24 18:11 22:4,17 95:7,10 100:17
participant (1) 40:18 22:22 26:15 77:3 123:9 128:20
participants (4) 19:24 82:8,13 83:14 practices (1) 18:24
38:13 40:9,13 87:17 90:10 97:12 Pravdy (3) 48:14,23
participating (1) 48:2 104:16 109:15 49:2
participation (1) 110:8 110:6 113:3 118:16 precautions (1)
participatory (1) 124:24 130:13
105:19 places (1) 124:6 prejudice (1) 126:20
particular (23) 12:8 plain (1) 136:2 prejudiced (1) 47:16
16:25 22:13 31:14 plan (2) 120:11 121:1 prejudicial (1) 47:12
36:2 46:3 49:13 Platonov (1) 6:12 premises (5) 49:3,3,10
63:15 65:21 74:21 played (1) 115:8 49:15,19
74:23 75:4,4,13,18 please (10) 8:15 30:8 prep (1) 69:25
79:11 81:12 83:15 33:21 69:7 70:8 preparation (1) 45:3
87:1 93:22 97:15 84:7 86:18 108:21 prepare (1) 126:7
126:10 136:23 114:6 121:21 prepared (5) 33:3
particularly (2) 91:14 pledge (14) 9:18 46:16,25 48:11
128:4 10:10,11,12,17,22 125:8
parties (6) 27:6 108:9 10:23,25 11:2 14:4 prepares (1) 13:16
112:4 134:7,23 25:1 34:17 37:2 preparing (1) 12:9
135:15 117:15 presence (1) 4:16
partner (1) 94:25 pledged (3) 9:18 10:5 present (10) 2:24 4:16
parts (9) 49:5,6 54:5 10:11 8:18 45:11,13 46:1
68:4 69:13 74:25 pledger (1) 135:3 46:7 107:1 109:13
99:8 102:25 103:1 pledges (1) 29:11 126:17
party (6) 8:9,13 18:9 plug (1) 107:22 presenting (1) 46:15
82:15 95:11 100:24 plus (2) 119:8 124:14 preservation (2) 90:5
pass (1) 108:1 pm (8) 54:13 69:6 92:5
pause (12) 1:21 14:23 70:5,7 108:15,18 preserve (2) 9:16
15:1 29:13 38:21 108:20 155:15 88:24
51:11 52:15 54:23 point (33) 1:4 3:5 5:6 preserved (1) 96:17
55:6 101:9 114:4,6 5:9,20,25 6:11 7:19 press (2) 99:2 108:21
peculiar (1) 106:13 10:2 11:22 16:1 pressure (1) 115:19
people (13) 8:18 41:8 21:14 22:19 23:12 presumably (2) 9:5
83:7,7,9,22 84:20 27:8 39:13 46:21 16:19
84:23 86:13 120:21 53:16 62:3 68:14 presume (10) 3:8 7:25
120:23 121:5 71:19,20 76:6,17 8:2 25:6 40:21
122:20 76:18 89:17 91:22 46:22 47:22 48:10
percentage (1) 27:10 111:9 119:3,22 85:19 98:6
perception (3) 105:6 120:7,19 130:24 presumed (1) 83:11
106:3 123:12 points (3) 23:21 prevailed (1) 19:21
perfect (3) 77:17 129:23 130:10 previous (7) 9:24 24:6
106:16 122:2 political (2) 115:15,19 44:22 77:4,16 80:3
perfectly (2) 99:6 Port (11) 104:10,24 110:3
125:8 109:9,9,9 110:11 previously (5) 24:1
perform (1) 131:21 110:11,19 114:2,2 28:6 75:14 95:24
performed (4) 8:1 114:2 97:7
56:10 81:7 134:24 Ports (5) 18:9 104:11 price (15) 7:18,25 8:2
period (4) 22:12 44:16 109:8,10,20 9:25 26:20,22 27:3
56:16 112:5 position (21) 6:11 27:4,7,10 28:11
permissible (1) 15:15 23:7,10 40:4 37:11 38:14 39:21
133:12 41:21 67:8 79:7 122:4
permission (3) 53:2 100:16 124:4 prices (3) 27:12,15
103:23 113:6 126:15,25 127:15 37:15
person (12) 37:23 127:16 128:10,17 primary (1) 97:2
40:16,21 46:15 128:19 133:1 principal (3) 100:19
67:19 117:1 122:24 134:10,12 135:11 100:22 132:11
131:20 132:3,5,6,7 positive (1) 97:19 principal’s (1) 100:21
personal (9) 109:20 possession (6) 28:24 principle (3) 95:10
116:23 117:5,11 36:6 79:8 99:14 97:1 101:10
130:6,9 133:5,5,14 104:10 112:19 prior (7) 8:1 16:1
personally (2) 54:21 possibilities (1) 85:24 59:16 75:1 89:4
119:2 possibility (2) 78:16 94:12,22
perspective (3) 46:19 108:10 priority (1) 60:10
47:14 130:11 possible (8) 8:11 private (5) 136:21

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

163

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

137:3,5,6 156:7 propositions (1) 68:5 queries (1) 67:11
privilege (6) 60:19 propriety (2) 42:6 query (3) 24:14,15
89:13,16 104:6 48:3 57:9
125:1,12 protocol (12) 19:4,5 querying (1) 13:7
privileged (7) 57:22 20:12,15 23:12 question (27) 11:15
58:3,6,16,25 89:10 24:11,25 25:14 12:17 43:17 46:8
125:20 38:25 41:19 130:12 47:16 48:9 50:13
probably (12) 1:7,14 130:25 53:4 57:1 82:14
5:11 12:25 20:8 protocols (5) 18:25 83:5 84:6 88:13
59:6 81:10 106:19 19:2,6 21:8 87:7 91:6,13,16 97:8
118:5 119:21 123:2 provenance (2) 31:9 99:6,7 101:5,12,22
127:15 35:7 104:22 105:24
problem (5) 14:19 provide (9) 8:3 11:25 108:2 115:23
66:25 70:21 98:11 22:2 37:1 80:8 134:18
98:18 99:21 100:18 102:1 questioner (1) 91:5
problems (3) 37:7 112:13 questioning (1) 58:18
48:6 76:21 provided (13) 21:15 questions (37) 1:9 2:7
procedural (1) 116:12 36:1 59:2 61:10 3:19 7:3,5 20:22
procedure (6) 4:2 79:13 96:13 97:4,6 23:25 52:23 58:5
18:22 40:23 131:17 112:2,9 124:21 62:9 69:19,19
131:19 135:25 125:4 130:18 74:20 80:14 89:8
procedures (8) 22:2,4 provides (3) 11:18 89:11 91:1,14
22:8 26:24 27:18 22:21 118:15 105:21,23 107:11
118:23 119:7 providing (5) 4:7 8:25 107:12,13 111:25
132:19 11:24 12:18 98:12 113:14 114:13
proceeded (2) 13:19 provision (3) 12:12 117:22 118:3 124:1
92:20 63:2 75:5 124:20 127:4,11
proceedings (51) provisional (1) 78:25 133:2 136:2,3,4
15:18 16:5,17,18 provisions (1) 130:25 156:5
16:23,24,25 17:2,3 pry (1) 125:11 quick (3) 85:9 120:17
23:19 26:4,7,7,12 public (18) 6:25 7:6 121:18
26:13 32:3 42:22 7:20 8:1 17:8,12 quickly (3) 1:19 48:13
42:25 44:18,21 18:17 20:15,16 79:2
45:1 63:4,6,19 90:6 21:12,23,24 22:10 quite (32) 9:9 10:24
90:7,10,13 92:15 22:24 24:25 26:25 14:5 20:14 25:1
93:25 94:7,10,14 38:13,15 31:20 32:2 56:16
98:16,24 102:5 publication (2) 24:12 58:21,22,23 62:2
103:12 104:1,2 42:17 67:18 69:12,25
110:6,20 111:22 publications (1) 42:19 70:1 74:18 79:2,16
112:25 114:14 publish (1) 42:19 83:6 87:2 89:23
115:5,9 117:17 published (1) 42:15 90:13 95:22 97:3,8
119:12,14 135:7,7 purchase (1) 134:3 98:24 115:6 122:12
process (15) 45:2 47:2 purchaser (1) 12:1 128:1 132:25 134:9
56:24 58:16 67:19 purchasers (10) 71:23 quiz (3) 68:11 81:11
69:9,12 76:6 82:11 71:23 82:3,4,18 84:23
84:14 90:19 131:24 83:2 84:16,16 quorum (1) 135:16
134:19,22 135:13 101:8 133:24 quotation (1) 24:6
processes (5) 16:20 purported (1) 17:8 quote (1) 51:6
47:17 118:16 131:5 purpose (4) 19:25
131:13 32:23 43:15 103:25 R
procured (1) 65:3 purposely (1) 13:10 Raev (1) 41:8
produce (1) 80:7 purposes (3) 35:24
raise (2) 23:11,12
produced (3) 28:2 76:22 98:10
raised (7) 23:13 24:1
31:10 32:23 pursuant (10) 7:1,1
33:14 35:6 88:15
profess (1) 51:4 22:25 38:12 75:17
92:12 105:21
proffered (1) 48:10 80:2,2 81:7 101:18
raising (1) 32:12
prolong (1) 26:12 134:8
range (1) 27:6
prolongation (1) 2:19 push (1) 33:5
rate (2) 21:23 131:18
promised (1) 107:8 put (32) 27:25 28:5
re-examination (4)
prompted (3) 69:21 29:5 35:21 58:11
31:11 32:17 52:19
125:22 134:9 59:21 67:21 68:3,5
52:22
pronunciation (1) 73:22 74:20 75:7,8
re-read (1) 79:1
121:12 78:7,8,8,11,14
reach (1) 108:12
proper (3) 29:15 81:17 85:11 86:22
reached (2) 66:5
89:10 123:24 87:23 89:11 90:11
107:9
properly (2) 38:19 97:9,12 102:7,15
react (1) 105:4
77:9 108:9 109:14 118:8
read (27) 18:1,12,14
property (20) 9:17 132:17
18:15 40:24 44:6
10:11,15 11:20,22 putting (3) 21:2 68:15
55:17,20 59:18
12:5 14:4,9 18:20 74:10
67:15,16 71:9,14
20:13 27:5 34:16 puzzled (1) 64:3
73:15 78:21,21
41:20 84:1,2,10,13
86:13 89:7,21
134:3,5,7 Q
103:19,21 109:3
proportionality (1) qualified (2) 122:25
113:21,24 125:23
77:15
123:4 126:3 136:20
proportionate (3)
qualify (1) 51:17 reading (6) 43:7,19,20
76:10,16 126:6
quasi (2) 122:10 60:5 66:3 114:4
proposed (2) 9:6
123:16 real (6) 10:17,23 11:2
132:12

69:4 77:23,23 4:18,19 7:10 22:11 82:2 99:25 100:1 reported (3) 42:21
realisation (2) 37:8 101:21 126:19 118:18 121:15
87:3 recommend (1) 45:22 relation (19) 16:18 reporting (2) 6:1
reality (3) 28:1 34:1 reconsider (1) 122:12 23:18 49:22 50:14 119:20
102:24 reconvene (1) 108:15 50:15,18 56:18 reports (14) 29:9 32:9
really (49) 10:16 record (8) 19:25 43:11 62:15 63:23 72:13 36:1,7,12,25 37:1,3
21:18 25:3 32:13 68:9 82:9 84:3 96:5 74:22 86:23 87:24 37:13,16 96:13
37:23,24 40:3 109:14 127:19 93:15 110:10,20 97:11,13,19
43:22 46:10 48:3 recorded (4) 4:1 5:16 113:1 114:18,19 representation (1)
52:3,4,8 54:20 9:3 84:13 relations (1) 102:16 124:12
56:15 61:5 65:17 recording (1) 82:25 relationship (3) representative (5)
66:2,5,16 67:13 records (2) 39:3 79:10 100:20 101:6 39:14,17 41:24,25
68:2 76:9 78:16 recover (1) 128:2 133:25 109:8
79:22 80:7,17,23 REDACTED (19) 137:7 relationships (1) representatives (1)
80:25 81:11,24 138:1 139:1 140:1 134:8 41:9
82:7 83:4 86:24 141:1 142:1 143:1 release (1) 99:10 representing (2)
89:8,13,14 91:3 144:1 145:1 146:1 relevant (32) 14:8,9 41:10 94:13
92:5 94:19 98:21 147:1 148:1 149:1 24:17 55:9 56:3,12 represents (1) 40:16
113:22 120:18 150:1 151:1 152:1 56:19 64:5 65:20 repurchase (1) 134:4
122:11,13 125:4 153:1 154:1 155:1 68:3 85:13,21 87:5 reputable (3) 35:19
129:17 131:15 reducing (1) 122:4 88:8,11,12 91:19 38:5 42:17
132:2 refer (5) 51:6 129:23 92:14,21 95:6 reputation (1) 27:14
reason (22) 23:7 131:6,7,9 98:16,17,23,25 request (10) 13:24
27:16 29:14 38:10 reference (12) 21:9 99:16 101:1 127:5 56:9 64:25 99:2,3,4
38:15 41:13 48:1 25:17 29:15 33:15 127:21 128:16 99:10 100:7 102:6
67:22 77:20,21 48:15 55:7 59:8,15 129:4 130:10 131:2 110:12
82:16 92:3 93:6,8 61:19,20 80:5 reliable (3) 10:24 11:1 requested (2) 9:15
98:8 102:12,24 127:19 11:1 101:24
116:20,21 117:10 referred (3) 59:11 relied (3) 29:10 34:17 requesting (1) 56:11
117:14 134:15 101:16 128:13 36:4 requests (9) 65:1
reasonable (3) 54:16 referring (6) 63:13,16 rely (1) 67:1 101:17 123:24
61:23 76:10 64:23 83:1 93:20 remained (1) 98:2 124:14,15 126:5,11
reasonably (1) 126:6 96:7 remedies (1) 128:6 126:16,19
reasons (7) 9:6 37:9,9 refers (2) 59:20 96:2 remember (21) 2:15 require (1) 90:12
99:17 111:5 117:4 reflected (1) 64:10 6:20,21,24 26:17 required (8) 13:4,9
117:8 reformulate (1) 88:14 33:4 50:8,13 53:23 68:8 71:16 80:1
recall (58) 2:25 3:5,9 refrained (1) 123:2 53:25 58:15 59:3 119:1 122:14,17
4:13,14 6:4,8 7:2,3 refresh (5) 4:12 71:15 59:10 62:7,16 71:7 requirement (1) 13:4
7:5,8 8:5,6,8 9:7,8 72:25 101:21 109:3 73:17 86:14 91:11 requires (1) 132:23
9:20 12:24 16:21 refuse (6) 2:13,19 95:17 104:6 reserve (1) 26:22
17:11 25:23 26:21 64:18 65:12 100:18 remembered (1) 4:25 reserves (1) 126:17
27:21 36:3 37:6 100:21 remind (5) 6:6 11:8,12 residential (2) 49:3,3
40:1,4 44:13,16,23 refused (1) 102:10 48:22 59:6 resolution (2) 4:22
45:24,25 46:2 47:9 regard (24) 3:11 6:10 reminded (2) 123:22 12:12
50:4 53:11 64:20 10:14,23 11:24 126:4 resolve (2) 12:4
71:12,13 72:9,22 12:1 25:22 26:10 reminds (1) 59:15 136:23
81:22 82:1 92:13 28:18 38:8 47:8 Renord (31) 7:15 10:7 resolved (2) 14:11
95:2 103:20 104:12 48:7 50:4 53:11,20 39:12 40:11 50:4,7 16:7
104:13 105:14 67:24 82:18 83:19 50:9 53:5,11,15,18 resource (2) 59:22
112:9 113:2 114:21 89:17 108:8 110:4 53:18,23 67:24 62:8
114:22 115:3 122:11 131:7 72:18 78:2 79:9,11 resources (1) 59:25
116:18 122:20 135:17 85:22 98:10,11,13 respect (41) 16:10
128:8 130:22 regarded (1) 46:10 100:10,11 101:7,17 17:3 19:23 22:9,13
recalled (1) 6:7 regarding (1) 24:12 101:25 102:9,16,24 25:10,13 36:21
receive (5) 17:2 22:16 regards (2) 52:10 124:5 37:7 40:18 43:21
82:21 135:3,21 133:23 Renord’s (1) 98:14 64:13 67:25 74:25
received (17) 22:17 region (3) 18:21 35:15 Renord-Invest (5) 78:17 79:7 82:14
37:13 64:25 98:1 48:17 25:19,22 43:6 84:2,13,20 87:13
101:10 104:8 105:9 registered (6) 10:17 65:23 100:3 93:21 95:4,8,20
105:14,20 110:17 10:23,25 11:2 rent (1) 122:22 99:25 104:19
111:2,2,11 112:6 29:11 41:24 repayment (1) 64:18 105:15,17 106:4
118:12 124:13,15 registration (1) 11:3 repeat (3) 77:10 84:6 110:24 113:15
receiver (3) 132:1,3 regrettably (1) 103:14 102:19 115:22 118:23
132:10 regulation (1) 130:15 repeating (1) 77:12 119:13 124:21
receivership (1) regulations (10) 22:1 replace (2) 71:25 125:23 126:13
131:10 62:19 63:14,14,17 85:14 129:5 130:25
receives (2) 27:9 64:11 118:21 120:8 reply (3) 24:16 125:23 133:11
126:18 131:2 135:9 127:10 respectful (1) 67:12
recognise (1) 104:18 relate (3) 54:5 64:4 repo (14) 62:25 63:3,6 respective (1) 96:20
recognised (1) 110:24 104:1 63:7,18,23 64:5,8 respectively (1) 5:15
recognition (2) 105:16 related (8) 26:7 42:20 72:13,14 79:10 respond (2) 23:22
107:25 43:5 63:18 64:9 84:11 100:1 114:19 44:14
recollect (2) 51:12 88:17 93:20 133:12 repo’ (1) 62:15 respondents (1)
56:2 relates (3) 34:15 report (20) 5:8 28:8 105:20
recollection (8) 22:13 126:12 130:16 28:11,24 29:4,13 responds (1) 126:20
44:22 56:1 69:20 relating (16) 55:22 29:17,19 30:1,23 response (3) 23:17
71:15 73:1 94:4 62:25 64:17 65:11 31:3,22 32:2,10,19 24:5,9
109:3 71:21,24 72:2,7,12 34:14,16 100:6 responses (1) 123:24
recollections (7) 3:2,4 73:24 74:13 79:10 129:23 136:19 responsibilities (4)

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

164

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

15:18,22 118:13 123:18

responsibility (8)

15:12 16:11 26:3 46:13 67:19,20 119:9,13

responsible (7) 9:12 15:20,23 41:6 55:4 55:9 81:16

restrictive (1) 108:8 result (7) 2:18 26:13 38:14 81:23 93:4

103:24 122:23 resulted (1) 81:18 retain (2) 9:17 10:9 retains (1) 26:4 return (2) 31:15 74:13 reveal (2) 112:24

113:6 revealed (1) 95:22

review (6) 128:15,23 128:25 129:7,10,17

reviewed (2) 118:19 130:9

reviewing (1) 121:8 rid (1) 43:10

right (88) 5:2 7:7 10:11,22 11:4,8 14:7 15:1,2,4,8,13 17:18 23:11 24:7 26:17 27:24 33:9 33:16 34:7 41:12 42:2,4,11 43:24 47:15 57:13,17 58:24 60:24 62:24 63:24 64:15 65:14 67:9 69:5,16 70:12 70:22 74:16 76:9 78:20 82:23 83:5 84:4 85:10 86:15 92:8 94:8,21,21 95:16,18,22 98:19 99:20,22,23 100:5 101:13 104:20 105:18 106:23 107:7 111:12 114:11 117:9 118:1 119:18 120:25 121:13,14 123:4,7 123:10,11,21 125:25 126:17 127:18,22 129:13 132:8,18 133:4,8 133:14 136:1

rightly (1) 61:19 rights (10) 9:14 44:10

44:11 45:23 47:7 47:10,13,24 105:18 135:2

rise (2) 69:22 136:4 risk (6) 9:13 47:5

122:13,13,16

123:17

risks (4) 3:8 4:25 9:12 122:3

role (10) 115:9 118:8 118:8,9 119:10,15 122:12 123:13,15 134:20

roughly (1) 36:15 round (2) 67:12

106:25

RPC (2) 92:24 96:5 RUB (7) 7:17 9:24

26:15 29:2,2 30:4 35:17

rudely (1) 57:14

rule (5) 13:3 90:8,9,11 132:19

rules (13) 62:14,17 63:13,14,17,17,23 64:4,11 90:4 118:22 120:8 135:9

run (2) 84:17 128:11 running (1) 17:18

Russia (9) 28:16 40:14 90:3 95:5,7,10 104:18 110:6 115:20

Russian (71) 8:23 16:17,22,23 17:13 18:3 19:9 20:11,14 20:24 22:1,5,7 23:5 25:16 26:24 28:9 30:7,11,22 31:2,18 31:22 32:10,12,19 32:21 33:2,12 34:11,18 35:20 36:16 38:17 39:2 39:23 41:3,9 45:18 48:16 65:6 68:16 70:24 71:2,10,11 72:20 73:3,10 94:24 100:17 103:13 105:15 108:3,24 109:7 110:23 111:1,15 113:17 114:13,17 114:25 115:6,13,20 115:24 116:25 121:20 124:14 126:4

S

safeguarded (1) 84:12 sale (45) 6:25 7:20 8:1 9:1,22,24 10:2 17:6

17:12 18:10,17 19:1 20:13,15 21:12,23,24 22:4,6 22:12,13,15,16,17 22:21,24 24:13,25 26:15,25 27:5,10 38:8,11,13,15,18 39:1 48:13 87:1,4 87:13,17 113:3 122:4

sales (3) 22:10,21 40:24

satisfaction (2) 77:16 82:25

satisfactorily (1) 31:13 satisfied (6) 22:20

26:20 38:6 48:1,5 82:24

satisfy (1) 135:16 Saturday (2) 18:18

28:4

Saturdays (1) 18:24 Savelyev (1) 83:10 Savina (2) 45:14,14 saw (4) 34:23 44:15 44:20 105:2

Sawyer (2) 29:17 32:9 saying (29) 13:10

22:24 23:4,6 33:2 37:23 38:1 50:6,7 57:14 62:5 63:7,7 63:16 64:3,6 65:18 82:7,10 86:11,12 96:21 97:3,3,25 108:7 110:22 112:10 115:25

says (18) 1:22 36:7,8 40:1 41:14 43:4,5 43:18 44:25 46:1 59:17 61:1,7,8,20

66:23 129:22 35:5,13,17,18 shape (1) 84:1 17:7,12 34:16 standing (1) 40:16
132:18 38:25 39:3,9,10,14 shared (2) 113:12 39:20 105:23,25 standpoint (1) 46:22
Scan (7) 38:18 71:22 39:16,19 41:4,7,22 121:4 111:5 start (2) 56:24 135:6
72:1,10 82:3 85:14 42:21,24 43:2 44:6 shareholding (3) solicitors (15) 18:6 started (4) 15:5 44:21
87:25 44:9 45:21 46:4,15 71:22 82:3 110:10 25:12 56:9 57:7,12 92:24 119:3
scan-read (1) 20:16 49:6 55:16 57:24 shares (15) 72:14 84:2 57:20 58:17 65:1,3 starting (3) 39:21 44:7
Scan/Onega (1) 72:8 59:13,14 66:1,16 84:4,11,15 100:2 92:19,25 93:15,15 72:18
scanned (2) 97:13,21 66:25 73:6,8,11,18 105:22,25 109:11 93:18 94:2 starts (2) 19:10
schedule (14) 54:17 78:18 80:9,21 111:4 113:15 114:2 Solo (4) 39:10,14 113:23
54:19 55:13,17,19 81:13 84:1,10 114:19 127:21 41:23 42:23 state (3) 18:20 124:6
66:15 70:16,16,17 91:16 104:4 105:2 134:4 solution (1) 47:5 133:3
71:4,5,10 72:16 105:4,8 106:12 sharing (1) 105:10 somebody (1) 62:6 stated (2) 9:18 50:23
86:20 108:11 113:20 sheet (1) 43:9 somewhat (1) 47:12 statement (33) 21:9
scheduling (1) 18:23 120:11 124:2,5 Shipping (1) 131:7 soon (1) 14:19 23:2 26:2 48:15
scope (2) 6:17 20:21 125:6 126:1 129:15 short (9) 19:12,13 sorry (38) 5:12 14:2 51:5,18 52:10 58:8
screen (32) 3:24 4:5 132:16 32:15 33:19 67:15 15:3,10 21:18 26:9 58:8 59:9,23 60:5
8:16,17 14:20,22 seeing (3) 70:23 81:18 79:3 103:7 108:15 31:21 32:6 34:22 66:3,6,7,18 67:10
20:4,10,11 30:16 82:1 108:19 37:19 38:19,22 68:4,10,17 70:19
30:18 31:4 33:23 seek (2) 108:6 126:13 show (2) 38:20 42:3 50:6,13 51:4 71:6 74:21 89:7,20
38:23,24 39:6 seeking (2) 60:8 83:17 125:25 55:5 57:1 63:12 89:22 94:16 102:14
41:18 42:13 43:24 seen (17) 1:11 7:21 shown (1) 38:13 64:24 70:11 74:15 124:23 126:25
44:1,2 45:5 66:18 19:8 20:21,25 shows (1) 45:11 75:6,21 84:5,7 127:14 130:3 131:7
70:23 71:3 86:18 22:25 24:17 25:25 shred (1) 91:21 88:25 90:2 99:3 statements (7) 57:19
87:20,22 108:23 32:10 33:23 42:7 side (4) 15:5 24:7 106:6,22 108:14 58:7 59:2 61:1 69:8
111:14,16 113:16 46:11 51:13 73:15 81:17 134:3 114:22 117:20 79:3 86:8
screens (3) 4:9 25:25 85:12 87:7 119:21 sight (3) 8:11,15 118:1,5 124:25 states (1) 109:6
66:14 sees (1) 34:4 136:24 129:13 stating (1) 49:12
scroll (30) 4:5,8 5:15 selected (2) 74:5 Signature (1) 20:7 sort (9) 3:15 40:22 stationed (1) 121:7
8:21 20:4,19,23,25 92:22 signatures (3) 20:6 58:12 67:25 78:12 status (3) 3:12 31:13
24:2 25:24 30:5 selection (1) 133:3 130:13 133:11 81:11 124:25 110:4
34:18 39:4,5,7 41:2 sell (2) 49:9,10 signed (3) 111:11 127:25 128:3 statute (7) 22:1,2,9
41:22 45:17 48:20 selling (1) 18:21 124:1 130:20 sorted (1) 108:16 23:9 27:18 40:1
54:6,19 66:17 sells (1) 47:10 signifies (1) 78:10 sorts (2) 96:13 118:24 116:14
70:16 72:11 87:19 sending (2) 56:10 silly (1) 34:22 sought (1) 32:16 statutory (1) 128:14
103:15 111:15,16 101:24 simply (17) 24:6 25:23 sound (4) 7:7,18 stayed (1) 27:7
111:17 113:16 sends (1) 13:17 40:23 49:12 50:23 95:16,17 steer (1) 108:11
scrolled (2) 73:10 sense (7) 16:20 20:2 51:22 79:22 85:17 sounds (1) 132:25 step (3) 39:21 87:2
113:18 96:9 103:18 105:13 85:23 101:12 102:6 source (14) 49:22 135:21
search (34) 25:4 56:4 108:1 135:17 102:18 108:1,10 51:1,4,10 52:9 53:4 Stepanenko (1) 72:21
56:24 57:10 58:3 sensitive (1) 57:23 115:18 127:21 53:8,18,22,24 61:3 steps (12) 17:5 55:3,4
64:16 66:10,17 sent (9) 18:5 57:11 132:18 124:11,13 125:14 55:14 56:13 62:16
73:24 74:3,4 75:23 88:21,22 92:25 sir (5) 7:5 8:11,20 sources (2) 53:17 61:2 64:20 65:21 74:7
75:24 76:3,4,6,18 100:7 101:18 102:5 28:7 30:7 speak (2) 36:15 99:12 88:19 102:20
76:21 80:6,7 81:23 112:21 sit (2) 38:3 122:25 speaking (10) 10:4 104:20
81:24 83:8,16 sentence (4) 113:22 sitting (1) 40:12 12:23 50:9 55:14 Stimul (2) 49:21 50:6
84:18 88:5,6 92:17 113:24 126:9 130:7 situation (6) 6:5,10 62:21 84:6 93:25 stirs (1) 7:10
92:17,18 93:1,2,3 separate (4) 49:10,19 7:20 47:22 49:11 94:9 115:1 124:20 stools (1) 81:5
102:19 86:12 132:3 111:10 specific (16) 4:19 47:5 stop (3) 32:14 89:8
searched (3) 76:19 separations (1) 64:8 situations (1) 49:9 49:11 50:3 51:6 125:9
84:20 92:15 September (9) 17:8 six (4) 74:11 76:3,4 53:9 55:15 60:8 stopped (2) 15:14
searches (23) 54:16 18:18 42:16 54:4,6 89:19 64:16,20,22 66:4 37:16
55:9,14,25 56:2,7 55:1 57:3 59:21 sixth (4) 58:8 66:6 77:14 93:19 119:12 stopping (1) 123:20
56:11,18 57:2,20 60:6 89:7 94:16 120:23 story (2) 80:8,11
58:10,11,15 59:22 September/October… Skatin (3) 5:9 6:1 Specifically (1) 59:23 straight (1) 58:5
66:4 73:6,23,23 55:24 118:10 speculate (2) 98:6 strange (2) 10:6 13:9
74:15 75:9,25 76:5 sequence (2) 2:3 11:9 SKIF (20) 98:17,21 104:25 Street (2) 48:23 49:2
77:4 series (1) 58:6 99:1,9,13,14,15,16 speculation (1) stretching (1) 77:21
searching (1) 74:10 serious (3) 2:21 9:20 99:18 100:3,4,11 105:24 Stroilov (126) 1:11,13
second (11) 19:12 135:24 100:11 101:7,17,25 speed (4) 1:14 16:15 1:19 2:5,9,10 3:17
21:17 24:16 38:20 seriousness (1) 3:3 102:9,17,25 127:16 69:8 106:24 3:23 5:12,13 11:16
45:12 70:12 76:18 serve (1) 58:12 SKIF’s (2) 99:21,24 spend (1) 60:11 14:15,21,24,25
88:20 89:2 92:9 service (19) 5:22 skip (1) 54:15 split (2) 48:24 99:7 15:3,5,8,10 18:1
114:6 13:14,15 17:13 Sklyarevsky (4) 72:19 sponsored (1) 131:13 29:8,16,18,20,22
Secondly (1) 27:9 21:25,25 23:1,8 124:16,19 127:15 spousal (1) 130:14 29:24 30:15,18,20
seconds (2) 20:20 25:9 27:9,11 46:18 slate (1) 58:21 St (3) 42:18 93:24 30:24 31:2,20,22
29:12 47:17 48:11 87:11 slightly (3) 8:23 35:14 94:23 32:21 33:8,14,21
secrets (1) 99:17 87:14,16 135:5,20 41:4 stage (9) 18:9 21:2,3 34:1,4,7,24 35:2,6
section (1) 19:12 Sestroretsk (1) 41:20 slip (1) 81:5 21:16 23:18 28:3 35:9,12 37:18,20
secure (1) 108:6 set (8) 22:2,5 40:17 slipped (1) 57:10 116:16 131:21 41:1 45:21 52:1
security (6) 10:24,25 40:19 57:20 58:9 slot (1) 41:19 132:4 53:1 57:4 59:7,12
117:15 128:5,17 89:6 131:1 slow (1) 70:11 stages (1) 131:23 60:21,25 61:14,16
130:18 sets (1) 66:9 slowly (3) 20:19,25 stake (1) 112:16 62:11 64:2 65:14
see (82) 4:3,6,9 8:18 setting (1) 24:4 70:14 Stalevskaya (2) 73:16 65:17,24 66:1,25
8:20,25 12:3 19:10 settled (1) 99:4 Smirnov (7) 72:18 73:17 67:17 68:2,14,22
19:13,15,17 20:6 settlement (1) 11:11 124:7,16,19,21 standalone (2) 40:12 68:25 69:10,16
20:12,18 22:23 seven (4) 73:7 74:12 126:24 127:6 96:8 70:1,8,10,24 71:1
23:16 24:3,5,7,9,15 95:22 98:1 so-called (2) 24:25 standard (8) 75:2,15 74:25 75:10,12
25:17 27:14 28:12 Sevzapalians (2) 7:2 96:1 79:23 80:3 81:6 76:7,24 77:2,18
30:5 31:3 34:14 124:10 sold (10) 7:14,17 8:4 128:20 130:6,12 78:3,11,19 79:15

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

165

March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

81:14,16 83:6 85:5 85:8,11 86:18 89:3 89:15,24 93:10,12 94:17 95:3 101:4 101:14,16 103:7,10 105:2,6,9 106:14 106:18,22,24 107:4 107:11,21 108:17 108:21 117:20 136:6 156:4

structures (1) 119:20 studied (1) 7:21 stupid (1) 137:1 subject (6) 14:4 61:22

72:14 84:11 93:25 104:1

subjects (1) 66:5 submission (2) 57:23

67:12 submissions (4) 78:4

78:24 80:17 81:1 submit (1) 75:22 submitting (5) 74:22

75:10,12,21,22 subparagraph (1)
24:10 subparagraphs (1)
66:20 subsequent (6) 71:23

82:4 84:16 101:8 111:3 133:24

subsequently (4) 8:3 26:10 47:2 88:20 substance (2) 35:1

40:6 substantial (4) 25:1

65:19 87:3 104:9 substantiate (1) 52:5 successful (2) 115:6

116:15 suddenly (2) 58:5

125:15

suffer (2) 46:20 47:8 sufficient (7) 74:7,7 77:5,17,17 102:21

135:15

suggest (5) 7:6 21:16 59:1 75:7 88:2

suggested (2) 43:8 77:13

suggesting (2) 29:8,25 suggestion (1) 21:4 suggestions (1)

132:17 suggests (2) 67:3

132:9 summarise (1) 23:4 summary (2) 14:12

114:8 supplement (1) 75:25 supply (1) 67:16 support (2) 118:16

119:7 supporting (1) 22:18 suppose (4) 67:14

68:5 78:21 122:9 sure (31) 12:24 17:11 20:7 25:13 30:11

32:2,22 33:1 44:19 72:24 79:16 80:16 80:20 85:18 88:21 89:23,25 90:23 92:5,14 95:19 97:3 97:8 98:5 102:4 103:12 110:23 125:15 130:22 133:21 134:9

surely (4) 3:2 14:3,5 56:17

surprise (1) 90:3 surprised (1) 90:20 susceptible (1) 115:15 suspicion (1) 23:6 suspicious (1) 112:10 swapping (1) 125:16

T

tab (2) 20:9 31:2 table (5) 19:12,12,24
19:25 24:4 take (35) 3:14 8:6

17:4 18:2 21:11 22:14,15,22 25:3 27:14 29:12,25 32:5 47:9 53:2 54:5 64:2 67:20 68:13 83:17,22,24 84:8 86:1 89:16 104:20 106:5 107:5 123:5 123:6,23 124:19 131:1,11 135:5

taken (16) 18:11 22:17 52:18 64:20 65:22 67:18 74:8 77:3 79:5 87:17 102:20 109:15 113:3 117:21 121:19 122:3

takes (1) 22:4 talk (1) 137:5

talking (9) 17:17 29:3 29:9 48:22 75:3 98:14 100:20,23 101:17

Talmakayeva (5)

121:12,14 122:14 123:3,8

Talmakayeva’s (1)

121:24

task (5) 17:2 26:6 37:21 62:4 81:10

TATIANA (2) 2:6 156:3 Tatyana (1) 60:2 teach (1) 80:22

team (1) 52:17 technical (3) 14:16

34:5 70:13 tell (12) 6:7 21:21

26:2 51:23 52:15 56:17 58:2 79:1 90:20 98:5 104:23 131:14

telling (2) 63:10,10 ten (8) 32:1 33:16 81:4 106:21,21 107:4,10 108:15

term (1) 9:15 Terminal (14) 6:24 7:2

16:19 17:7 18:10 39:1 72:1,3,4,10 85:14 87:4 88:1 114:20

terms (19) 10:2 12:6 55:8 66:10,17 75:9 75:14,23,24 76:3,4 76:18,21 79:5 82:6 95:11 121:8 122:8 127:2

terrible (1) 42:12 Territorial (1) 18:19 test (4) 3:15 67:22

74:19 89:9 testing (2) 65:17

77:18

text (5) 30:7,12 43:20 44:25 108:24

thank (22) 14:14 15:9

17:25 34:6 41:16 45:21 54:2 70:25 103:4 111:12 113:16 114:7,11 117:20 120:16 129:24 130:2 131:3 132:16,25 133:20 136:11

theory (1) 49:8 thereabouts (1) 48:18 thing (7) 37:25 62:2

64:8 76:15 77:7 86:5 114:20

things (16) 40:6 54:9 58:22 63:8,25 65:16 68:8,12 76:12 78:11 79:25 81:5 106:6,25 107:5 125:17

think (144) 1:13 2:1,3 2:5,23 3:10,13,21 4:8 5:14,16 6:9 7:11,12,13 8:22 12:25 13:9 14:7 17:10 18:8,14 27:17 28:10 29:1,5 30:13,17 33:8,22 34:10,20,24 35:3 41:1 42:4 43:4,7,17 44:24 45:18 48:6,6 49:10 50:13,22 51:19 52:7,13 53:1 53:3,4 54:1 57:4,7 57:14 58:19 59:5,7 59:13 60:21 61:2 61:23 62:12 65:18 66:2,6,7,7,8 67:3 67:17 68:8,16,19 69:1,3 70:1 74:16 74:16,17,19,23 78:3,5,22 81:9 82:21,21 83:23 87:5,9 88:4,4,20 89:15,18,20 91:23 91:25 94:16 95:1 98:25 100:14,24 101:18 102:20 103:13 104:14,17 105:10,11 106:6,10 106:16 107:4,17,17 107:19,22,22 108:6 108:25 109:2 114:11,14,15 115:20 116:1,4,4 116:16 117:13 120:18 124:3,7 125:25 126:2 127:1 127:14,24 129:17 134:1 136:3

thinking (1) 71:2 third (5) 18:15 71:3

76:20 86:5 134:7 thought (10) 50:20,23 67:23 68:20 69:17 76:20 77:11,25

83:11 112:11 thousands (1) 7:18 three (4) 41:8 68:24

85:24 87:7 tightest (1) 108:4 time (79) 3:5,6 4:14

5:1,6,9,18,20,25 6:12 7:19 9:10 10:1 10:3 15:19,23 16:1 16:4,22 22:9 23:11 24:15,18,20 25:8 25:10,17 28:23 29:7,9 30:2,3 35:14 39:13 44:16,17

45:1 52:6 56:16 57:11,12 60:10,11 60:13 62:8 65:9 68:18 69:3,22 76:23 84:14,17 88:11,16,17 92:11 93:12,13,14,18 103:17 105:9,19 106:17 110:17,22 110:23 111:9 112:5 115:2 117:12,18 119:3,24 120:7,23 126:17 130:24 134:13

times (1) 77:12 timetabling (1) 107:19 tiring (1) 136:8

title (2) 10:14 127:21 today (11) 11:12

40:12 53:7 69:23 87:7 91:4,11 107:2 107:20,23 133:2

told (9) 7:12 15:11 51:22,24 56:15 69:2 80:11 118:6 123:23

tool (1) 11:1

top (10) 18:15 36:17 36:17 38:4 74:15 76:4 87:21 108:1,7 127:9

Tosno (1) 6:5 total (1) 59:24

totally (2) 115:21,24 touched (3) 3:10 4:24

6:23

tour (1) 136:8 trace (1) 98:3 tracked (1) 84:3 Trading (1) 110:5 transaction (7) 9:6,6

48:4 82:7 109:15 109:19 110:10

transactions (14) 6:24 63:3,18 64:9,12,13 72:3,8 79:11 84:11 86:24 87:25 98:7 98:15

transcribers (1) 17:24 transcript (7) 1:5

43:24 44:3 53:7 90:25 91:4 120:17

transcripts (1) 108:3 transfer (7) 10:14

11:4 71:22 82:2 84:15 110:18 114:19

transferred (2) 104:10 109:11

transfers (2) 72:4,9 transfers’ (2) 72:3,8 translated (4) 19:5

44:7 59:18 71:14 translation (7) 34:12 35:3,4 42:12 55:20

63:11 122:2 translations (1) 19:1 translators (1) 45:19 transmitted (1) 57:7 transparency (1)

110:15 transpired (1) 96:1 treated (1) 97:20 trial (4) 17:1 30:12

93:22 103:14 tries (1) 91:13 trouble (1) 71:9 true (3) 44:20 61:7

97:25

trust (3) 1:6,6 134:14 111:5 vicious (3) 22:20,23
truth (2) 76:3 125:7 unlawful (1) 38:16 23:3
try (4) 30:15 33:5 unlawfully (1) 112:23 view (7) 40:6 78:25
111:14,18 unorthodox (1) 13:13 84:21 99:1 102:18
trying (12) 14:25 23:4 unpaid (1) 128:1 109:21 110:3
37:2 57:8,13 61:16 unpledged (1) 134:5 viewed (1) 119:14
63:9 66:22 94:1 unravel (1) 89:12 viewpoint (1) 46:19
125:9,15 133:15 unrecorded (1) 83:20 Virgin (1) 94:10
tunnel (2) 70:4 107:8 unusual (2) 13:6,10 virtually (1) 116:16
turn (1) 101:5 unusualness (1) 90:18 vis-a-vis (2) 38:5
turned (1) 101:11 update (2) 6:4,8 105:18
turns (1) 3:15 updated (1) 106:12 vision (3) 49:13 50:24
two (21) 4:8 6:19 upper (1) 39:5 51:1
21:10 25:17 34:18 upright (1) 115:25 visit (2) 61:9 65:4
36:5,6 39:4,9,24 urge (1) 67:17 Vladislav (1) 72:22
40:8 45:17 50:18 urgency (1) 107:15 Volodina (2) 129:10
86:24 99:7 103:7 urgently (2) 31:16 129:14
107:20 113:16 109:25 voluminous (1) 136:2
114:11 124:18 use (5) 50:16 52:11 vote (1) 4:11
132:17 66:14 71:10 103:24 voting (1) 9:3
usefully (1) 136:17 Vyborg (9) 104:9,24
U usual (4) 12:3 13:12 109:9,9 110:11,19
ultimate (2) 53:21 90:12,14 114:2,2 131:7
usually (5) 13:3,4
90:17
47:21 128:22 129:1 W
ultimately (1) 80:21

unable (1) 131:20 waiver (1) 89:13
V
unanimous (2) 4:10 Wales (1) 104:2

9:3 vacuum (1) 77:8 want (46) 11:11,12
unanimously (1) valid (1) 39:24 17:24 20:17,17,20
45:24 valuable (1) 134:5 30:1 34:13 38:20
undecided (1) 132:17 valuation (24) 7:25 52:6,14,16,21 54:5
understand (35) 26:21 27:13,19,22 58:4,24 61:17,21
18:23 20:14 23:23 28:8,11,15,19,24 66:2 71:17 72:25
23:24 31:24 33:24 29:9 34:23 36:1,3,5 73:22 74:16 78:3,5
34:2 39:23 40:17 36:6,16,20,21,24 80:18,19 81:3
44:25 51:20 53:13 37:12 38:2,2,12 86:22 89:8,11
54:20 55:18 56:5 valuations (2) 36:5 91:14 101:21
56:22 58:24 63:2,9 37:10 102:13 103:1 105:2
63:15 67:18 86:8 value (9) 26:22 35:15 109:4 118:4,7
88:13 91:13 95:9 35:16 47:16,19,24 125:11 126:3 127:3
97:7 104:14 116:20 48:9 49:5 122:23 133:21 134:10
125:9,13,21 126:8 valued (4) 28:25 30:2 136:21 137:2
134:12,20,25 30:3 35:13 wanted (7) 41:5 59:8
understanding (27) valuer (3) 7:23 30:3 68:3 86:1 89:25
13:19 23:9 39:25 35:20 119:18 121:22
46:13 49:13,24 valuers (4) 27:13 wanting (1) 134:9
50:10,24 51:1,2,3,7 35:23 36:13,20 wants (2) 43:10
51:11,16,25 52:9 valuers’ (1) 36:11 125:18
53:17 54:4,23 90:1 values (1) 37:24 warned (1) 89:4
92:20 96:6 116:24 valuing (2) 27:12 warning (4) 90:18
118:6 121:23 35:25 92:9,10,25
126:14,16 variety (1) 77:12 warranty (1) 125:7
understood (4) 13:20 various (23) 6:23 wasn’t (8) 33:2 40:7
49:24 99:11 134:10 16:24 32:24 53:14 45:2 46:6 92:3 94:5
undertake (1) 13:8 54:8 72:9,17 77:11 104:22 116:16
undertaken (1) 55:3 79:9 95:21 100:2 way (21) 1:6 4:12
undertaking (2) 56:12 110:5 114:16 116:2 16:16 44:24,25
103:22 118:21,23 121:10 50:11 51:8,17
undertakings (1) 122:19 124:4,5,6 56:22 58:9 68:6
103:16 124:15 129:16 71:18 80:24 92:22
undertook (1) 58:23 variously (1) 6:16 95:8 100:14 108:10
undervalue (2) 38:8 VECTOR (6) 8:4 9:23 109:17 117:15
38:11 11:10,25 12:1,2 118:9 123:13
undisclosed (1) 98:2 verbatim (1) 59:18 ways (2) 10:6 91:6
unexceptionable (1) verify (2) 128:5 we’ve (2) 23:21 32:10
1:7 130:13 web (1) 14:21
unfair (4) 52:6 58:1 version (36) 8:22 18:3 Wednesday (1)
74:24 109:4 19:9 20:24 25:15 155:16
unfortunately (4) 25:16 28:9 30:23 weekend (1) 59:25
19:18 28:17 56:6 31:2,22,24 32:11 weeks (1) 107:20
103:19 32:12 33:3,10 went (1) 133:10
unique (1) 122:22 34:10,11,19,21 weren’t (2) 81:17
unit (3) 118:15 120:20 35:2 41:2,3 48:17 120:14
121:1 68:16 70:24 71:10 western (13) 6:24 7:2
universal (2) 90:8 71:11 73:3,4,10,20 16:19 17:7 18:10
95:5 103:13 113:18 32:24 33:5 72:1,3,4
universally (1) 95:9 121:20 130:23,23 85:14 87:4 114:20
unknown (2) 109:13 versions (1) 33:7 whatsoever (1) 93:9

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

166
March 11, 2016 Day 26 Redacted

Whichever (1) 33:10 whilst (2) 1:8 78:24 wide (2) 27:6 75:23 wide-ranging (1)

128:24 winner (1) 19:21 winning (1) 20:1

wish (5) 52:18 67:23 79:14 85:7 125:19

wished (1) 85:23 wishes (1) 89:24 withdrew (1) 136:14 witness (64) 1:8,25

3:13 17:22 21:9 26:2 29:6,25 31:5 32:14 48:14 51:5 51:18 52:9 57:19 58:2,4,12,15,20 59:2,5,9,13,19,23 61:3,5,10,17,24 62:4 65:18 66:18 66:23 67:10,18 68:4,11 69:8 70:18 71:6 78:14 79:2 80:5,8,10 86:8 89:20,21,22 91:5 94:16,19 117:23 124:23 125:5,25 126:24 127:11 130:3 131:6 136:5 136:14

witness’s (1) 69:20 witnesses (1) 69:25 wonder (2) 73:10

113:17 wondered (1) 99:5 wondering (1) 122:8 word (2) 68:1 131:15 wording (1) 50:16 words (10) 54:10 75:8

80:6,7 92:18 97:1 106:2 118:18 119:6 132:2

work (10) 15:24 36:19 46:8 65:8 121:7 122:10,11 129:3,6 133:15

worked (6) 33:3 35:22 46:17 59:24 64:25 121:6

working (20) 12:25 15:5,17 44:21,23 46:6 47:2 54:22,24 55:2 56:15 59:5,25 60:7 71:11 72:25 92:24 94:22 122:19 130:8

worried (2) 58:14 107:14

worry (6) 5:12 14:24 15:4 31:18 41:2 125:8

worrying (1) 110:1 worse (1) 89:19 worst (1) 68:20 worth (1) 89:24 wouldn’t (7) 16:9,23

28:17,19 76:9 102:10 128:22

writ (1) 135:3 writing (3) 84:3,13

85:16

written (11) 43:21 84:24 85:25 86:2,3 92:9,25 124:17,21 133:25 134:15

wrong (8) 10:8 14:18 30:4,14 45:7 52:13 92:1 106:14

wrongly (1) 61:19

X

Y

Yashkina (1) 73:17 year (4) 24:24 25:2 35:25 55:24

years (2) 44:23 65:5 yesterday (15) 1:5 4:3 6:23 7:4 11:13

15:11 43:25 44:4 50:14 51:19,24 68:19 114:14 120:18 124:1

yesterday’s (1) 44:3

Z

Zelyenov (3) 72:19

127:12,14

0

0.1 (1) 5:14

0.5 (1) 8:22

1

1 (12) 5:14 19:7 23:12 24:11,25 25:15 28:12 31:2 45:8 55:21 56:19 62:12

1-7 (1) 72:15

1.55 (2) 69:6 70:7

10 (2) 36:17 38:4

10.00 (1) 1:2

10.30 (1) 155:16

100 (1) 36:17

1004 (2) 30:13,15

11 (2) 1:1 103:15

11.16 (1) 33:18

11.30 (1) 33:20

118 (1) 156:5

12 (2) 54:7,12

12.55 (1) 70:5

13 (2) 109:6 130:3

136 (1) 156:6

137 (1) 156:7

16 (3) 49:18 59:23 155:17

161,000 (1) 7:17

17 (4) 24:2 43:25 44:2 44:8

18 (5) 44:1,2 125:23 127:10 129:14

2

2 (6) 19:6,8 31:4 62:13 156:3,4
2,300,000 (1) 9:25

20 (6) 23:17 69:2,3,4 69:18 70:2

2005 (2) 64:21,23

2007 (1) 36:25

2008 (13) 29:19 30:3 33:5 34:14 35:25 36:25 37:7 55:23 56:20,21 73:25 81:20 88:9

2009 (6) 2:13 5:7 38:18 39:2 64:19 114:25

2010 (1) 119:24

2011 (4) 7:7 45:10 94:3,22

2012 (11) 8:7 17:8,17 18:5,18 21:3,15 34:16 36:4 87:4 88:15

2013 (4) 15:12 23:17 24:19 88:25
2014 (6) 88:20 89:2 92:3,9 104:7 109:6

2015 (8) 42:16,22 54:13 55:1 64:23 64:24 95:14 98:4

2016 (3) 1:1 30:11
155:17
22 (2) 44:8 95:15
22A (1) 49:2
23 (5) 45:21 54:4,4,6
59:21
23.10 (3) 66:9 70:20
73:4
23.12 (2) 73:8,11
24 (2) 30:11,25
26 (2) 7:7 39:2
27 (1) 131:6
29 (2) 17:8 18:18

3

3 (10) 19:6 20:12 29:2 35:17 47:11 49:17 64:15 71:19 91:4 124:8

3.16 (1) 108:18

3.25 (2) 108:15,20

3.3 (1) 61:7

31 (2) 18:5 21:15

32 (1) 8:24

32.2 (1) 11:17

365 (1) 97:23

39 (1) 48:18

4

4 (9) 2:13 4:1 29:2,3 49:17 54:13 60:5 71:20 124:8

4.30 (1) 69:23

4.50 (1) 155:15

40 (2) 120:22 121:11

41 (3) 127:6,8,9

475 (1) 59:24

5

5 (14) 8:21,23 20:10 30:4 35:16 36:8 49:17 53:10 54:7 54:13 59:14 71:24 124:5,9

50 (1) 53:7

56 (1) 48:18

57 (2) 48:15 131:11

59 (1) 48:21

59.1 (1) 49:20

6

6 (8) 45:10 49:17 59:17 66:20 72:2 86:21 103:22 124:9

60 (4) 48:15,21 120:23 121:11

600 (1) 36:8

675 (1) 26:15

7

7 (5) 53:10 72:6 87:20 87:23 124:9
700 (1) 36:9

74 (1) 73:18

8

8 (2) 20:10 72:11

80 (1) 129:21

88 (1) 91:4

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