Day 31

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

Day 31

March 23, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 Wednesday, 23 March 2016

2 (1.30 pm)

3 Housekeeping

4 MR LORD: May it please your Lordship. We are here to

5 resolve a number of case management issues this

6 afternoon in the trial. Perhaps the most important one

7 is the timetable. Your Lordship will have seen the

8 suggested revision that we filed yesterday with

9 your Lordship with a covering explanatory e-mail. We

10 have had a response from the defendants today, just

11 before midday, which I trust has also found its way

12 through to your Lordship?

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

14 MR LORD: Would it make sense, my Lord, to work through the

15 timetable and tick off witnesses or try to establish

16 some slots, or how would your Lordship prefer to

17 proceed?

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. You no longer wish to call or

19 rely on the evidence of Ms Yashkina; is that right?

20 MR LORD: That’s right, my Lord, yes, in view of the number

21 of matters, we think that’s right, yes.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So her evidence will simply be

23 extracted from the file?

24 MR LORD: That is right, my Lord.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Stroilov, I assume that you have no

1 MR LORD: But we were trying to be flexible, recognising

2 that Mr Stroilov may be cross-examining earlier that

3 week and, therefore, we would move to cross-examine the

4 first of those experts.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That was flexible, is flexible, and

6 I am grateful to you for it, and I understand that,

7 subject to the other arrangements, that’s what

8 Mr Stroilov would very much like.

9 MR LORD: Yes, I am not sure — subject, my Lord, to

10 checking, really, on the question I think of slots for

11 cross-examination and who is doing it, I think, because

12 we are assuming that Ms Mironova is going to be three

13 days or thereabouts, whether she overspills into the

14 fourth day remains to be seen, but there will be no

15 possibility at all that we wouldn’t get to Ms Simonova

16 on Friday, and that, therefore, we would get to her and

17 therefore, if you like, the timetable would then pick up

18 at that point.

19 What would be very unfortunate is obviously to get

20 to Thursday and then be told that there is more time and

21 this whole thing gets shunted back, because again, that

22 would just drive a coach and horses through it.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Stroilov, let me explain myself.

24 I was just trying to see, broadly, where the lie of

25 the land was, but let us return now to the actual

1

1 points in that regard.

2 MR STROILOV: No, my Lord, it’s a matter for the claimants.

3 In a sense some of the things I ask for are accepted

4 that may relax the timetable a little and I won’t be

5 difficult about Ms Yashkina inserted if that’s what they

6 wish, but ultimately that’s a matter for them.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I can’t remember what the position is.

8 Mr Lord will remind me, I think you would be entitled to

9 rely on bits, but I don’t think you can compel the other

10 side, as it were, to call her if they don’t wish to.

11 I think that’s right, isn’t it?

12 MR STROILOV: I don’t think we would have taken the trouble

13 to compel, really. Yes, obviously if there are

14 admissions in the witness statement, which I don’t think

15 there are, but if there are, I think we are entitled to

16 rely on them.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Anyway, you are not taking any point

18 on Ms Yashkina so we have freed up a day.

19 MR STROILOV: I think that’s fine with us.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay, fine. Then, in principle, you

21 are not that bothered, is this right, as to who should

22 go first as between Ms Simonova and Mr Millard?

23 MR LORD: Well, my Lord, the right order would have been

24 Mr Millard first, obviously.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

3

1 sequencing. I hope you had a rest. It was obviously

2 an extremely tiring beginning of the week.

3 Have you reached a view as to who is to

4 cross-examine Ms Mironova and how long it will take?

5 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Well, subject to any unforeseen

6 emergencies, I think it should be me, and also with the

7 remaining factual witness, simply because I have been

8 cross-examining all factual witnesses and it helps to

9 know where relevant documents are.

10 So, yes, and I think for both of them the position

11 is the same in terms of time estimate. I would say the

12 estimate is three days, but by that I mean the estimate.

13 If I was to be guillotined, I would have said four.

14 Subject to anything totally unexpected, if it is going

15 terribly badly, then it may, of course, overspill into

16 a fifth day, but I think that’s highly unlikely.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I think Mr Lord’s wish and

18 ambition, insofar as it can be done, is that at least

19 slots — that’s to say day slots — should be committed

20 to. Of course, within those slots if you were to

21 require more time, then we might have to sit for longer,

22 but within those slots, the slots allocated for

23 Ms Mironova are up to four days, but no more than, and

24 of course, it may be in your interest to seek to get her

25 done in your estimated three days, because that gives

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 you a little bit more time to prepare.

2 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Ultimately, I would submit that

3 to have it as strict as that, well no matter what, there

4 is a guillotine at the end of Day 4, would not

5 necessarily be fair because she is an important witness

6 and it takes two to tango. I mean, I will try to do my

7 best, but sometimes the witness is difficult, and I am

8 not saying she will be, but I simply don’t know.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No.

10 MR STROILOV: So subject to something — so I would still

11 reserve the right, if it is very unexpectedly long, at

12 least to apply to prolong that time, whatever is the way

13 of …

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I understand your caution but,

15 equally, you did say as regards Ms Mironova, that if

16 I were to guillotine, you would say four days. Now, as

17 a matter of fact, you have four days plus, because

18 I have indicated that I would, at your request, sit

19 longer on each of those four days if that is what truly

20 you thought necessary in order to finish her by the 7th.

21 So I think that it would be fair, even in accordance

22 with your worst anxieties, which I fully understand, to

23 say that slot must terminate on the 7th and that in

24 those days I will sit for an hour extra, or at a pinch,

25 an hour and a half at the beginning or the end of

1 change and there have been a few, and I am not blaming

2 anyone but myself for them — not at the moment, at

3 least — but I think for the moment it is highly likely

4 that we will manage to cope with the timetable as

5 proposed; that’s to say, Ms Simonova on Friday the 8th

6 and Mr Millard on the 12th.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am glad of that because I take it to

8 be implicit in your preference for Ms Simonova to come

9 in on the 8th, which is a reverse of what might be the

10 ordinarily expected sequence. I take it to be implicit

11 in that that you have checked to see that, subject to

12 the terrible circumstances of life, she will be

13 available to help you with Mr Millard and to attend on

14 the 11th. Therefore, those slots for asset valuation,

15 subject also to extra time on each day, if that is what

16 you require, or Mr Lord does, should be fair.

17 MR STROILOV: Her availability on the 12th is still

18 something subject to arrangements. We only received

19 this version of the timetable yesterday.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: On the 12th? Oh yes, of course.

21 MR STROILOV: So she is available on the 8th because that’s

22 where she was on the previous version. I do think it

23 will be all right in terms of the 12th. I would simply,

24 if something turns up, as it is, I don’t want to be

25 told: well, you have agreed to this. I do agree to

5 7

1 the day, or split, if that is what you would like in

2 order to complete your cross-examination.

3 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. So those are the slots ie in

5 accordance with the proposed timetable, and in the hope,

6 on Mr Stroilov’s behalf, really, that the overspill, or

7 reading day, may be a freer day so that you can start

8 thinking about Mr Millard on that day as well.

9 MR STROILOV: I am grateful.

10 MR LORD: My Lord, that would mean that we have Ms Simonova

11 on Friday the 8th.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

13 MR LORD: And the intention is that will be one day.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, and she is available on that day?

15 MR STROILOV: She is, my Lord. We are still working on

16 making her available at the beginning of next week to

17 help with cross-examination of Mr Millard, that’s not

18 something we anticipated.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I was going to ask you that because

20 you have throughout, and entirely understandably, made

21 clear that you would wish, if available, the assistance

22 of experts when cross-examining other experts.

23 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. I think so far the preliminary

24 indications are hopeful. There are some logistical

25 arrangements to make, because obviously it is another

1 this, it’s very unlikely that there is any difficulty in

2 that respect, but if there is, well, I will come back

3 and I will try to …

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I think foreseeable problems

5 ought to have been identified by now. The unforeseeable

6 is just that: unforeseeable.

7 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Therefore, subject to material

9 unforeseeable events which suddenly blast us, the slots

10 are to be, as regards the asset valuation, on the 8th

11 for Ms Simonova and on the 12th — is this right — for

12 Mr Millard.

13 MR LORD: My Lord, that’s right, because Mr Millard has

14 another commitment on the 11th, so it won’t quite be

15 back-to-back, so my Lord, Mr Turetsky and

16 Professor Guriev —

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They are to be moved to the Monday?

18 MR LORD: And the idea was that they were to be quite short

19 witnesses, I think it was thought that probably not much

20 more than an hour for each was going to be required, so

21 there shouldn’t be any problem.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Now, Professor Guriev has another

23 appointment at 12.00 on the Monday, and I am requested

24 to start early, therefore, on the Monday, in order that

25 you should have time, but that’s really a matter for

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 you, Mr Lord. If you wish — you will obviously want to

2 sit a little early because he is only available, in

3 effect, from 9.15 until 11.00. When would you like us

4 to sit on that day, or do you want to have a think?

5 MR LORD: So that would mean that he would come before

6 Mr Turetsky, then, that’s the proposal.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know whether he is available

8 in the afternoon, I don’t know how long his appointment

9 is at 12.00.

10 MR STROILOV: I believe he has more than one meeting, and

11 the next one starts at 12.00. He can do the 12th, but

12 that creates — and that’s where he was previously, but

13 that creates all sorts of other difficulties in terms of

14 Mr Millard and so on.

15 So I would suggest starting whenever my learned

16 friend is comfortable with having Professor Guriev first

17 and then having Mr Turetsky next.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you content with that, Mr Lord?

19 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord, and I am just thinking — I am

20 reluctant to make your Lordship sit, or anybody sit, any

21 earlier than is necessary.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I won’t tie you now. I will be

23 prepared, according to your final decision, to sit as

24 from 9.30 am on that day, you to let me know during that

25 preceding week what you want.

1 there aren’t a lot more witnesses, really, as things

2 stand. Our starting point is that we ought to try and

3 finish the evidence by 22 April in the way that was

4 originally —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We still have Ms Goncharuk.

6 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord, but if one take a steps back, we

7 have Ms Goncharuk, or Ms Yatvetsky or Ms Yatvetsky nee

8 Goncharuk, we have.

9 Then we have a question about the business valuation

10 experts for your Lordship, which is Mr Popov, query

11 Mr Steadman. The reason I flag these up, I am not

12 arguing the point, but I flagged them up so

13 your Lordship can see we are within spitting distance of

14 the finishing tape here, then we have the Russian law

15 experts, Maggs and Gladyshev. So Millard finishes on

16 12 April, we actually have eight sitting days left with

17 a chance to finish the evidence with one factual

18 witness, two Russian law, and maybe some business

19 valuation, or maybe not. It depends a bit on what

20 your Lordship rules in that regard.

21 So, really, it is a question of before we start

22 plugging any further slots in, I would respectfully

23 invite your Lordship to consider how this is going to

24 fit in to the further shape of the case and whether we

25 are going to try and finish by 22 April, which may lead

9 11

1 MR LORD: Yes, I’m grateful for that, my Lord. 9.30 would

2 be the earliest, and when I have finally reviewed my

3 notes, it may be that we can safely start at 10.00, even

4 though he has to be away by 11.30. I will obviously

5 make sure I build in some slack.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay, you tell me over the course of

7 the week commencing the 4th.

8 MR LORD: Thank you, my Lord. Then Mr Turetsky would come

9 straight afterwards, I assume so all being well we could

10 get through both of those by lunchtime.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you will be cross-examining

12 Mr Turetsky, is that right?

13 MR STROILOV: Well, I am still in two minds about it. I may

14 leave him to Mr Arkhangelsky or I may not. With your

15 permission, I will still think about it.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But one way or the other, his

17 cross-examination will take place on that Monday.

18 MR STROILOV: It will, my Lord.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And he will be completed on that day

20 because we have a heavy day on the 12th.

21 MR STROILOV: We estimate one hour, one hour and a half.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Very good. Good.

23 MR LORD: My Lord, we are making quite good progress so far.

24 So we are up to 12 April.

25 Then, my Lord, we have some issues, really, because

1 to one sort of arrangement being put in place, or not.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. I agree with you that the

3 question of any deferment of any part of the expert

4 evidence will have to be addressed, and the attendance

5 of various expert witnesses at any stage will have to be

6 addressed.

7 Just by way of explanation and so that Mr Stroilov

8 and Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky should know, and by way of

9 confirmation, really, of what I said yesterday, not only

10 is this court required, but actually I have two

11 following cases commencing on the 25th and throughout

12 that next week, and those have been — they were done on

13 a cautious basis, allowing some three days as cushion,

14 and it would not be fair on them, particularly since

15 they have had to wait since the beginning of January for

16 a slot because of this case, to destabilise that. So

17 whatever can be done in this period of the trial, maybe

18 the whole trial, maybe not, must be completed by that

19 Friday.

20 MR LORD: Your Lordship, just, really, then, I think

21 your Lordship knows that 13 April has been pencilled in

22 for a pre-trial review of another matter of mine.

23 I think there have been various —

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I wanted to touch base with you, and

25 that is the position, is it?

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 MR LORD: It is, my Lord, that is going to be the date for

2 the pre-trial review. With your Lordship’s permission,

3 I won’t be in court on that day, but it is down to be

4 reading day before we start the next phase of evidence.

5 Then, my Lord, then the question — it may be,

6 my Lord, clearly we must get Ms Yatvetsky through, and

7 it may, in the end, be worth considering the position of

8 the business valuation experts because it would

9 certainly be my submission that on one view of

10 the outcome of that deliberation, this trial can finish

11 by 22 April. I will make submissions on the question of

12 the Russian law experts and the preparation for

13 cross-examination, I will make that in due course, but

14 in my submission, there is probably an anterior

15 question, which is Popov/Steadman, are they coming or

16 not. I can explain to your Lordship how we respectfully

17 see matters in that regard, but I know your Lordship has

18 helpfully drawn our attention to a case, and it may be

19 that your Lordship wants to indicate how your Lordship

20 would prefer to resolve this matter.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Not so as in any way to curtail you or

22 certainly not to interrupt what you have to tell me,

23 which I would much value, I will tell you what I have

24 done and what I have thought about so as you can direct

25 those comments.

1 sending you the case, the decision of

2 Mr Justice Neuberger’s was lest that was a matter which,

3 in all conscience, should also be ventilated.

4 That, I am afraid, is where I got to and I don’t

5 know whether you can hone in on those points as part of

6 your address.

7 MR LORD: I will try to, my Lord. In our submission, it may

8 potentially be worth separating out questions of weight

9 of evidence —

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

11 MR LORD: — from timetabling.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

13 MR LORD: My Lord, the first question is, really, who is

14 going to come by way of these two prospective business

15 experts.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What, Mr Popov and Mr Steadman?

17 MR LORD: If I can just take it in stages, my Lord, because

18 I hope I will explain what I mean by that, because there

19 is permission to call evidence from these two witnesses,

20 permission has been given. In the ordinary course of

21 events, a party who wanted to rely upon the evidence of

22 an expert in the field for which permission has been

23 granted would have to serve the reports on them and

24 comply with the directions, including, usually,

25 tendering them to be asked questions in court.

13 15
1 MR LORD: Yes. 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In accordance with what they say they
2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have very speedily read Mr Popov and 2 expect in their expert …
3 for that matter, Mr Steadman. They are not very close, 3 MR LORD: Yes, I’m not going to avoid — ducking the
4 and there are great differences between them, and some 4 question — so that’s the starting point, so we have
5 of those differences also reflect differences between 5 reports served by experts from both parties. The
6 Mr Millard and Ms Simonova. It is complex evidence. It 6 claimant is saying to your Lordship: we are effectively
7 is the sort of circumstance where it cries out for 7 tendering Mr Popov, our expert, we want to rely upon his
8 cross-examination of each or — although we haven’t made 8 expert opinion evidence as set out in the reports and so
9 arrangements for this, some hot-tubbing, which may be 9 on, and we are tendering him, if required, to be
10 difficult in all the circumstances, even if Mr Steadman 10 cross-examined. So that’s all neat. No different
11 were available. 11 arrangement needs to be made for that.
12 I do feel uneasy proceeding without 12 Then the question arises does the other side, does
13 cross-examination of both, and uneasy not 13 the defendant want Mr Popov to come to be questioned, or
14 cross-examining also — even if Mr Steadman is not 14 do they accept the contents of his opinion in his
15 available — Mr Popov. The problem is that if I were to 15 various reports and joint statements, as expressed.
16 seek to ask questions, that might not be very 16 That’s the first question, as it were, and we can deal
17 appropriate, and I would not have the benefit of expert 17 with all that, and nothing unorthodox is raised in that
18 guidance anyway. That’s the first general point. 18 regard.
19 The second general point, I got to thinking, if 19 Then we come to the question of defendants’ expert,
20 I can put it that way, as to whether there was a fourth 20 my Lord, Mr Steadman. Now, he has served reports, and
21 alternative, a fourth option, however brutal, which is 21 what is suggested is, on behalf of the defendants, that
22 to cause a witness summons to be served on Mr Steadman. 22 they shouldn’t be expected to tender him for
23 It will take time because, of course, Mr Steadman and 23 cross-examination because they cannot pay his fees for
24 his firm would be entitled to apply to set that witness 24 preparing for that exercise and for his attending to be
25 summons aside, but nevertheless, and the reason for 25 so cross-examined. So that’s the issue. The issue is
14 16
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 really fairly simple.

2 So, in those circumstances, what the defendants say

3 is: well, as things stand, we are not going to tender,

4 we are not going to tender Mr Steadman. In other words,

5 we are not going to ask your Lordship to plug him into

6 this timetable because he is not coming, we are not

7 going to bring him to court.

8 So on one view of the world we have some question

9 about whether Mr Stroilov or Dr Arkhangelsky wants

10 Mr Popov to come to be questioned. If they don’t,

11 your Lordship can accept his opinion evidence in

12 writing, and we can cross him out of the timetable, and

13 Mr Steadman is not being called so, again, we can put

14 him to one side. That would be the ordinary approach.

15 The issue then arises: well, are the defendants

16 asking, are they suggesting to your Lordship that some

17 different arrangement be imposed in relation to

18 Mr Steadman’s position? Are they suggesting, for

19 example, that a witness summons should be issued to

20 compel him to come to court, along the lines of the case

21 that your Lordship very helpful drew to our attention,

22 and if that’s the case, is this an appropriate case in

23 accordance with Mr Justice Neuberger’s observations for

24 a witness summons or not, and that is really, my Lord,

25 probably principally or certainly may be very materially

1 some other timetable.

2 I hope that helps, my Lord. It really comes back,

3 we say, rather starkly, to the question of whether there

4 is some sort of exceptional position here, which would

5 lead the court to consider putting in place some

6 different arrangement to that which would normally

7 pertain in relation to Mr Steadman. I haven’t argued

8 out the point, I am just trying to identify what might

9 be the relevant considerations.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Just two points, again, not

11 arguing it out, as you phrase it. You accept, do you

12 not, that whether or not Mr Steadman is called, his

13 expert evidence, with such weight as is appropriate or

14 not, will be before the court?

15 MR LORD: I accept that, my Lord, but when one comes to look

16 at questions of weight —

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s different.

18 MR LORD: — one would look at the reason why a witness was

19 not before the court.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Second, and as appears from the

21 case, a copy of which I sent you, there’s no problem in

22 issuing a witness summons against an expert. There is

23 a slight question as to what fees should be tendered in

24 that context. The problem comes when, as one might

25 expect, having re-read the letter he wrote, he and his

17

1 affected by the question of whether or not there really

2 is a funding difficulty, and then the question for your

3 Lordship, whether or not to make that order, effectively

4 compelling a professional witness, who has

5 an expectation of being paid for his expert witness

6 services, to come to court in circumstances where he is

7 not going to be paid, save possibly for the fees that

8 Mr Justice Neuberger adverts to in that case.

9 Those, in my submission, seem to be the issues which

10 are swirling around, and they are perhaps a bit more

11 simple than they first seem, really, because the issue

12 may ultimately be, stripping it all away, is it right

13 that the defendants don’t have the finance to pay

14 Mr Steadman’s reasonable fees, because if they do — and

15 I am not arguing that they do, I am just flagging it —

16 if they do, then it is hard to see why any special

17 consideration should be required at all: They either

18 pay those fees and tender Mr Steadman in this timetable,

19 or they choose not to and we move on.

20 If your Lordship is persuaded that there is

21 genuinely a fee issue, then there will be a question of

22 whether or not to make some sort of witness summons

23 order, and subject to the outcome of that process, one

24 would then circle back to timetabling to find out when

25 either/or both these experts has to come within this or

19

1 firm apply to set that summons aside, at which point the

2 difficult issues, which are addressed at

3 an interlocutory stage by Mr Justice Neuberger, arise in

4 full force. That takes some time, of course, and it is

5 an obvious and appropriate right that they should have.

6 Put another way, the easy bit is to take the course,

7 if that is appropriate, of issuing a witness summons.

8 The difficulty is whether it will be set aside.

9 MR LORD: My Lord, I haven’t researched in the time whether

10 or not the observations of Mr Justice Neuberger here

11 should really be taken into account at the earlier

12 witness summons stage. I am assuming not. It is simply

13 a mechanical process of asking the court to summons

14 a witness.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is, really, yes.

16 MR LORD: Well, in that case, if that is right, I am sure it

17 is right, then I accept your Lordship’s point.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, I wonder if you could do this

19 with expert witnesses. It appears plain, from my

20 research at any rate, you can, but the real problem is

21 at the subsequent stage.

22 MR LORD: Yes, and we are only really delaying, potentially

23 delaying the question of whether or not this is an —

24 I take the point that Mr Steadman might not take the

25 point, but it’s a bit hard to see — he won’t take the

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 point, because if he were going to take the point he 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If I summons him in good time, if he
2 would have come along by now, so we are only really 2 has not prepared it will reflect badly on him and his
3 tiptoeing around the same issue, really. 3 firm, so I will take that risk.
4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We are, but the trouble is we can’t 4 In Mr Justice Neuberger’s case there wasn’t time, so
5 even trespass on the matter with any degree of fairness 5 I’m not really bothered about that. I can see why you
6 unless he or his firm is arguing the point. 6 might not favour this, but that would be a matter for
7 MR LORD: No, I agree with that, my Lord, but the starting 7 him, really. If he knew he was going to be summonsed
8 point is whether the defendants are — they haven’t — 8 and unless the witness summons was set aside, I would
9 your Lordship is suggesting a solution to something that 9 trust him and his firm to take the practical view that
10 may not actually be a problem. 10 if you are going to be required by the court to attend
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Absolutely. But the premise, and 11 you might as well do so and cover yourself in glory
12 I will ask Mr Stroilov for his comments, the premise 12 rather than the reverse.
13 I have, having re-read Mr Steadman’s letter, is that he 13 MR STROILOV: Well, he might or he might not. That’s out of
14 and his firm are effectively refusing to come on the 14 our control.
15 footing that their retainer ceased when Withers left, 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, well, I take that risk, if I can
16 that was in September and they haven’t done any work 16 put it that way.
17 since, that they would need to do a lot of work 17 MR STROILOV: Obviously that puts us at a completely —
18 accordingly, and that would be in addition to attending, 18 well, playing the lottery, he may take the view that as
19 which would all be for free, they assume. Of course, 19 a matter of principle he will do a brilliant job and
20 that assumption, you are quite right, is a matter to be 20 cover himself in glory. He may take a view: I haven’t
21 tested. 21 been paid, I am being dragged in chains into court.
22 MR LORD: That’s right, and I would invite your Lordship to 22 Well, I am a professional, I am not paid, why should
23 let me make some submissions at the right point today on 23 I work? Well, I will come and just do a poor job just
24 that premise, because it may be that we wouldn’t spend 24 so that no one else does it again.
25 as much time on it as we might otherwise spend. 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I shall have to take that into account
21 23
1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right, shall I hear from 1 at a later stage also. But in any event, it is not
2 Mr Stroilov as to whether these are — I mean, I take 2 a preferred option for that, amongst many reasons, but
3 it, Mr Stroilov, that Mr Steadman is still not coming, 3 it is an option to be added to the discussion list.
4 as it were? 4 MR STROILOV: It is, my Lord, yes, I accept that.
5 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord. The position is as set out 5 Looking at the range of options, I think the first
6 in his letter: there has been no change and we haven’t 6 thing I would submit, we must not lose focus on the fact
7 been — haven’t had any, really, arguments to put to him 7 that out of all challenges everyone has in a trial of
8 to ask him to reconsider. He considered everything 8 this scale, the biggest one your Lordship has is
9 with — 9 obviously securing the fairness of the trial in the
10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And do you wish to be added to 10 circumstances. To my knowledge, it is unprecedented,
11 the options that you put forward this possible option of 11 really, for a fair trial to take place with such
12 a witness summons? 12 inequality of resources.
13 MR STROILOV: That is an option. That’s not an option 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, we don’t know what happened.
14 I would favour, and I can explain why. 14 I don’t know whether Mr Justice Neuberger’s case, for
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 15 example, took place. It doesn’t say, but it may well
16 MR STROILOV: Well, really, as, I think, in your Lordship’s 16 have done. I don’t think that it is in the books as
17 case, or the case your Lordship has handed down, Brown v 17 an example of an unfair trial, accordingly.
18 Bennett, as Lord Neuberger says at page 3, the bottom 18 MR STROILOV: I only scan-read through it, but it does not
19 paragraph, he makes exactly the same point as, I think, 19 sound as if it was a case of this size, really. It
20 Mr Steadman is making: it is not a question of just 20 sounds to have been as something —
21 attendance, and attendance is really the tip of iceberg, 21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s a matter of degree, I suppose.
22 it’s huge preparatory work. 22 MR STROILOV: It’s a guesswork, but from the background
23 So even if you summons him, he can’t be expected to 23 given, it does not seem to be a case where you would
24 prepare adequately and, therefore, disadvantage to 24 have a —
25 the impecunious party. 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I agree, we just don’t know what the
22 24
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 sums were. 1 just a little bit of guidance.
2 MR STROILOV: So it is, really, that is the greatest 2 If we shunted this off, as you would like, as
3 challenge you have and that should colour all the 3 I understand it, why would that help?
4 decisions you are taking. 4 MR STROILOV: Because if you determine liability, then you
5 So, really, I would accept that if, and only if, you 5 will be in a position, as I think you indicated at the
6 are satisfied that the financial position of 6 PTR and the application we made at that stage, if you
7 the defendants does permit to call Mr Steadman, yes, 7 determine liability and if we succeed on liability and
8 then it’s the end of the matter. 8 on assets valuation, then you would be in a position to
9 But, this said, you are required by the overriding 9 make an interim payment, which would allow us — to
10 objective to deal with the trial management in a way 10 order interim payment which would allow us to finance
11 which is proportionate to the financial position of each 11 the second trial quite comfortably, or if we fail, on
12 party. That is to say, you cannot tell them: well, you 12 the other hand, then I don’t think that business
13 do just have the resources to pay his fees if this means 13 valuation experts can change it.
14 you don’t have the resources to feed your family and to 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The problem is, and it’s the reason
15 cover travel expenses of other witnesses and 15 why quantum and liability have not been split before, it
16 photocopying expenses for this trial and the rest of it. 16 is extremely difficult in this case to split them off
17 Nevertheless, this means they can afford it. That’s not 17 with any accuracy.
18 how this works. 18 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, yes and no. In every case,
19 At some point, simply to give an example from this 19 I think, where there is a split trial — you may or may
20 trial, I think it was submitted by the claimants that, 20 not recall the two or three cases we looked at when
21 well, we have these poor translations. One of 21 I was inviting to do that in a much more radical way.
22 the reasons is, if we were translating everything, 22 It’s always, really, cutting across the body of
23 the cost would be prohibitively expensive, it would be 23 the case, it’s always, in a way, detrimental, but
24 just over £1 million. 24 nevertheless, it is a question of balance, and the
25 This does not mean, this is a point of some merit 25 courts do that, sometimes even across the credibility
25 27
1 this does not mean that the Bank does not have 1 issues where —
2 £1 million at all, it means it is just disproportionate. 2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Very rarely, if there is a serious
3 So that is the approach your Lordship should take. 3 issue of credibility.
4 This said, if you are persuaded that — I think 4 MR STROILOV: Indeed. But this is not a credibility issue.
5 there has been cross-examination of Mrs Arkhangelskaya 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There is a bit, isn’t there? One of
6 and their lifestyle, and she should have been buying 6 the factors is what am I to make of the easiest, as it
7 cheaper shoes and not going for holidays, if you are 7 were, in the sense of least complex claim, which is
8 satisfied this would have saved sufficient resources to 8 whether these personal guarantees are real or not?
9 make it proportionate to pay Mr Steadman’s fees, then 9 Isn’t that an issue of credibility, which might be
10 and only then you can really say the inequality is of 10 assisted by knowing that peering in and seeing whether
11 your own making. 11 these companies were viable or not?
12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think what you are saying is that 12 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, I don’t immediately see any
13 you agree with Mr Lord that the bald point, if I can put 13 strong connection. I do accept that — well, obviously
14 it that way, here is the issue which is put in dispute 14 a lot depends on whether you believe Mr Arkhangelsky and
15 as to whether your plans can proportionately pay or not. 15 Mr Savelyev and on what points.
16 If they can, then whatever trial process is adopted 16 I do accept that really the viability and prospects
17 without them doing so is their own choice. If they 17 of Mr Arkhangelsky’s businesses do depend on his
18 cannot, then we have to face up to the other 18 credibility, in a sense, because some of the premises
19 alternative. 19 really is what he says, but I cannot see how it goes the
20 MR STROILOV: Quite, my Lord, that’s exactly — 20 other way around.
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So you are agreed that that’s what we 21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t want to lure you into this
22 have to decide? 22 before Mr Lord has had his go, but amongst — the case,
23 MR STROILOV: That is, and in terms of other alternatives, 23 amongst others, put against you, is that these companies
24 should I address you on that or should I — 24 at some time, probably rather early on in the claimants’
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I understand them, I think, but I need 25 view of the universe, really were more hope and prayer
26 28
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 than anything else, and that Scandinavia Insurance had

2 no meaningful business, it was really a sort of bank or

3 paymaster of the rest of the group which wasn’t doing

4 very well either, and that the whole thing was built on

5 sand, and that vast loans were taken out on a premise

6 which was wildly away from the truth, and bolstered, as

7 it were, by the Lair valuations, but they also are

8 subject to criticism.

9 The case then put against you, amongst other things,

10 is that the personal guarantees, which were, as it were,

11 the earnest of the substance of these businesses,

12 because otherwise Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky would be hit

13 where it most hurt, were disavowed adventitiously by

14 Mr Arkhangelsky when everything blew up and he had no

15 other defence. That is what is put.

16 Issues of credibility on that, including whether he

17 did or didn’t agree to personal guarantees, or did or

18 didn’t agree to sign them, and whether Mr and

19 Mrs Arkhangelsky did or did not give spousal consent

20 insofar as necessary under Russian law, are matters

21 which might be affected by the general view as to

22 whether this was a scam.

23 I don’t mean I found it is; far from it, but I just

24 have to look at the case as it is put; is that right,

25 Mr Lord, broadly speaking?

1 enforce the personal guarantees, and it’s a plain

2 vanilla, though large, case, that’s one view, and one

3 could say: right, well we will deal with that case and

4 split off the others.

5 But even then I would, despite the plain vanilla

6 apparent nature, I would be worried, maybe this will be

7 the only course I’ve got, but I would be worried lest my

8 assessment as to the likelihood of whether the personal

9 guarantees were given and then dishonestly disavowed or

10 never given at all, might be impacted by some of

11 the conclusions I had elsewhere. That is the problem.

12 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I think in a way it is going to be,

13 to a large extent, most of these issues are going to be

14 answered by asset valuation evidence.

15 If we are right and the real estate alone, real

16 estate owned by these companies, was worth several times

17 more than the entire indebtedness, it follows (a) there

18 was something to raid and, (b) the loans were adequately

19 secured without personal guarantees.

20 And on the other hand, if we fail on real estate

21 valuation, well, subject to possibly reviewing the

22 business valuation reports, preferably with some

23 assistance from experts and coming up with some

24 ingenious wriggling out, well, I think that if we fail

25 on real estate valuation, that’s the end of

29 31
1 MR LORD: Yes, it is, my Lord. On that topic, just very 1 the counterclaim. I wouldn’t want to be held to this,
2 quickly to add in that your Lordship is really saying 2 but really that is the very likely outcome. So looking
3 that the viability of these businesses goes to the heart 3 at that, really, then you can to some extent determine
4 of much of this case. I just give two quick examples, 4 liability.
5 just very quickly, just give me a minute, one is the 5 Now, your Lordship will recall that there is
6 question of any alleged value in these repo transferred 6 an alternative case on quantum, precisely to deal with
7 shares — what were they worth, given the pledged assets 7 this scenario. If your Lordship finds that the
8 within the companies. Obviously that question depends 8 businesses couldn’t have avoided default, but the real
9 upon what were these companies doing, what was their 9 estate was so valuable that the surplus value of
10 state, really, so that is an obvious question that is 10 the market price minus the outstanding debts is still
11 coursing through the question of the repo and all that 11 the damage.
12 was going on, and motivations for corporate raiding and 12 So on that basis, or along these lines, I would
13 so on. It is teeming with the questions of viability, 13 submit you can get to the end of the liability issue and
14 and linked to that is the question of the idea that they 14 then order an interim payment or not, as the case may
15 could have been refinancing or other proper businesses 15 be, and then really finish with the business valuation
16 and it’s all been denied and the default was imposed 16 experts and consider whether — all the outstanding
17 unfairly. Again, if these were busted flushes, it was 17 issues. Whether the default was likely on the balance
18 all over, and that goes to liability. That is not the 18 of probabilities. I do see the point about personal
19 quantum issue, that really goes to the credibility of 19 guarantees, but I suppose that problem would — again,
20 the — 20 I suppose that assets valuation really deals with it, if
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is liability under the 21 the loans were adequately secured, that makes it less
22 counterclaim. One way of looking at this case is to 22 likely that personal guarantees were required.
23 split off your case, subject to the issue of 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know, you see, I don’t know.
24 declarations, which does trouble me. But, subject to 24 I mean, the land may have a great deal of potential, but
25 the issue of declarations, on one view you just want to 25 it may need an awful lot of investment and it may be the
30 32
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 investment could only be secured from a cash stream from 1 obviously unfair if their evidence is tested, ours is
2 the companies or funding would never be capable of being 2 not, and then by definition then their evidence, unless
3 repaid, one or t’other. I am anxious at the moment — 3 it is totally rubbished in cross-examination, well, it
4 I haven’t made up my mind, as is obvious — that I would 4 carries a lot more weight. So that means that they are
5 not have the full picture in determining, amongst other 5 going to win by default — well, in practical terms,
6 things, who is right about the personal guarantees 6 they are winning by default simply because they have
7 without a composite view. It may be that’s the only 7 more money to pay for that, and that’s paradigm
8 alternative, or it may be what I have to do is say: 8 unfairness.
9 right, this trial will go on until the end of the land 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You may be right, it may be like the
10 valuation, I will then let you know, but it is a pretty 10 Tate & Lyle tin of syrup. It says: «In weakness is
11 unsatisfactory thing to do. 11 strength». It may be right, I don’t know, meaning that
12 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I am afraid all the options are 12 people can sometimes rely on their weakness as a very,
13 unsatisfactory, really, and I simply can’t find any 13 very powerful weapon.
14 other. 14 MR STROILOV: Yes, I see the point, but well,
15 It does seem to me that, really, the two of them are 15 nevertheless, practical solution.
16 less unsatisfactory than the other: that is split trial, 16 An additional concern I have is really that the
17 and — 17 point I think repeatedly made by the claimants that they
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But you have always accepted and 18 hope that Mr Popov’s evidence would undermine
19 promoted the notion that fairness is the most important 19 Mrs Simonova’s evidence. So effectively they actually
20 thing. It is the definition of unfairness, isn’t it, to 20 want two experts to argue against one Mrs Simonova, and
21 exclude evidence at a stage when you are making 21 that’s totally unjustified inequality of arms.
22 a decision, which might be relevant to that decision. 22 Obviously Mr Millard is entitled to make all the same
23 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, not unless — obviously you are 23 points, insofar as they are relevant to assets
24 entitled to, it’s a matter for your discretion what 24 valuation.
25 expert evidence you allow and how you restrict it. 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that’s getting into quite
33 35
1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I don’t think so. I think that 1 a detailed thing. Let’s take you on your agreed basis
2 I allowed in evidence within a certain field, and it has 2 that, first and foremost, because it is a factual answer
3 been given. I would find it surprising if I could 3 to a lot of other tricky logistical and technical
4 simply say: right, since you can’t, they can’t. I find 4 points, Mr Lord wishes to demonstrate his proposition
5 that — I mean, you may be right, in which case you must 5 that your clients can actually afford this, but are
6 show me how you are right, but, you know, the court’s 6 choosing not to.
7 control is of whether a field is a proper field for 7 MR STROILOV: Indeed. Should I give my learned friend
8 expert evidence. Once it has been identified and 8 a chance?
9 evidence is adduced, I’m not sure you can say: right, 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think so. I know you contest that
10 it’s unfair that you should have any evidence because 10 and I know the grounds on which you do so, but of course
11 the other side can’t produce theirs. I can’t see that’s 11 you will be entitled to answer.
12 right. 12 MR STROILOV: Of course. Shall I give way?
13 MR STROILOV: It’s not quite that. I think it is a matter 13 MR LORD: My Lord, in relation to the available finance of
14 of proportionate trial management, really. It’s one 14 the defendants, your Lordship has the evidence of
15 thing that you have reports on that discipline. Whether 15 Mrs Arkhangelskaya as to various items of expenditure.
16 to have cross-examination of experts is, really, more of 16 I won’t go back through all those, but your Lordship,
17 a trial management issue. 17 I think —
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You may find this when we may have to 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I remember them fairly well from shoes
19 come onto this, but my general, prima facie outlook, is 19 to theatres to Martinique, I think it was, or Guadalupe,
20 the purpose of expert evidence is to educate the court, 20 I can’t remember.
21 and the notion of the court knowing it is available and 21 MR LORD: Yes, and La Scala and some holidays.
22 knowing it might be tested by cross-examination, say it 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
23 would be rather half educated than fully educated, 23 MR STROILOV: It is not really a question of criticising
24 strikes me as odd. 24 that, but your Lordship I think observed that it may be
25 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, but on the other hand it is 25 said by us, or it is said by us that that is reflective
34 36
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 of a lifestyle. It is unlikely that an account that 1 MR LORD: 17.2. I will be corrected but I think that that
2 looked like that — of a lifestyle that looked like 2 is…
3 that, that those were the only available funds. It did 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, that is the Société Générale.
4 look as if choices were being made, and there might be 4 MR LORD: There was another one, there was a Barclays, your
5 additional money for necessities, and one would say in 5 Lordship will recollect, there was a Barclays policy.
6 that, in parenthesis, calling Mr Steadman, if he is 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I remember that.
7 really required for this huge counterclaim, would count 7 MR LORD: And I can’t remember what happened to that, and
8 as a necessity. It’s not really a question of a choice. 8 what happened, it was cashed in, I think, and then what
9 It’s really if this counterclaim is being pursued, 9 came to light in the course of the trial was, or rather
10 seriously being pursued, the idea that you wouldn’t move 10 your Lordship was taxed about issues concerning —
11 heaven and earth to bring Mr Steadman to court to 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Société Générale.
12 support it, really that just can’t be right. 12 MR LORD: Yes, Mrs Arkhangelskaya seeking to realise from
13 So we have to start to say that the starting point 13 this life policy, the 17.2 one, an amount to pay various
14 must be that the defendants would strain every sinew if 14 things, and I think about €75,000, from memory, was
15 they had spare money to try to meet Mr Steadman’s 15 sought, and having dealt with one or two issues arising,
16 reasonable fees to come to court, particularly in 16 there was an order by consent that that money could come
17 the context of where so much of this litigation, almost 17 out.
18 all of it, since whatever date it was, has been paid for 18 But, my Lord, the point is this: it’s right that
19 by the other party. So that’s the context. 19 in April 2012 this was identified as a source of money,
20 Your Lordship again knows, I don’t have to regale 20 but it didn’t occur to the claimants — perhaps it
21 your Lordship with all the costs that go with the case, 21 should have done — when we were debating impecuniosity
22 but all that has been taken off the defendants’ 22 over the last six to nine months, to think that this
23 financial shoulders and put entirely on the — 23 money was still available. We reasonably assumed that
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, I see that, but I’m not quite 24 when it was said that there were no more funds, that
25 sure how that affects the balance, really. 25 meant that there were no more funds. It’s not a matter
37 39
1 MR LORD: My Lord, can I just leave the context? If I just 1 of Mr Stroilov — it’s not a point for Mr Stroilov, it’s
2 put the context, because what’s really said is the 2 a point flatly against his client, the idea that
3 defendants can’t afford to pay. My Lord, to cut to 3 submissions were made over the last 12 months or so
4 the chase, your Lordship will recollect the evidence 4 about a lack of funding.
5 before this trial started — in fact, no, it was during 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s a slightly different point.
6 the trial when the life policy came to light. 6 I understand that you may or may not — I can’t remember
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know that Mr Stroilov is going to 7 the full details of every turn — that you may well have
8 get up, because it was in the light for some time 8 thought that the monies had long since been spent. But
9 beforehand. It was disclosed as part of the freezing 9 it is not a question of whether the life policy was
10 order disclosure. 10 revealed: it was revealed.
11 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I really don’t accept that. 11 MR LORD: Yes, that’s right. But your Lordship put to me
12 Taking it in stages, I haven’t got all the references to 12 a moment ago that the answer would be: we’ve known about
13 back, and I will find them if I need them. If we have 13 it all along, and the point I am making is there is a
14 {G1/7/1}. 14 difference between knowing about the existence of a
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: {G1/7/1}. 15 policy and knowing that a pot of money in the tune of
16 Okay. 16 €300,000 is still available to meet certain costs, and
17 MR LORD: This was the affidavit of Mrs Arkhangelskaya in 17 that emerged —
18 response to the freezing injunction, and I think at 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that would be quite a long
19 paragraph 17 — just give me a moment, {G1/7/6}, it’s 19 exegesis, I think, Mr Lord, because there would be all
20 right that these life policies were referred to. 20 sorts of questions as to whether in the past not you but
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And those are the same life policies? 21 Mr Marshall took the point that the realisation even of
22 MR LORD: I think that’s right. The second one is, the 22 a policy was, without permission, a breach of the order.
23 Société Générale one. 23 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I think we are at cross purposes.
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am being stupid. Where is the 24 I thought I had to deal with the point that somehow we
25 second one? 25 had waived our right to point to this as a source of
38 40
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 finance for Mr Steadman.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, all I was saying is I knew — and

3 it is taking longer than if I had just shut up, as

4 usual, I knew that Mr Stroilov would get up and say when

5 you said that it hadn’t been disclosed or word to that

6 effect: yes, it had been. It has been disclosed but you

7 expected the money long to have gone?

8 MR LORD: My Lord, don’t misunderstand me, I am not going

9 into the history of it all. The question is, now, what

10 is available.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

12 MR LORD: But I thought I had to sweep up the idea that my

13 clients had forfeited a right to point to a current

14 source of money —

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no, whatever they’ve got —

16 MR LORD: I’m sorry, my Lord, it is my fault.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — is a measure — we will go into the

18 balance of proportionality against what might reasonably

19 be expended on Mr Steadman and others.

20 MR LORD: I’m sorry, my Lord, I was my misunderstanding.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know how much more they have.

22 I assume all of it save 75,000.

23 MR LORD: Well, can I show your Lordship because I was going

24 to go to the current evidence of what is there, which

25 emerged during the trial. If we could go, please, to

1 So that seemed to be, after the 75,000 and the

2 payments for various income tax payments and some living

3 expenses for a period, that money is still there and

4 available.

5 Then if one goes to the cost of Mr Steadman, if we

6 could have {G4/105/5}, in support of, I think, one of

7 the applications before the end of last year.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Ah, yes.

9 MR LORD: From memory, again, I am doing this rather quickly

10 today, but I think from memory this was a witness

11 statement, I think, of Dr Arkhangelsky, I think in

12 support of the application to have an interim payment.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: This was a payment upfront?

14 MR LORD: Yes, this was: shall we have a four-day trial.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The November thing?

16 MR LORD: Exactly, my Lord, November or December, I think.

17 This is where we were going to have a four-day hearing

18 with Simonova and Millard, basically.

19 In paragraph 9, we see under heading —

20 your Lordship can see that there is an estimate in

21 paragraph 9.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 9c.

23 MR LORD: It is 9c, and 9c appears to be an estimate drawn

24 up at — again, I’m not sure what the date of this was,

25 but it must have been around November 2015, last year,

41 43

1 {H2/37/1}, which was the affidavit of Ms Bidault.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Oh yes.

3 MR LORD: And if we could go, please, to page 3 of that, and

4 paragraph 8 {H2/37/3}, that was the position as at

5 whenever it was, in February of this year. So the

6 amount invested was 366,000.

7 Then if one looks down to paragraph 12, one sees

8 some references — and your Lordship will recollect that

9 paragraph 12 was the underpinning for a request

10 effectively to realise about €75,000 from this

11 particular source.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

13 MR LORD: Including payment for ongoing living expenses.

14 The point was made that the Arkhangelskys shouldn’t have

15 to live from sort of day-to-day or week-to-week; there

16 should be a little bit of slack in there to —

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Would it be possible to go to the next

18 page {H2/37/4}.

19 Okay.

20 MR LORD: What was happening was that Mrs Arkhangelskaya was

21 effectively seeking to cash in this life policy, or

22 a part of it. And so 75,000 was going to be realised

23 through that process, and if one does the arithmetic,

24 one can see that that leaves something in the order of

25 €290,000 or thereabouts, after the 75,000 has gone.

1 for the expert valuation. We take that to include the

2 costs of Ms Simonova and Mr Steadman. We think that’s

3 right, that you have expert handwriting and then Mr —

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So that’s about €180,000/€190,000?

5 MR LORD: Yes, but we think, my Lord, that some of those

6 fees would be referable — to whatever degree it is not

7 clear — Ms Simonova. So it may not all have been

8 Steadman.

9 So, on the face of it, there is available money in

10 the life policy, the Société Générale policy, sufficient

11 to cover this, leaving about €100,000 left over.

12 Just to sort of circle back, really, if we could

13 have Mr Steadman’s letter, please, which I think is at

14 {I2/27/143}.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I was looking at that before I came

16 in, yes.

17 MR LORD: One of the points which your Lordship may wish to

18 consider is this: those were the estimates — 150,000

19 was the estimate for, we think, both expert valuers, but

20 certainly for Mr Steadman, all the way through to trial,

21 including various further steps, possibly some further

22 reports, maybe a supplemental report or two.

23 But where we are now is a question of preparing,

24 Ms Simonova preparing for trial and coming to trial. So

25 we are probably at a lesser degree of work by

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 Mr Steadman, given where we have now got to.

2 The money was available to do the all singing, all

3 dancing Steadman input, but that hasn’t been done. But

4 the question is can Mr Steadman be remunerated fairly to

5 prepare to come to court to give evidence? We

6 respectfully submit that on that evidence, the evidence,

7 clearly there is available money, and if one looks at

8 the letter of 2 February 2016 from Mr Steadman, what is

9 striking is that it doesn’t give any indication of

10 the sort of fees that we are talking about to get him to

11 court. One would expect that if the defendants wanted

12 to get this witness to court at this point in time, they

13 would be saying: well, how many days is it?

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, there are lots of things

15 unclear. It is by no means clear on the basis on which

16 he was instructed and why his instructions terminated

17 immediately on Withers coming off the record.

18 Secondly, it is by no means clear on what basis he

19 was remunerated and in what amount, and whether that

20 covered subsequent work or not. There are all sorts of

21 things which are unclear.

22 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord, but I suppose turning it round, the

23 defendants can clarify them. That’s the point I’m

24 coming up to.

25 My Lord, I’m going to come to fairness, because as

1 and then we go through the gears. One expert, joint

2 expert or two experts, and on we go.

3 So I need just to find what the current, and for

4 your Lordship’s assistance, to find …

5 Yes, it’s {J1/3/1}, I am just trying to track

6 through, my Lord, the permissions that have been given.

7 They may have been updated since then. That was the

8 original. That looks like it was the original order.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that all?

10 MR LORD: That’s 14 November 2013. If one goes to

11 paragraph 10. Yes, does your Lordship have paragraph 2,

12 it is {J1/3/2}, «Separate Experts». This was

13 a directions order made by your Lordship

14 in November 2013. 10(d) «Valuation».

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that was rather sloppy of me,

16 but it is there.

17 MR LORD: And each side may rely on two experts in the field

18 of valuation.

19 Then one sees the remaining directions about expert

20 reports and so on, exchanging of reports, and then the

21 holding of a meeting —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Then how does that continue?

23 MR LORD: Sorry, if one goes on to {J1/3/3}.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Over, please {J1/3/4}.

25 The reason I was asking is with factual witness

45 47
1 things stand it would be unfair to the claimant to 1 there is normally a direction that if the deponent is
2 exclude Mr Popov’s evidence. I am getting out of 2 not tendered, then his evidence be not read, unless the
3 sequence here, but one would expect the defendants to be 3 court directs otherwise, but I don’t know whether …
4 saying to the court: well, these are the figures. This 4 MR LORD: Yes. If one goes to — there’s another order,
5 is what Mr Steadman says. He needs roughly this amount 5 then, in March of last year, {J1/11/2}.
6 of time to come to court and he said, doing the best 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mm hmm. This is March 2015, is it?
7 he can, and paring his fees back as far as he can 7 MR LORD: Yes, it is, my Lord. In paragraph 5 you can see
8 because of the exceptional nature or whatever, he needs 8 that as is usually the case, the question of expert
9 this amount of money to come to court. 9 evidence was revisited on subsequent case management
10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We are slightly — I’m sorry to 10 occasions. I hope this was the next occasion. It looks
11 interrupt. It being an obvious field of expertise 11 like some substantive directions. There may have been
12 approved by the court, which gave directions, I imagine, 12 other directions but I think this is probably the next
13 for expert evidence in this field, do I have 13 important set of directions.
14 jurisdiction to exclude evidence, given in accordance 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can we have another page, please?
15 with the court’s direction for expert evidence? 15 {J1/11/3}.
16 MR LORD: My Lord, I would need to find the order first. If 16 Right.
17 I may just find the order for permission. 17 MR LORD: Then I am not sure if it was addressed again.
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Normally the «be not read» refers to 18 Yes, then in October last year, {J1/20/1},
19 a factual witness, doesn’t it? 19 paragraph 7 on {J1/20/4}.
20 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, to take time. The order will 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. What was the date of that?
21 refer to what leaves have been granted to date, and as 21 MR LORD: That was dated October 2015.
22 your Lordship knows with expert evidence, the court is 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So that was after …
23 encouraged to control it to that reasonably necessary. 23 MR LORD: That was after Withers came off the record,
24 You then have to establish is the field necessary, if 24 I think, my Lord.
25 so, what are the issues that are necessary. Do we — 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, and after … right.
46 48
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 MR LORD: I’m not sure who appeared at that hearing. I am

2 just checking. Mr Stroilov appeared for the defendants

3 at that hearing.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What was the actual date?

5 MR LORD: Sorry, it is {J1/20/1}. I think we might have had

6 two dates, September and —

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Oh yes.

8 MR LORD: I think the order was there. I think we appeared

9 twice, once in September and once in October, and the

10 order was actually sealed on the 28th, but I think we

11 appeared on 23 October as well as 23 September.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

13 MR LORD: I think, again, my Lord — if I am wrong about

14 this I hope somebody will shout out, but — my Lord, we

15 are checking whether there was another order or letter

16 that bears upon it, but I’ve tried to identify where we

17 got to, and then, my Lord, we will try and see if there

18 are any more letters or orders.

19 But it is plain, my Lord, that there was permission

20 given for the evidence of, obviously, Mr Steadman on one

21 hand, and Mr Popov on the other.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mm hmm. Yes.

23 MR LORD: My Lord, the issue would be this, in my

24 submission: that it would be unfair on the claimants and

25 wrong in principle to prevent them from calling

1 explanation that’s been advanced in this case at all

2 ever for the motivation of the Bank, as to why it would

3 do these things. Why would it go to all this trouble to

4 steal the shares in these two companies?

5 Now, obviously that’s a matter for down the line,

6 but I must be allowed to call evidence that goes to

7 the question of the viability of those businesses, and

8 it would be very unfair to say that somehow that would

9 be restricted, and any necessary adjudication between

10 experts would be put out of account because the court

11 didn’t need to consider that evidence, because that

12 would be a very treacherous path for the court to take

13 because then the complaint could be made by the

14 claimants: well, we weren’t allowed to call evidence

15 that would have gone to some pretty important issues

16 here, about whether Scan was viable, what the shares

17 that were part of the repo were worth, if anything. The

18 same with Western Terminal. What was Western Terminal

19 worth? If, in fact, its debts hugely overwhelmed any

20 available assets, then that’s obviously a relevant

21 question.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, the thing is, expert evidence

23 is to assist the court. It is only justified if the

24 court actually needs it. In the context of valuation,

25 it is pretty likely that the court needs it because we

49 51

1 Mr Popov, because the question of the businesses of OMG,

2 of Western Terminal and Scan and Onega, is a key part of

3 this case, and not just quantum and not just causation

4 and not just the counterclaim. I made those submissions

5 that in terms of the dispute, the claimants rely upon

6 these personal guarantees, and what’s said against them

7 is these are all fabricated as part of a corporate raid

8 conspiracy. That’s essentially what’s said.

9 So it is really hard to disentangle credit issues

10 from that and, my Lord, the question of the viability of

11 these businesses is obviously a central issue in

12 the case. Not just credibility, but, your Lordship,

13 Mr Popov deals with the value and the viability of these

14 businesses. Take Scan Insurance, for example. He says,

15 as your Lordship observed, that’s just really the OMG

16 treasury and it had no sort of independent viability at

17 all.

18 My Lord, the question then arises, why would

19 Bank of St Petersburg want to steal a business like that

20 that is of that sort. That raises an obvious

21 probability question, credibility question.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I mean, I was reciting your case,

23 not any decision.

24 MR LORD: No, of course, my Lord. Your Lordship can see

25 that it will be our submission that there’s no credible

1 have no experience of valuing either property or

2 businesses. Without it, therefore, I can’t assess

3 value, either of land or business.

4 To exclude evidence means that I cannot adjudicate

5 on value fairly at all. Now, that would be, having also

6 directed expert evidence on this very point, would be,

7 I’m not sure even within my jurisdiction, I just don’t

8 know on what footing I would do it.

9 MR LORD: No, and your Lordship has asked a number of my

10 witnesses as to the value in the shares. Your Lordship

11 has said: well, why wasn’t something in writing? You

12 were getting some valuable shares. With the greatest of

13 respect, that obviously begs the question, that is

14 a valuation question, which there is leave, rightly in

15 my respectful submission, it has been granted, for

16 evidence on that to help the court. Were these valuable

17 assets or not?

18 So when one looks at this in the round, there can’t

19 really, in my submission, be any question that this

20 evidence could fairly or reliably be kept out of account

21 by your Lordship. It’s like putting a blindfold on to

22 an important part of the case.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But do you think I have jurisdiction

24 to do it? I’m sorry to harp on, but jurisdiction in

25 the broader sense, ie is it either jurisdiction, or if

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 there is jurisdiction, is it a discretion which a sane 1 that it is necessary for the fair adjudication of
2 judge could properly deploy? 2 the matter, whether I can go back on that and say: well,
3 MR LORD: Your Lordship has power. Can I deal with it in 3 I’ll take a flying guess instead.
4 this way? It might be a question of power. 4 MR LORD: Your Lordship obviously can’t do that. If
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 5 your Lordship has come as far as thinking, or resolving,
6 MR LORD: And the expert, part 35 of the CPR, if one goes to 6 or concluding, that this expert evidence is reasonably
7 page 1161 of volume 1. 7 necessary, then —
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, expert evidence on the issue of
9 MR LORD: 35.1: 9 valuation is necessary to make any fair adjudication of
10 «Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which 10 a valuation issue.
11 is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.» 11 MR LORD: Yes, and the valuation issue, my Lord, is not just
12 Then at 1167, well, the next paragraph at 35.3 is 12 one that goes to quantum or the counterclaim. The
13 worth looking at, if I can just read it to the court: 13 valuation issue, the valuation of the shares, for
14 «It is the duty of experts to help the court on 14 example, of the businesses, is an issue that goes
15 matters of their expertise. This duty overrides any 15 through the whole dispute.
16 obligation to the person from whom experts have received 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
17 instructions or by whom they are paid.» 17 MR LORD: It is not just quantification. I am objecting to
18 So that’s quite important. 18 the idea that in any safe, reliable way this court can
19 «If a witness comes forward —» 19 confine Steadman and Popov to the value of
20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Where is that, sorry? 20 the counterclaim if so proved. I suppose that’s the
21 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, it is CPR 35.3 on page 1164. Top 21 point I am not making very clearly: that their valuation
22 left. 22 evidence goes to many anterior questions as to liability
23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. Yes. 23 of, and credibility on the claim, and particularly on
24 MR LORD: That makes the point your Lordship made earlier, 24 the counterclaim.
25 I think, it may go to the question of whether or not 25 The viability of these businesses and the value of
53 55
1 Mr Steadman could really reliably or properly, if you 1 them clearly is a relevant matter to the allegation of
2 like, not prepare properly for the exercise. It must be 2 a corporate raid being undertaken, and why this would
3 unlikely that he would, in other words, likely that he 3 all happen and why so many dishonest things were done
4 would prepare properly. 4 and so on. And the court has, in my submission, ruled
5 Then 35.4 at 1167, the court’s power to restrict 5 that it needs assistance from experts as to those
6 expert evidence, and that may be what your Lordship is 6 matters.
7 asking me about. It may or may not be, but that appears 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I say this really to guide you
8 to be. 8 in your written submissions long down the track: For
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, you see, just so you know what 9 the avoidance of doubt, the value of shares may not be
10 I am thinking about, 35.1, best in the court, whatever 10 inherent, but may be in the nature of key value. It
11 may be the thoughts of the parties, the duty to restrict 11 may — the shares of themselves may not be very
12 expert evidence to that which is necessary to resolve 12 valuable, who knows, but the fact that they provide
13 the proceedings. We are encouraged to be quite tough 13 a key, or prevent a restricted access to assets which
14 about that. 14 are valuable, is valuable.
15 MR LORD: That’s right, my Lord. 15 Don’t comment. I just say that that’s why I’ve been
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Then 35.3 says the manner in which 16 testing these witnesses.
17 they are, if appointed, to undertake their duties. Then 17 MR LORD: Yes, and it makes it all the more important that
18 the adjunct to 35.1 is 35.4, which is you can’t do it 18 your Lordship is going to hear that evidence, with
19 without permission and when you have permission, you 19 respect, it is even more important to consider the
20 have to say, if permitted, how it is to be adduced. 20 businesses, to consider what we are really talking about
21 MR LORD: That’s right. 21 here.
22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Then the question which I am 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
23 asking is, having done all that, and having said that is 23 MR LORD: And your Lordship has the point Ms Simonova values
24 a proper field, I want it done in this way, the premise 24 these assets as trade-related properties. So she
25 being because otherwise I would be failing in my duty, 25 approaches her valuation exercise in large measure by
54 56
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 looking at what businesses can be run from them. 1 haven’t clarified how much we are now talking about, and
2 So … 2 in my submission that’s an obligation on them to
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, that’s why I have scratched my 3 clarify. How many days’ preparation does Mr Steadman
4 head as to division, and Mr Stroilov is going to have 4 need to be paid for? Three, four, five, let’s say, for
5 his go and tell me why I have it wrong, but this is 5 argument’s sake, and let’s say your Lordship said: I’m
6 a curious case in which it is very, very difficult to 6 going to have a day from each, I am going to have one
7 cauterise parts of it, it is difficult, and the expert 7 day of Mr Steadman and one day of Mr Popov, that’s all I
8 evidence provided by the defendants exacerbates the 8 am going to have. I am not going to have it running on
9 problem because Ms Simonova, her valuation premises 9 and on. I am going to finish all of this. Mr Steadman
10 depend on business premises as well. 10 can get his books out for three or four days, or five
11 MR LORD: Yes, can we have up {E8/26.1/4}, please, which 11 days, get his eye in and then he comes to court for two
12 I think is Ms Simonova’s instructions, the top three 12 days, let us say it is six days. How much could that
13 lines. 13 be, six days for an expert accountant? I am not
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you mind if I get it in … 14 underestimating but it is probably a lot less that
15 MR LORD: No, not at all. 15 £150,000. Probably much more in the order of, let’s say
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 26.1.4? 16 for argument’s sake, I don’t know, £30,000, let’s say
17 MR LORD: 26.1 and it is page 4. It is the exhibits, 17 for argument’s sake.
18 I think, to Ms Simonova’s report. 18 Again, I don’t know that, but the fact that I don’t
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Oh dear, I haven’t got that here. 19 know it is not my fault. It can’t be 150 to get ready
20 Well, let’s have a look. 20 for this trial and, therefore, what one is saying is
21 MR LORD: This is a letter of instruction from, I think, 21 that this is important evidence, that the court’s order
22 Withers to Ms Simonova in May 2015. It’s the top 22 should be in play. There appears to be the thick end of
23 paragraph. 23 €300,000 available, and Mrs Arkhangelskaya goes to
24 So Ms Simonova, as part of her expert analysis, 24 La Scala and buys the shoes she buys and so on, so it
25 seems to have been asked to consider the report of 25 doesn’t look as if she can’t afford to put beans on
57 59

1 Mr Popov, of Deloittes. It seems to be an impossible

2 position for Mr Stroilov to maintain really then that

3 one should take out of account a report that Ms Simonova

4 who they are calling, a report that she appears to have

5 made reference to, or been asked to consider.

6 That would be a — I would hope — well, it would be

7 very unsatisfactory in that situation. It looks as if

8 Mr Popov’s analysis has certainly been one of

9 the tributaries that has fed into one of Ms Simonova’s

10 machinations. So, that may be another reason why one

11 couldn’t safely keep Mr Popov out of account.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, take it for the moment, and

13 subject, of course, to anything that Mr Stroilov points

14 out to me and persuades me, I would feel uneasy, to put

15 it very, very mildly, in excluding evidence adduced in

16 accordance with the court’s order on a matter which

17 seemed then and seems now, relevant.

18 MR LORD: My Lord, that really brings us back to

19 the question of finance.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Quite.

21 MR LORD: And it isn’t really right to say that because the

22 defendants couldn’t pay for everything, they shouldn’t

23 pay for anything. That can’t be the right approach.

24 The question must now be is it right that they do

25 not have the finance to get Mr Steadman to court. They

1 toast on the table, so in those circumstances it would

2 be the wrong answer here to say: I’m sorry, I’m going to

3 somehow spend out of consideration, or at any rate, the

4 adduction of this expert evidence on the grounds of

5 a symmetry of resource and any kind of fair trial

6 complaint. That just doesn’t begin here. There is the

7 money available here, available. If the defendants

8 choose, as they are entitled to choose, not to spend the

9 £30,000 or £40,000 or £50,000, or whatever it is, or

10 £20,000 on Mr Steadman’s coming to court, then that is

11 their choice. Every litigant can decide not to call

12 an extra expert or not to pay an extra barrister or they

13 can decide they are not to proof an extra witness, they

14 can always decide that, that’s the stuff of litigation

15 in this jurisdiction, and none of that engages any of

16 these sort of very sort of big complaints of

17 Mr Stroilov. It’s really quite a simple matter and, in

18 my submission, it all points overwhelmingly to saying to

19 the defendants: are you bringing Mr Steadman or not?

20 MR STROILOV: My Lord, may I suggest, if I could briefly

21 address you on jurisdiction, and then we have the

22 10-minute break where I could take instructions.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, of course, thank you.

24 MR STROILOV: And then perhaps we could get some more

25 precise figures.

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, jurisdiction first and then 1 MR STROILOV: I appreciate that, but it is not part of
2 factual issues later. 2 Mrs Simonova’s assumption that Mr Arkhangelsky is
3 MR STROILOV: In terms of jurisdiction, I am not inviting 3 running Western Terminal LLC, which is running the
4 you to exclude the evidence, I appreciate that shouldn’t 4 business. She is looking at it from the point of view
5 happen. 5 of what a reasonably efficient operator could achieve.
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No. 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, but that’s the purchaser who
7 MR STROILOV: I rely on CPR 32.1(3), your power to limit 7 spots an advantage. He reckons: my goodness, if I owned
8 cross-examination, and that, in my submission, includes 8 that land I could make an absolute fortune. But he
9 the power to order that particular experts are not to be 9 doesn’t say, because of that, I am going to pay a price
10 cross-examined, and I appreciate that the huge 10 which reflects the fortune I could make. He says: and
11 difference between them and the importance of them does 11 the best thing of all is that that vendor is in absolute
12 weigh against that but, on the other hand, in my 12 muck, despair, and therefore, whatever I may think I can
13 submission, we do have fairness of the trial which does 13 get for it is irrelevant. That chap is going to have to
14 depend on reasonable equality of arms. 14 sell to me at a bargain basement price, because he can’t
15 Then secondly, of course, you do have the 15 know that he is going to have to avoid a fire sale.
16 jurisdiction to order a separate trial of any issue, 16 The reality — value is usually, I am afraid, the
17 and, again, I understand all that is being said about 17 preserve of theoreticians. The market is much more
18 that being undesirable and all the issues being 18 aggressive.
19 interconnected, and I think you do understand all the 19 MR STROILOV: My Lord, let me approach it from a slightly
20 pro and contra and that the value of the land actually 20 different angle. Let’s make all assumptions which may
21 can be resolved on the basis of real estate valuation 21 reasonably depend on business valuations. Let’s make
22 evidence, even though, of course, it is always helpful 22 all assumptions against us. The businesses were
23 to know more context. 23 doomed —
24 But ultimately it cannot be said to be impossible to 24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
25 resolve the issue of the value of the land, and on that 25 MR STROILOV: — the default was inevitable, the Bank would
61 63

1 basis, to determine the issue of liability. I don’t

2 think I —

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I can’t see that I could determine the

4 issue of the value of the land without knowing whether

5 these were viable or not — viable businesses, could I?

6 MR STROILOV: You can, my Lord, because the income approach

7 in real estate valuation is different from business

8 valuation. Mr Steadman looks at the business as it is.

9 Mrs Simonova looks at the potential business as it could

10 be run by (inaudible) what they call, valuation experts

11 call, a reasonably efficient operator. So a potential

12 buyer, she says, would have looked at the land and said:

13 okay, I could run such and such business.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That assumes a sort of perfect market.

15 The fact is, you know, if you run into financial trouble

16 and you have to sell your house, you are going to get

17 less for your house than if you choose your time. If

18 someone thinks, to put another thing, that you want to

19 sell your house but the bank is just about to repossess

20 your house and sell it at auction, the cunning purchaser

21 will bide his time and offer much less, somewhere just

22 above your minimum, and the auction minimum, but way

23 below what you might reasonably have expected for it.

24 All valuation depends on assumptions. The key to

25 valuation is usually the assumptions.

1 have realised the pledges.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

3 MR STROILOV: Now, nevertheless, if we are right on real

4 estate valuation, it follows that if they were sold —

5 and, of course, if we make out the case on fraud, well,

6 it follows that if not for the fraud, they would have

7 been sold at a market value, there would have been

8 surplus on loans which should have been returned to

9 companies, Scan and Western Terminal, and shares

10 returned to OMG.

11 So that is a relatively small but alternative

12 counterclaim, and that can be decided without really

13 looking at business valuations.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sorry if I have missed this, but

15 does Ms Simonova tell me what the value is on the worst

16 possible valuation assumptions? That these companies

17 were built on sand?

18 MR STROILOV: I think she is not concerned with the

19 viability of the companies at all. She looks at it from

20 the point of view of a possible purchaser of the land

21 who looks at it from the point of view of its business

22 potential. So what the companies themselves were built

23 on is something that’s outside her remit and that’s

24 really the difference between her and Mr Steadman and —

25 well, between the two —

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m so sorry, maybe I misunderstood

2 you. I quite take your point that if, on the worst

3 possible set of assumptions, the value of the assets was

4 such as to do one or both of two things: one, to reveal

5 such a discrepancy between that minimum and the amount

6 achieved as to signify, let us call it, fraud; or

7 alternatively, that in any event, the value was no less

8 than the amount of the shortfall, that would be one

9 thing, but my understanding is that Ms Simonova assumes

10 viability and then asks: now, what would someone with

11 money and ambition and energy have made of this land?

12 She says: loss, billions.

13 The problem is, my point to you is this: that’s only

14 one side of the market bargain. People aren’t

15 reasonable and say: well, if it is worth 1.5 billion to

16 me, therefore I’ll pay 1.5 billion. They ask the rather

17 harsher question of: what can I get this for in

18 the predicament that the vendor is? That’s the truth of

19 the matter, and that’s the value, isn’t it?

20 MR STROILOV: I’m not sure whether — I would expect that

21 Mrs Simonova does address these points, I don’t

22 understand —

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, if she does, I have missed it.

24 MR STROILOV: But these are cross-examination questions to

25 Mrs Simonova, are they not? Well, the way I understand

1 all or split off while — this issue is to be tried

2 separately at a later date when we can possibly — well,

3 we either can pay Mr Steadman or we have to consider our

4 position.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I certainly have jurisdiction to do

6 that, but yes.

7 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

8 After a short break either I or Mr Arkhangelsky will

9 address you on the financial position.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are going to deal with the money

11 side, if I can put it that way?

12 MR STROILOV: Yes, the figures.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I mean, it’s not an easy one to

14 decide not knowing how much he has been paid or how much

15 he would expect, I must say. I’ve been furnished very

16 little by way of evidence by which to assess the

17 proportional balance which you say it is my duty to do.

18 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, I will try to get more

19 figures from the bank statements.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, all right. 10 minutes.

21 (3.13 pm)

22 (A short break)

23 (3.28 pm)

24 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. Really I would

25 have liked Mr Arkhangelsky to address you, but I am told

65 67

1 it is her purpose — of course it may depend on the

2 circumstances in which it is sold, but her purpose is to

3 look at the value of the land from the point of view of

4 a potential buyer. So viability of the companies which

5 formerly owned them doesn’t come into this at all.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But how can I tell whether what she is

7 telling me is useful or not unless I can be sure of her

8 assumptions?

9 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, the assumptions as to viability

10 of businesses, I don’t recall any. I will be corrected

11 if that is said to be a crucial part of her assumptions,

12 but that’s not my understanding.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will have another look over the

14 10 minutes.

15 MR STROILOV: Of course, taking the worst case scenario —

16 when the Bank sells it as a pledge, (inaudible) on

17 a pledge, then a fair, honest, public auction. That is,

18 as I understand it, the price she says they would get.

19 So yes, my Lord, I think —

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Anyway, you say, just on this bit,

21 that you do not wish to exclude Mr Popov, but you say in

22 all the circumstances, a fair trial requires me to

23 direct that he not be cross-examined since your person

24 can’t attend.

25 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Either not cross-examined at

1 that the quality of videolink is pretty poor today.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sorry.

3 MR STROILOV: So effectively he is just sitting there

4 following it on Magnum.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sorry about that.

6 MR STROILOV: So that is not very helpful.

7 What I can say about the financial position, and

8 I do apologise for not being able to say more,

9 your Lordship will appreciate that the time in recent

10 months has really been spent on our side on substantive

11 issues as opposed to housekeeping issues.

12 I am afraid I can’t give you the exact figure for

13 how much Mr Steadman requires. The figure of £150,000

14 for both experts, that came from Withers and their

15 discussions with experts before they came off the

16 record, and I understand that obviously what has been

17 paid to Mr Steadman does not cover any of

18 the outstanding work to date.

19 But that would be lower, I accept that, because the

20 150,000 figure includes Mrs Simonova’s fees, and she has

21 kindly agreed to act pro bono.

22 This said, really, the expense is not quite limited

23 to Mr Steadman, because obviously the basis on which

24 people agree to act pro bono, Mrs Simonova and other

25 experts, is that really there is no money to pay for it,

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 and people tend to, if they learn that some other expert 1 MR STROILOV: I am not sure. I would need to double-check
2 is being paid for his work on the normal basis, people 2 that, my Lord.
3 tend to raise questions and say: well, then we should 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean nothing in what you have said
4 also be paid, so that is another factor that should be 4 suggests it. On the contrary, everything you have said
5 taken into account. 5 seems to be premised on an estimate by Withers without
6 There are, of course, living expenses, and again, it 6 regard to the actual …
7 will be appreciated that to participate meaningfully in 7 MR STROILOV: I believe that Withers did talk to him to come
8 the trial and preparations for the trial, Mr and 8 up with that estimate. I think there was a budget,
9 Mrs Arkhangelsky cannot really work, at least in this 9 really, from Withers which it may be possible to find,
10 period, and CoFrance is very much a start-up business, 10 and which will give you more detail.
11 it hasn’t been making a lot of profits before the trial, 11 Of course they didn’t just take it from the top of
12 and now, of course, it is all frozen and, of course, 12 their heads, but I am afraid I can’t help more than
13 after the trial is over, it will take some time to get 13 that, and that’s possibly an organisational thing, but
14 new clients and so on. A business has to be running to 14 I believe, in fairness, I think the premise on which we
15 be successful. 15 approached Mr Steadman now after Withers came off the
16 Another factor I will invite you to take into 16 record was that we are asking him to act pro bono
17 account is that a lot of money has been spent in 17 because we cannot afford to pay his fees. That’s my
18 the past on the extradition proceedings, and paying bail 18 understanding.
19 for the arrest, and I won’t say a lot about it, but in 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s just, supposing they charge £800
20 my submission, your Lordship is now in a better position 20 an hour, five hours a day, 4,000 times ten is 40,000.
21 to assess than you were at the start of the trial as to 21 10 days, in other words, at four hours a day, 50,000 if
22 who is responsible for that, and the responsibility 22 they work five hours a day. I don’t know whether these
23 shared, at least, by the claimants. 23 are accurate figures. Normally the expenses of
24 Further, there is a risk of further extradition 24 accountants and lawyers, for that matter, are the more
25 proceedings now. I think at some point we did 25 horrendous because there are so many people involved,
69 71

1 communicate to you some articles from Russian press

2 indicating that as a result of this trial, Russian

3 authorities are considering what they should do. I am

4 talking about the evidence given by Mr Arkhangelsky in

5 Paris, and in my submission that should be — well, it

6 is not unreasonable for the defendants to try and

7 preserve some money — well, for this contingency. It’s

8 a very real threat, and obviously one has to pay bail

9 and one may well have to pay lawyers in France if there

10 is substantial work to defend these extradition

11 proceedings.

12 So, my Lord, on that analysis I would submit that

13 obviously on any view of things, the payment to

14 Mr Steadman, even if it is just half of 150 — I believe

15 it is more than half of £150,000 — it is going to be,

16 well, in the region — I think approximately half of

17 what is left of the life insurance policy, and that has

18 to be spent on paying taxes, on living expenses, on

19 potential extradition proceedings and so on. So it

20 would be really disproportionate to treat that as

21 something the defendants can reasonably afford at this

22 stage.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Were any efforts made to see whether

24 there was some fee that Mr Steadman would accept as the

25 basis on which he would attend?

1 but this would be really him because he has done the

2 background spade work. He might need a bit of

3 assistance. I would have thought, obviously this is

4 a complete estimate on my part, but it is unusual,

5 actually, in my experience, to have forensic accountants

6 charging much more than £500 an hour. There we are.

7 MR STROILOV: I don’t think he is a forensic accountant. He

8 is a business valuer. I don’t know, really, if there is

9 any difference.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m sorry, yes.

11 MR STROILOV: Well, I understand that the figure of £150,000

12 came from the assessment of generally him and

13 Mrs Simonova, and it was my understanding that

14 Mrs Simonova was, as between the two, she was less

15 expensive.

16 I’m sorry I cannot assist more on that.

17 I appreciate it is difficult. Perhaps there is still

18 time to give us homework and then to consider it on

19 another day, if it is crucial. (Pause).

20 I would submit that, really, on any view of things,

21 it can only be in some — well, in tens of thousands,

22 and by tens of thousands I mean not 20, but closer to —

23 well, something above 50, and well, given, really, the

24 size of resources, as your Lordship has been shown, and

25 all the absolutely vital expenses which they cannot be

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 reasonably required to forego, it’s not — well, what 1 «I have determined highest and best use of land to
2 ratio would be acceptable, really, to when they could be 2 be as a trade terminal fully utilised for the
3 told: no, you have to do it or you are authors of your 3 transhipment of container trade.»
4 own misfortune. 4 Those are the bases on which, as I understand it,
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You have given me rather little to go 5 she tells me that she is proceeding. I don’t see in
6 on on proportionality, haven’t you. I can’t — you must 6 that the sort of alternative, effectively fire sale
7 say if it is an irrelevant consideration, in which case 7 valuation in respect of a property whose value can only
8 I will exclude it — in the general notion of 8 be released with considerable further investment in
9 proportionality don’t I have to take into account what 9 a credit-poor economic environment. That’s, you know,
10 expenditure, risks, have been thought appropriate in 10 what I am bothered about.
11 the past? Isn’t that also part of the equation in 11 MR STROILOV: My Lord, obviously if any of her factual
12 working out whether it is choice or necessity? I mean, 12 assumptions are said to be incorrect, that can be put to
13 it is a crying shame, as I have repeatedly said, that so 13 her and that can be explained to you by Mr Millard.
14 much expenditure on things like the handwriting and, to 14 It’s not really a question of business value, whether
15 some extent, these very, very long reports, has been 15 her factual assumptions —
16 lavished. 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is, and you said that it is very
17 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Well, we will have to make some 17 unfair because Mr Millard borrows from Mr Popov and
18 enquiries on that. I am afraid I tried to find out 18 Ms Simonova borrows from theory.
19 quickly what I could in the 10-minute break, but really 19 MR STROILOV: Well, they do to an extent, and obviously they
20 not with much luck as you have no doubt seen from my 20 can be — they can defend these things in their own
21 submission. 21 cross-examination. But ultimately for valuation of
22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Tell me about — I had a quick look 22 the real estate, you rely on the reports of Mrs Simonova
23 again at Ms Simonova. Ms Simonova, what I took to be 23 and Mr —
24 her approach, if you have her expert report at 24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I do, but in testing the
25 {E8/27/1}, if you go to {E8/27/41}, I think she 25 validity of the assumptions, do I not have to lift my
73 75

1 identifies what I think is the Achilles heel of all

2 valuations, which is the assumptions. She says:

3 «Valuation opinions must be interpreted within the

4 context of the type of valuation, the basis of

5 valuation, and the date of valuation. I have conducted

6 [and here she says the type] a market valuation of real

7 estate assets in the form of land and improvements to

8 land.»

9 That’s the first question. Is a bank realising

10 a pledge really going to achieve a market valuation?

11 That’s point one:

12 «I have recognised the land and improvements as

13 trade related property with synergistic value in

14 the form of a fully functioning marine trading

15 terminal.»

16 It appears from that, as to the basis of valuation,

17 that she has assumed that a purchaser from the Bank in

18 these difficult circumstances, would be able to yield up

19 the synergistic value of a fully functioning marine

20 trading which is obviously going to need some

21 investment, and it is going to pay that to someone who

22 is obviously not going to make the investment himself,

23 but is having to sell, because the Bank, ex hypothesi,

24 since you wouldn’t otherwise be in this position, is no

25 longer willing to fund the enterprise:

1 eyes unto the hills of the experts who deal with the

2 business side? Isn’t it all very difficult to

3 compartmentalise?

4 MR STROILOV: My Lord, isn’t it the case that what you

5 really need to look at is the value of the real estate

6 as of the date it was realised by the Bank at the public

7 auction. So by that stage, the respective businesses of

8 Scan and Western Terminal don’t come into play at all.

9 They are just looking at the land as it is. There may

10 be a further question as to what it is and whether it

11 was fully functioning and what improvements were there

12 and so on, but that’s not —

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But she does do it on a fully

14 functioning synergistic basis, doesn’t she?

15 MR STROILOV: My Lord, she does.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m not saying whether she is right or

17 wrong on that, but in determining whether she is right

18 or wrong, don’t I have to have some assessment of

19 the business values and potentials and have a look and

20 see what the…

21 MR STROILOV: Her business potentials, but, well, you are

22 not looking at the value of the company; you are looking

23 at the value of the land as it would be developed by

24 another company who buys it and what you could

25 reasonably expect the buyer to do that.

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

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 Of course your Lordship takes into account the

2 market data, but that’s all she needs and all you need

3 for this particular part of the counterclaim.

4 I appreciate, of course, it is always undesirable to

5 split issues off, but what is the alternative? If you

6 put Mr Popov there, well, how do I cross-examine him?

7 I can’t make head or tail of it. I don’t know anything

8 about business valuations. I don’t think

9 Mr Arkhangelsky knows enough to cross-examine the expert

10 effectively. It seems to be one of the first axioms:

11 You need an expert to cross-examine an expert, and how

12 can we do that?

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Popov’s first report was in 2014,

14 wasn’t it? This is quite a long-standing juggernaut,

15 isn’t it?

16 MR STROILOV: It is. Well, throughout that period really

17 the money was very, very tight, and most of the money

18 the defendants did have were actually — well, not the

19 money, but assets, were spent on this litigation, and

20 that’s also something to be taken into account, all the

21 Bulgarian property was spent on this litigation.

22 I know it has been, at one point, at least,

23 submitted to the contrary, but I would submit it was

24 really spent extremely efficiently. We have gone from

25 complete mess to being nearly trial ready, I would say,

1 things which all of us want for our children ourselves:

2 it’s bare necessities, I think, is really going to be

3 the test, and bare necessities may obviously include

4 keeping yourself out of extradition and that kind of

5 thing, I fully take on board that, but it wouldn’t, I am

6 afraid, include in assessing their previous conduct the

7 sort of expenditure we saw. I don’t mean that

8 carpingly. I quite understand why in a difficult

9 situation people want a break, but it’s not a bare

10 necessity of life.

11 MR STROILOV: No, my Lord, but then obviously, the other

12 side of it, how much would have been saved, would that

13 have changed the position if they were more modest?

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, creditors are never very

15 impressed when you say that you owed them so much that

16 really only a little bit didn’t seem — as they couldn’t

17 pay anyway, they might as well blow it on the ponies.

18 I mean, it doesn’t work, does it, it’s not the way a

19 court approaches the matter.

20 MR STROILOV: It’s not quite that, my Lord. Having

21 a holiday is in a rather grey area. People have to have

22 a holiday sometimes.

23 Obviously you have to — it is just

24 disproportionate, really, to consider the price of shoes

25 when you are looking at the fees of someone like

77

1 even though this is a difficult trial, but at least you

2 have witness statements and expert reports and

3 everything.

4 So it is definitely not fair to say that: well,

5 money has been spent on the luxuries of shoes, worth as

6 high as they were worth, and nothing was spent on

7 litigation, that’s simply not the case.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I took you off track, back to

9 the money. I mean, I can see it is very difficult.

10 I can see that choices past may not look as sensible now

11 as they seemed then, but the money is available; it is

12 a question of priorities, really, isn’t it?

13 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. It is a question of priorities,

14 but obviously, well, you have a large family with

15 children and with living expenses. You can’t ignore

16 that. You have a risk of extradition proceedings, you

17 can’t ignore that. And you have some ongoing expenses

18 in connection with the litigation, such as travel

19 expenses, and that is also something that’s being

20 covered out of the same pot of money, and, as I said,

21 my Lord, you can’t really say that you must spend

22 100 per cent of —

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, but the thing is — I don’t think

24 the test is sort of the family law test of need

25 generously interpreted. It doesn’t really include the

79

1 Mr Steadman. It’s just — it has nothing to do with it.

2 It’s just completely different levels.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, it just gives you a different set

4 of spectacles when you look at peoples’ assessment of

5 their priorities.

6 MR STROILOV: My Lord, in a way, yes, but one point which I

7 think has been made as a hint, and if it wasn’t meant

8 this way, I do apologise, but I think it was suggested

9 that what you have seen is just the tip of the iceberg

10 and you should really infer that there is a lot of

11 resources which —

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I didn’t hear Mr Lord say that.

13 I wondered whether he might, because we had, in Paris,

14 quite a lot of evidence with respect to Re-Gata and that

15 kind of thing, but he hasn’t actually said that and, as

16 he hasn’t said it, I have not taken that into account.

17 I am just looking at the balance of money. Maybe I was

18 not listening.

19 MR LORD: My Lord, I’m not giving up those submissions in

20 closing —

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no, no, but I mean on this

22 application you are not throwing it into the balance.

23 MR LORD: — I am not asking your Lordship to adjudicate

24 finances for today’s purpose in relation to money that

25 we discussed in Paris, it’s plain that will be hotly

78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 disputed, so I’m assuming that that is something that 1 that I would urge you to take into account what
2 won’t be easy to resolve and I am alighting upon what 2 proportion of their assets was spent on litigation as
3 seems to be a more than sufficient pot about which one 3 opposed to shoes and holidays. The last substantial
4 doesn’t need to get into the same debate, but I’m not 4 asset was spent on litigation entirely.
5 sort of disavowing the points I will make in closing. 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. That’s the money side, is
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no, I wasn’t suggesting for 6 that fair?
7 a moment. 7 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I think it is.
8 MR STROILOV: All right, then I won’t worry about that. 8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: On the cross-examination, or the
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, I don’t think you need to worry 9 attendance of Mr Popov, you simply — I take it, but
10 about that, it is a much more discrete point. 10 please clarify, that you don’t stop Mr Popov’s evidence,
11 Can we just try and see where we are. You cannot 11 just as you insist on Mr Steadman’s evidence, but you
12 tell me, really, on the basis of enquiry, quite what 12 say that I should step in, is this right, to direct that
13 Mr Steadman would charge you. 13 there be no …
14 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. 14 MR STROILOV: Cross-examination of either.
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s point one. And, after all, his 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — cross-examination of either. But
16 assessment may be affected according to whether it is 16 the reality is that you would not feel able and do not
17 possible he might be asked to come here for nothing. 17 wish, accordingly, to cross-examine Mr Popov.
18 MR STROILOV: Yes. 18 MR STROILOV: Unless I can be guided to how I can do it,
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t mean that brutally too much, 19 I simply don’t see how I can do it. I see no way. It’s
20 but that is a possibility which he may wish to take into 20 really a matter of — a purely practical matter.
21 account. 21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you say, as regards the land
22 Two, that if it is in the region of sort of €40,000, 22 valuation, if I can put it — that that can and should
23 to €60,000, let us say, to give you a good chunk of his 23 be heard on the days and slots we have allotted, and
24 time, to help promote a useful cross-examination of 24 according to my perception after reflection of that, at
25 Mr Popov, that could be, purely in cash terms, funded. 25 that point I should determine whether the business
81 83

1 MR STROILOV: Purely in cash terms.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Purely in cash terms.

3 You say, thirdly, that nevertheless, that would be

4 to ignore or underestimate the costs of future

5 necessities, including the extradition, the costs of

6 survival for his family.

7 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But, again, I am left with rather

9 a global amorphous description of that, not the pounds,

10 shillings and pence of it.

11 MR STROILOV: Yes, I think that’s fair.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And I am bound, although not

13 excessively, but it is a relevant consideration, I am

14 afraid, to remind myself that there have been

15 exaggerations in the past, such as whether

16 Mr Arkhangelsky would have to sleep on the floor when

17 I was deciding between Paris and Nice, and that sort of

18 thing; that is to say there is a slight tendency, which

19 I think is unfortunate, to over-egg the pudding, if you

20 understand the expression.

21 MR STROILOV: I do, my Lord, but I would submit it was quite

22 obviously rhetoric and it wasn’t meant to be a statement

23 of fact. Quite obviously it is not that he —

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, it was a hard fought matter.

25 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Of course, on the other side of

1 valuations should be adjourned, and if you think the

2 perception I have formed is that the Bank have seriously

3 undervalued these assets and that there is a real chance

4 that the asset values would exceed the amount of

5 the indebtedness, that they should pay for the future

6 exercise?

7 MR STROILOV: Well, in fairness, I don’t think real chance

8 is quite good enough; you must be satisfied that there

9 will be an award of damages. I accept that.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. And that will connote,

11 especially on the way you put it just now, me reaching

12 a determination of that without the assessment as to

13 the business values?

14 MR STROILOV: Quite, my Lord. That’s what I envisaged.

15 I did say that this alternative counterclaim, which is

16 much smaller — I think it’s in the — I wouldn’t be

17 able to give you figures immediately. I think on

18 Western Terminal alone, we thought it was $77 million,

19 from memory. There may be a dispute as to the currency

20 in which it is to be calculated, because I think the

21 claimants now insist on it being in roubles.

22 Other than that, assuming we lose the claim and

23 assuming we only succeed on Western Terminal real estate

24 and nothing else, it still leaves $77 million, or if the

25 currency calculation is different, perhaps half of that,

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 but that’s still well enough to pay for Mr Steadman. So 1 MR STROILOV: I don’t have a lot to add to what I’ve …
2 that would be — that’s what we would propose. We 2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You wanted Ms Yatvetsky/Goncharuk
3 simply don’t see a realistic alternative. 3 moved to 15 April, didn’t you?
4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: On your proposals, when would we deal 4 MR STROILOV: Yes, I do think I would prefer that, but
5 with the Russian law experts? 5 I think that’s premised on what your Lordship decides
6 MR STROILOV: Well, depending on everyone’s availability, 6 about Mr Popov and the Russian law experts, because I do
7 I think I would be — let me have a look at the 7 need three days for her with a risk of overspilling to
8 timetable. I would say I need a week, really, to 8 the fourth. So if there are fixed slots for week 12,
9 prepare, and I need Dr Gladyshev to prepare. So ideally 9 then I had better start on the 14th, but that’s tight.
10 I would suggest 2 and 3 May, perhaps, but subject to 10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Now, the truth is, if you don’t want
11 everyone’s availability, and I am prepared to be quite 11 to cross-examine Mr Popov, it’s only if I have questions
12 flexible on that. That would be when I would be 12 which occur to me that he will be engaged.
13 comfortable with it, really, if it is 2 and 3 May. 13 MR STROILOV: You are right, my Lord. Perhaps, and it’s not
14 Otherwise it is going to be working hard and 14 going to be long, we can even interpose Ms Yatvetsky.
15 chaotically, as usual. 15 It’s probably not longer than an hour.
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I can’t remember, I think 2nd is 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Interpose?
17 a vacation. 17 MR STROILOV: Interpose Ms Yatvetsky, or Ms Goncharuk, so
18 MR LORD: It is, it is a Monday bank holiday. 18 that we have Popov for an hour at some point in
19 MR STROILOV: And of course, I am not sure about 19 the middle of her, if that’s necessary.
20 availability for closing submissions again, because that 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think it would be better, if we can,
21 seems to put everything off, but I think your Lordship 21 so keep to the Goncharuk/Yatvetsky on week 11 and 12,
22 knows … 22 and then deal with the other experts.
23 Perhaps the week before, or towards the end of — 28 23 MR STROILOV: Obviously I will have to — it’s just after
24 and 29 March, that’s doable. 24 Mr Millard, and she is the Renord witness now so that is
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sorry? 25 quite important —
85 87
1 MR STROILOV: Well, if Russian law experts on 28 and 29 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sorry?
2 March are preferable from other points of view. 2 MR STROILOV: That will be just after Mr Millard being
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Of April? 3 cross-examined.
4 MR STROILOV: Yes, I beg your pardon. 4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, you get a reading day on the
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think Mr Lord’s trial begins on the 5 13th.
6 25th or thereabouts, 26th. 6 MR STROILOV: Yes, and then just over a day I’ve got
7 MR LORD: My Lord, yes. 7 the Renord witness, so it’s rather tight.
8 MR STROILOV: It’s not — obviously it is just, if I only 8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’ve already acknowledged you want to
9 have, say, two days to prepare for Russian law, and 9 move her to the 15th to give you two days.
10 apart from whatever I manage to do during the Easter 10 MR STROILOV: I think as an estimate, I think three days is
11 break — and I don’t anticipate that to be a lot — it 11 realistic. If it goes badly, there is a risk of
12 is rather tight for me to have Russian law experts in 12 overspilling to the fourth. I think it is very unlikely
13 just two days, well, one day after all the others. 13 that she will go into a fifth, but I will be aiming for
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The Russian experts also deal with the 14 three days.
15 question of reflective loss and all of that, do they? 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. You don’t feel able at the
16 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, yes, they do. 16 present, do you, and it wouldn’t really arise at all
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Who is cross-examining the experts? 17 unless the property valuation comes out in a certain
18 MR BIRT: On Russian law it would be me, from our side. 18 way, suggest that I should make an advance costs order
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Is there anything else? 19 in respect of Mr Steadman’s work?
20 MR STROILOV: No, unless your Lordship has anything on which 20 MR STROILOV: Well, I would … let me put it this way:
21 I could specifically help you, I don’t think so. 21 I definitely accept that you are better placed to do
22 You will have seen what I say about Mr Nazarov’s 22 that after hearing the real estate valuation evidence.
23 disclosure? 23 Obviously that’s — I thought it when we were not even
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I think we will have to come to 24 where we are now, and now the proportionality
25 that. 25 considerations would be different, because obviously
86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 it’s a much smaller sum.

2 Perhaps — I mean, I would understand if you prefer

3 to listen to real estate valuation experts, and then

4 perhaps you don’t have many doubts in your mind.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What I am trying to ascertain is

6 whether you press that now or not.

7 MR STROILOV: Well, I would say I do press that in further

8 alternative to splitting off or limiting

9 cross-examination. I think it is still preferable to

10 the inequality of arms which would result from Mr Popov

11 being treated as a tested expert and Mr Steadman as

12 untested. So that’s my — yes, I would press for that.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right.

14 MR STROILOV: But not as the primary alternative submission

15 on that, in further alternative to.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right, so have we covered it, subject

17 to Mr Nazarov and other housekeeping?

18 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. I think I have said all I have

19 to say.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, Mr Lord.

21 MR LORD: My Lord, just on the question of Mr Steadman,

22 your Lordship will note that we don’t have any figures

23 for Mr Steadman as to how much he would charge.

24 Your Lordship with respect rightly made the observation

25 that in this case where a witness summons was

1 I am afraid, putting not too fine a point on it, because

2 it should be capable of being sorted out. There is

3 money there, and where there is a will, there will be

4 a way. That, I am afraid, is my position on Mr Steadman

5 and Mr Popov.

6 There will be no question of not putting Mr Popov

7 into the timetable, but the issue is really whether the

8 defendants really want to get that expert to court,

9 because with some prompting from the Bench, and with

10 a bit of access to this pot of money, and with some

11 goodwill from Mr Steadman, one would think that money

12 can be found to prepare and help some cross-examination

13 questions and come for a day.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Who would be cross-examining

15 Mr Steadman?

16 MR LORD: I would be. Subject to when it happens, my Lord.

17 I do have other commitments. I’m not going to reveal

18 what those all are, but as things stand, I would

19 cross-examine Mr Steadman, and I do ask that that be

20 plugged in to this timetable; that if he is to come, he

21 should be coming in the current period.

22 Now, my Lord, in terms of whether we can finish the

23 trial by the 22nd, I would submit that we can, the

24 matter of the evidence can be adduced by then. Working

25 backwards, if Mr Steadman is not going to come, then we

89 91

1 a potential mechanism to secure attendance, that might

2 bear upon what would be expected, or charged by

3 an expert.

4 Obviously in the Brown v Bennett case,

5 Mr Justice Neuberger raised what might be the

6 appropriate fee to tender when you are calling

7 an expert —

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He didn’t answer it.

9 MR LORD: No, my Lord, I’m trying to be constructive here,

10 I am trying to suggest how we crack this problem,

11 really, but cutting to the chase, Mr Steadman has asked

12 whether he would act pro bono, it hasn’t been said to

13 him: the judge would really like to hear from you.

14 A lot of money has been spent on your reports and this

15 field of expertise, including out of money that was

16 historically secured in litigation and it would be a big

17 shame if you don’t come to court. Now, Mr Steadman, how

18 much can you do it for? 10, 20, 30, 25, go on. Then

19 nor has it been said whether Dr Arkhangelsky will say:

20 right, I will pay 5, 10, 15, 20, I will. It’s

21 a $700 million counterclaim, I will. Of course his

22 Lordship wants that, that’s a serious thing.

23 So if within what I have just said there isn’t

24 a solution, then the answer is that the defendants don’t

25 really want this field of expertise to be ventilated,

1 clearly can finish the matter in the time available

2 before your Lordship’s next case and before other time

3 is lost which might start to bear down upon closing

4 submissions.

5 The Russian law position hasn’t changed:

6 Mr Gladyshev is working pro bono. These have been

7 issues throughout. So in terms of Mr Gladyshev fettling

8 any points that need to be put to Professor Maggs, that

9 could have been done a long time ago without any work

10 from Mr Stroilov or Dr Arkhangelsky, January

11 and February have come and gone and that could have been

12 done, it could still be done. We are now at March 23,

13 and so we are looking at experts coming roughly a month

14 away, four weeks away.

15 So in truth, this will be expert-driven, I accept

16 that, but that’s as true for Mr Birt as for Mr Stroilov.

17 Mr Gladyshev is going to have to settle down and say to

18 Mr Stroilov: these are the points and the cases that

19 I think you need to tax Professor Maggs about. He

20 doesn’t need to burden Dr Arkhangelsky and Mr Stroilov,

21 he will have a crib sheet in the usual way.

22 So there is no reason to stand over any of the other

23 bit of the timetable to allow preparation for that,

24 still less to put these experts back in the timetable.

25 There is no reason why this can’t all be done. The

90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 Russian law experts, there is no problem with financing

2 at all. So in my respectful submission we should

3 endorse this timetable. We should have Ms Yatvetsky

4 coming on the 14th, try to finish her by —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What do you say about her being

6 deferred one day?

7 MR LORD: Well, my Lord, the fact that it may overspill to

8 a fourth or fifth day is a reason to start her on the

9 14th, as Mr Stroilov, I think, very fairly accepted, or

10 half accepted, and I do repeat the submission that we

11 will have two weeks between the last bit of

12 cross-examination and 4 April. There isn’t the same

13 need to have down-time and recovery periods, because we

14 do need to get this finished, and we are near the

15 finishing tape, and one can always find a bit of extra

16 energy, when one is 50 yards from the end of

17 the marathon, one just finds that energy, particularly

18 when you have a fortnight, a built-in period of rest and

19 respite to be able to prepare.

20 So I would suggest that we have Ms Yatvetsky on the

21 14th in the hope that she is finished by the 18th, and

22 if not, then we still have a day or two to play with and

23 still finish by the 22nd. Now I accept that leaves open

24 the question of is Mr Popov coming and is Mr Steadman

25 coming, I accept that, I don’t know what your Lordship

1 it, he’s saying he would rather have an extra day but he

2 is not saying he can’t start on the 14th. With respect,

3 given the two weeks in between the last witness and

4 Mironova, that really must be right.

5 So we would urge your Lordship to endorse this

6 timetable. It’s not too onerous. There is

7 cross-examination falling on my clients as well. There

8 are reading days and overspill days in each of these

9 weeks as things stand, and we would say that we really

10 do need to try to finish this case by the end of

11 22 April if we possibly can, so we can then move to

12 closings in the way that we have suggested, so this

13 trial can conclude by the end of 20 May.

14 We would say apart from the issue of Mr Steadman’s

15 attendance, this can actually be resolved, and if he

16 were to attend, he can come potentially on the 20th. Of

17 course, cross-examination would fall on me, the burden

18 would be on me to prepare at what would be rather short

19 notice. I would expect to be told in good time if that

20 is happening, but if, in fact, upon reflection, the

21 defendants don’t, in the end, want to find out how much

22 it would cost, encourage Mr Steadman to come and so on.

23 If, in fact, they are not going to bring him at all to

24 court, that just leaves the question of whether Mr Popov

25 is required to come.

93 95

1 is minded to do on that, but on the evidence before this

2 court there is no basis, with respect, to make any

3 unusual order other than to say to Mr Stroilov: do you

4 want to cross-examine Mr Popov, yes or no? If yes,

5 let’s put him down on the 19th. Then the only

6 outstanding question is: are you, despite all that’s

7 gone before, still going to call Mr Steadman, in which

8 case we will have to think where he is going to be

9 accommodated given we had not thought that was going to

10 happen, perhaps until late in the day.

11 But it wouldn’t be a reason to stand this whole

12 timetable out. This timetable could now be kept to,

13 particularly if your Lordship has to go to another case

14 and this court has to go back. With all the

15 paraphernalia with translators and with Magnum and so

16 on, there is a greater reason here to try to reach the

17 finish line by 22 April, and I do stress the point that

18 the Russian law experts, that that preparation can be

19 done with significant input from the expert himself, and

20 that isn’t going to be as burdensome for Mr Stroilov.

21 I am helpfully reminded we only have the translators

22 for Ms Yatvetsky until the 19th, so that is a reason to

23 have her coming on the 14th to make sure that there is

24 no problem with translating any overspill that is

25 actually required. Mr Stroilov isn’t saying he can’t do

1 So there could be a day of valuation on the 19th and

2 one on the 20th and we could still finish, or it may be

3 that 19th and 20th are empty days because neither of

4 those experts come: Mr Popov because he is not required

5 to be cross-examined, Mr Steadman for the reasons that

6 we have gone through.

7 So, my Lord, we do urge your Lordship, after this

8 long running trial, to set a timetable that would allow

9 us to finish by the end of what would be the twelfth

10 week and would allow us then to make closing submissions

11 in the time frame that we have set out. There must be

12 a big public and party interest now in closure.

13 Your Lordship will have heard a lot of evidence by

14 22 April, and we would respectfully submit, probably —

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: On that basis I could draw a halt to

16 most trials after 10 weeks on the basis I have heard

17 a lot.

18 MR LORD: The question, my Lord, is really whether the

19 returns —

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We can’t take a sort of generalist

21 view like that.

22 MR LORD: Well, my Lord, I have gone through things

23 specifically —

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, I understand, you are wrapping up

25 now.

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 I mean, various arguments will have been rehearsed 1 a translation.
2 in the transcript, and they can be drawn together if 2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Really? Because I sought to — his
3 necessary. I think this is, as I have said constantly, 3 expert report wasn’t in …
4 even if rather uselessly, it is a very difficult 4 MR LORD: Well, he can read and write English but the
5 situation. I think one would very much like to set out 5 question is cross-examination, my Lord, I think.
6 a definite timetable with closure on the 22nd. I cannot 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right, it is by no means impossible
7 say at the moment that that is definitely achievable. 7 that Mr Popov and Mr Steadman, if either are required
8 What I think is definitely achievable is that in 8 for cross-examination or examination by the court, will
9 the week commencing 4 April we will have the slots which 9 have to be deferred. I have cauterised that, it will
10 we have agreed for Ms Mironova, with the flexibility of 10 have to deal with that.
11 further time within the day. We will have Ms Simonova 11 MR LORD: There are issues as to planning, my Lord, because
12 next, I think it is, on the 8th; is that right? We will 12 those are not issues that need —
13 have Mr Turetsky and Professor Guriev on the 11th, and 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Over this holiday, against my better
14 we will have Mr Millard on the 12th. 14 wishes, I will go through the expert evidence and I will
15 We will have a reading day, in part to accommodate 15 try and assimilate to see really, the extent to which
16 Mr Lord, but also in part for breathing space with 16 any of this can be separated off. At the moment I don’t
17 respect to Ms Goncharuk. 17 think it can be, but I may be wrong.
18 I would hope that we would be able to start 18 MR LORD: My Lord, I do repeat the submission about the fact
19 Ms Goncharuk, despite the strain, on the 14th. I have 19 that there should be finances available. I do repeat
20 not made a definitive ruling in that, but the fact is 20 that.
21 that we do definitely know that we lose the benefit, 21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s why I was saying that I’m not
22 which is an essential, as I understand it, with 22 going to say when they are going to be cross-examined.
23 Ms Goncharuk, of translation. 23 All I am indicating is all I feel able to do. It is
24 MR LORD: That’s right, my Lord, yes. 24 obviously preferable that they both attend for
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And if Mr Stroilov convinces me he 25 cross-examination, point one.
97 99

1 really can’t start until the 15th, I will deal with that

2 with such equanimity as I can muster at the time, but

3 I do urge him to move along on the footing that we start

4 on the 14th, my aim and object being to ensure that he

5 does have translatable time, if truly he needs four days

6 for Ms Goncharuk.

7 MR LORD: I understand.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am going to cauterise the

9 Popov/Steadman issue. I am going to split that off

10 because I simply do not have the factual wherewithal to

11 determine that fairly. It seems to me that unless, and

12 for whatever reason, they have simply abandoned the

13 prospect, for reasons which will include their own

14 choices, that it would be appropriate for further

15 enquiries to be made of Mr Steadman as to the conditions

16 and fees which would apply if he were to attend for

17 a limited period for his own cross-examination and to

18 assist in the cross-examination of Mr Popov.

19 I am not in a position to stipulate a time, but

20 I have in mind a fixed time for their cross-examination,

21 which will probably increase the burden on the court to

22 try and get the issue straight in its head, but may

23 reduce the expenses to the party.

24 MR LORD: My Lord, my only point in that regard is I think

25 Mr Popov might need a translator. He does need

1 Point two, in the circumstances, and having regard

2 to the pleas of proportionality, and the implicit

3 constructive acceptance which I detect from the

4 claimants, there will be no objection, from their part

5 at any rate, to a limitation on the times for

6 cross-examination to say, indicatively but not

7 determinately, one day. Right?

8 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But I wish to separate them off.

10 Now, I am worried about the Russian law, because

11 Mr Gladyshev is engaged until 22 April, and whilst

12 doable, it appears from what I have been told in

13 the e-mail of Mr Stroilov, dated 23 March, that he will

14 only have very limited time to assist in

15 cross-examination of Professor Maggs, and the burden of

16 Mr Lord’s submission was that it would be all right to

17 have these in double-quick time because Mr Stroilov

18 would, in effect, simply be conveying the thoughts of

19 Mr Gladyshev. That too I will cauterise, and I would

20 like Mr Stroilov to inquire of Mr Gladyshev whether he

21 could assist in the meantime over this vacation in order

22 to get up that cross-examination together. I simply

23 cannot legislate, I am afraid, either for

24 Mr Popov/Steadman, or Maggs/Gladyshev.

25 Returning to Mr Steadman, I would be disposed, if

98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 asked, to approve a witness summons to Mr Steadman to

2 get the show on the road. It’s not my business to

3 require professional people to attend for free, and

4 I wouldn’t wish to think that I was putting a gun to

5 a professional’s head, but it is a relevant factor that

6 if the court does, having been furnished with the

7 evidence, for which I dare say money in some amount,

8 probably quite a lot, was paid, that if it is given

9 a certain assistance, it may feel that it does require

10 the assistance, come what may, and there is some

11 suggestion in Mr Justice Neuberger’s case that the

12 exceptional case may warrant the court simply enforcing

13 and declining to set aside the witness statement.

14 Mr Steadman should be aware of that. I am not, as

15 I say, putting a gun to his head, but it may be

16 a relevant consideration. I think that if a witness

17 summons is to be issued, you should get ahead with it,

18 because it is inevitable that we will have a further

19 argument, for which we will have to get time for, to

20 determine whether it should be set aside. I can’t

21 determine third party rights in the absence of the third

22 party, but by way of assistance, amongst the things

23 which will influence me in all likelihood is whether

24 some basis for their attendance, which is affordable,

25 could be secured. All that tells in favour of not only

1 MR LORD: It seems to me it would be a shame if his

2 attendance which we would like to have — we would like

3 him to come, we think it would nice for your Lordship to

4 have Mr Popov and Mr Steadman, we think it would be

5 a very helpful passage of play in this case, and we are

6 very keen to have this evidence, from both sides, have

7 it tested.

8 So we would suggest, as I’m sure that the claimants

9 and the defendants will, they will —

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That is a salutary point and I am sure

11 it has been taken on board, but I cannot determine now,

12 just for clarity’s sake, Mr Lord, although this will not

13 assist you much, I cannot determine now when we would

14 slot in Mr Popov and Mr Steadman.

15 MR LORD: I accept that, my Lord, but the point I was making

16 was this: that the evidence before the court does not

17 reliably suggest that sufficient steps have been taken

18 to find a middle ground, or to find accommodation of the

19 expert and therefore, I don’t want to get to

20 adversarial positions —

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are quite right in that.

22 Mr Stroilov, you understand that: it would be better not

23 to have to serve a witness statement in circumstances

24 where they are perfectly prepared to agree, but it will

25 not be a — if you can’t — what this means is: get

101 103
1 issuing a witness summons, but also engaging with 1 a move on, try and find an accommodation. If you can’t
2 Mr Steadman to see whether you can reach some mutually 2 find an accommodation, then you must set in motion the
3 acceptable arrangement. 3 mechanics whereby I can decide whether this is or isn’t
4 MR LORD: My Lord, it would be good to grasp that nettle. 4 an exceptional case.
5 I wouldn’t want that left too long after Easter, so that 5 MR LORD: That’s helpful.
6 we could work out — because it may be that Mr Steadman 6 MR STROILOV: My Lord, if I may address you briefly, I’m
7 says, when he hears your Lordship’s words, and I trust 7 just not sure I informed you probably about
8 that this will be passed on so he can see how the land 8 Dr Gladyshev’s position. Well, it is really that from
9 lies, he may say: I will come for nothing, or I will 9 his point of view, any time between now and 22 April is
10 come for £20,000 and it is agreed that that — 10 considerably more difficult than any time afterwards.
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It will be up to him. As I say, I am 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I got that from your e-mail, and I am
12 very anxious to emphasise that it is not the court’s 12 cauterising Popov/Steadman. I don’t know when they will
13 business to put professional people under sort of 13 come on. I am cauterising the Russian experts, I don’t
14 intolerable pressure, but it is the court’s business to 14 know when they will come on. They won’t come on
15 make sure where the jurisdiction of the court lies and 15 immediately, you know, on 25th or whatever it is
16 that in an exceptional case it may exercise it. 16 of April, because some other litigant is expecting my
17 MR LORD: When would your Lordship have in mind? 17 attendance.
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that this witness summons 18 The one comfort I have is that Mr Birt is dealing
19 should be issued as soon as — I mean, Tuesday, or 19 with their cross-examination, so it will not prevent
20 whatever it is. If not tomorrow, then Tuesday in order 20 Mr Lord doing his stuff in other contexts.
21 to give them as much time as possible. 21 MR STROILOV: I see, my Lord.
22 MR LORD: Presumably, in fairness to Mr Steadman, he could 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And it means this will almost
23 be contacted and asked whether there is something that 23 certainly have an impact on closing submissions, but we
24 can be done. 24 can’t tell what impact.
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Of course, yes. 25 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. I see, thank you.
102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And I want you to think very hard,

2 because once we get to determine when the closing

3 submissions are going to be, I am not going to hear

4 argument for changing them. You have to say what you

5 need and they then have to be slotted in, and the four

6 or five days will then be adhered to. No further time

7 will be allocated. It will happen on that date and we

8 will finish then, because by then we will be at some

9 time in May or even June — I am away for a little bit

10 of June, two days in June — time will be really

11 creeping on and we will have to …

12 MR LORD: My Lord —

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You must search your capabilities as

14 to how long you need, really, proportionately, for these

15 written submissions.

16 MR LORD: My Lord, I would just flag up, if we could deal

17 with that timing point at the end of the evidence,

18 perhaps, or after Easter. Your Lordship knows my

19 position, so I don’t want to say any more about it,

20 really.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are exposed as to Mr Popov and

22 Mr Steadman who were to be under your view.

23 MR LORD: I am grateful for the Russian law because it is

24 right that Mr Birt has very kindly taken over.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If it has to be deferred I will seek

1 timetable, I am not suggesting it will be in

2 a timetable, but the cauterisation doesn’t mean that it

3 has to be excluded from all account; it has to be kept

4 under review.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, it means I am making no promises

6 one way or the other. If you want my bet, I do not

7 think that the Russians will be done on the 21st and

8 22nd, and if you want my bet, I think Mr Popov and

9 Mr Steadman will either fall away or have to be

10 deferred. It’s not impossible that Mr Stroilov will

11 urge me, after hearing the property matter, once more to

12 defer that. It’s not impossible that I accept that.

13 Equally, it is not impossible that I simply say: no, I’m

14 not going to do that. Equally, I’m not going to hear

15 much from Mr Popov except on the following questions,

16 you, Mr Stroilov, having indicated to me that you won’t

17 cross-examine.

18 MR LORD: I understand.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are quite right: it isn’t

20 impossible one way or the other.

21 MR LORD: My Lord, there are a number of extra points from

22 Mr Birt.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, you have some housekeeping.

24 Mr Nazarov’s documents we also have to deal with.

25 MR LORD: My Lord, there is one tiny little point before

105 107
1 to find some slot which either gives time for Mr Birt to 1 I sit down, not forever, certainly, probably for today.
2 take over the mantle, or which enables you, if in your 2 One little point. Your Lordship has asked occasionally
3 case there is any give — I understand you may be 3 about the policy on reserves.
4 engaged until the end of the summer term. 4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
5 MR LORD: I am my Lord, so I will just have to take stock, 5 MR LORD: And I realised after we broke the other day,
6 if I may, and then see how the land lies. 6 having looked at these base prospectuses, or prospecti,
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So, I am sorry not to be able to give 7 that actually they contain some text and some narrative
8 a definitive answer but I just don’t think the evidence 8 on the central banks on the reserve point.
9 allows it, but we are now fixed with these slots after 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: This was the 21 per cent in the first
10 Easter for the first two weeks after Easter. 10 year?
11 MR LORD: My Lord, can I just raise one point? That means 11 MR LORD: It was my Lord. Just for your Lordship’s note,
12 that your Lordship is not ruling out hearing at least 12 I am not suggesting any re-treading of the witness
13 some — potentially hearing some expert evidence, on 19, 13 evidence, but if I could just — I know it is a matter
14 20, 21, 22 April. 14 that your Lordship has raised a few times and I didn’t
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have a feeling — 15 want your Lordship not to be aware — if I could just
16 MR LORD: — subject to what progress we might have made in 16 say in the 2013 base prospectus, which is in the hard
17 the early part of — it may be that we can’t make any 17 copies, {D212-D213/3066/233}, you have the rates, and
18 progress. It may be that we just have to hear 18 similar wording is set out in the 2007 prospectus, which
19 an argument to set aside a witness summons. I am not 19 is also in the hard copy files {D211/3064.2/148}, and in
20 prejudging it, but all I am flagging up for 20 the 2008 prospectus at {D212-D213/3065/241}.
21 your Lordship here, because I know I will be taxed about 21 I won’t make any submissions. Your Lordship will
22 this, that if Ms Yatvetsky finishes on the Monday, let 22 see what they say about different categories of risk and
23 us say, the 18th, I will be asked: did you try to use, 23 the reserving that is to be applied for those
24 in this expensive procedure, take advantage of 19, 20, 24 categories. I perhaps should have taken it to
25 21, 22, that’s all. So I would like to keep on the 25 Mr Savelyev, but in those prospectuses, your Lordship
106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 knows how they were put together, there is some 1 have served by then the responsive amendments, my Lord.
2 description of the reserve rules. 2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Has Mr Stroilov seen this?
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Just a couple of homeworks. At some 3 MR BIRT: I am afraid he hasn’t. I only typed it up shortly
4 point, if I haven’t already got it, a key for the 4 before court today.
5 Russian-English name equivalents on the various 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The only live issue is the date at 2,
6 companies we looked at would be helpful, ie asset 6 which is 22 April for this.
7 management, et cetera, because I sometimes in a flurry 7 MR STROILOV: Well, I would prefer it to be slightly later,
8 get confused. 8 considering this is a purely cosmetic issue.
9 It is right, is it, that the requests for further 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What does «slightly later» mean?
10 information with respect to those companies, they were 10 MR STROILOV: Well, a week later will be easier because then
11 addressed to both claimants, was answered only by the 11 it will be — so say by 29 April.
12 Bank? 12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right, 29th.
13 MR LORD: I would have to check on that, my Lord. 13 MR STROILOV: Obviously it’s a purely cosmetic work, it’s
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will ask you at some point why that 14 nothing personal.
15 was. 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 29th, done.
16 The photographs of the continuing witnesses is 16 Do you want us to perfect the order?
17 helpful to me. I’m very grateful for the first page, 17 MR STROILOV: If Mr Trout doesn’t mind taking the burden.
18 but thereafter I would like to keep the gallery 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Will you send an e-mail version so all
19 complete. 19 he has to do is …
20 MR LORD: My Lord, there are just one or two little points. 20 MR BIRT: My Lord, I will do that today after court.
21 I don’t wish to detract from Mr Birt’s locus. 21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.
22 MR BIRT: Mr Birt’s little points is a feature of 4.30 in 22 MR BIRT: Mr Nazarov’s documents, my Lord.
23 these proceedings. Sorry about that. 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mm.
24 We just flagged them in RPC’s e-mail of yesterday, 24 MR BIRT: My Lord will probably recall how this arose, and
25 my Lord. Most of them are quite short. The first one 25 during Mr Nazarov’s evidence there was a letter from RPC
109 111
1 is the pleading, and, my Lord, the last time we 1 on 9 March summarising the position. Nothing was heard
2 addressed this, I think on Day 27, it was simply 2 in relation to that, I think, until today. Last time we
3 a question of filling the dates in. I have revised the 3 were in court, on Day 27 my Lord urged Mr Stroilov to
4 order accordingly, if I could hand that up to my Lord. 4 turn his mind to it and say what was happening in
5 (Handed) 5 relation to them.
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. So when is that due? 6 We now have the news that he has already been given
7 MR BIRT: This is in the same form as the last time my Lord 7 700 electronic files, which Mr Nazarov passed over when
8 saw this draft, subject to the fact that under 8 he visited London to give evidence. I think we were
9 paragraph 1 I have inserted a date for the time by which 9 previously told that Mr Nazarov had turned up with some
10 the strikeout and underlined version will be served. 10 further documents. I think the fact that it is 700
11 I have put in there 22 April. What my Lord said on the 11 electronic files is new information today, and that’s in
12 last occasion we debated it, was at the latest by the 12 addition, as we understand this e-mail, to two to three
13 time we break for the written closings. So that was 13 boxes of hard copy documents which Mr Nazarov holds in
14 before we came to court today, the date I had in mind 14 Russia.
15 for breaking for the written closings, but I suggest it 15 As we understand it, although the defendants were
16 is still a suitable date, and it is a good month away 16 urged at the conclusion of Mr Nazarov’s evidence to work
17 from here. 17 out what it would take to review them and when that
18 I changed around subparagraphs 1 and 2, simply 18 could be done, we are still in the same position,
19 because they made more chronological sense to do it in 19 my Lord.
20 that order now that we have had that, and I changed the 20 Mr Stroilov makes the point that Mr Nazarov gave
21 date in what is now paragraph 1 to 7 March, because 21 evidence that he sent some of the documents to
22 that’s the date when Dr Arkhangelsky and 22 Mr Arkhangelsky in relation to the criminal proceedings
23 Mrs Arkhangelskaya signed the statement of truth and 23 as he went along, and that is true that was Mr Nazarov’s
24 served it on us, and the date in paragraph 2 is 24 evidence, but he also confirmed that he hadn’t done any
25 30 March, which is, I think, Wednesday, when we will 25 sort of exercise that might be a review of the documents
110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 for the purpose of these proceedings; and during his

2 evidence in answer to your Lordship’s questions, he just

3 said: I couldn’t possibly do that exercise, I don’t know

4 what documents would be material to these proceedings.

5 I just don’t know enough about the issues in this case.

6 Mr Stroilov makes the point that documents have been

7 disclosed from the Mr Nazarov source, and he points to

8 what was reference 56 in the defendants’ original

9 disclosure, and that is a fair point insofar as it goes.

10 Those were all, as far as we are aware, documents

11 relating to the criminal proceedings in Russia, not

12 relating to any of the other proceedings Mr Nazarov had

13 been involved in. My Lord may remember he gave evidence

14 that he had been involved in some civil proceedings for

15 the Arkhangelskys as well.

16 And also, looking back at that disclosure list

17 today, it appears that there were 41 documents under

18 that disclosure reference. So that was 41 documents for

19 Mr Nazarov. So that is something of a contrast to what

20 are now said to be 700 electronic files which Mr Nazarov

21 has passed to Mr Stroilov, as well as the boxes.

22 We don’t know, of course, on what basis those

23 documents, the 41 that have been disclosed, were

24 selected by Mr Nazarov. He appears to have selected

25 those to pass to Mr Arkhangelsky during the course of

1 order and, I think it now turns out, these 700 other

2 documents.

3 So where are we? Well, we appreciate, as

4 Mr Stroilov says, there are a large number of documents

5 and a full review would be extremely time-consuming, and

6 we appreciate we have moved on in this trial a certain

7 distance. However, it does not appear to us it would be

8 appropriate simply to throw one’s hands up and say: it’s

9 too many, we just can’t do anything.

10 What we would welcome is some sort of proposal that

11 some of these documents, at least, be reviewed to some

12 extent by Mr Stroilov and/or Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky,

13 who ought to be capable of assisting in this exercise,

14 and at least making a proposal as to what could be done,

15 what might be proportionate, and how we could best deal

16 with this.

17 Really, we await a proposal, because it does not

18 appear to us that simply saying: it’s too much, we can’t

19 do it, is sufficient, when there is no indication as to

20 what is in these documents at all. If there was

21 a sampling exercise done, for example, which showed that

22 none of them were relevant, one could then take a view.

23 If the sampling exercise showed that some were very

24 relevant, one might take a different view. But just

25 ignoring the problem, we say, is not appropriate.

113 115

1 a number of years of representing him in the criminal

2 proceedings, no doubt those that were expedient to pass

3 to him for those purposes and not at all with a view to

4 disclosure in these proceedings.

5 So where we are, my Lord, there are, it appears,

6 a large number of documents which have not been reviewed

7 for disclosure in these proceedings but which are within

8 the defendants’ control. Certainly the 700 files which

9 have been passed to Mr Stroilov, must now be within

10 their control. Mr Nazarov has passed them over, as far

11 as we understand it, for this purpose. The other two or

12 three boxes, it appeared from his evidence that they

13 probably were, subject to any review, there may or may

14 not be privileged materials in there, we don’t know.

15 On the 700 electronic files, it appears that one can

16 infer, at least, that Mr Nazarov likely thought they

17 might be relevant to these proceedings, otherwise, one

18 asks rhetorically, what’s he doing giving them to

19 Mr Stroilov when he comes over to give evidence?

20 My Lord will remember there was a history to

21 Mr Nazarov and his documents that originated from an

22 order your Lordship made in the autumn, the September

23 and October order, and he didn’t respond for many

24 a week, and then on the eve of his giving evidence he

25 turned up with some documents within your Lordship’s

1 So we would invite a proposal and that, then, can be

2 considered in terms of what can be fitted in and what

3 can be sensibly done, my Lord. Unless there is anything

4 else I can add to that, I will wait to hear a proposal.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, Mr Stroilov?

6 MR STROILOV: Well, I can hardly see really any middle way

7 between either reviewing it all, and that is really

8 a burden on me because there are rather complex issues

9 of privilege under Russian law. Simply I wouldn’t

10 expect Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky to be quite able to deal

11 with it, and that’s obviously huge work.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are the files sort of — is there any

13 short description of what they contain, or did he simply

14 fling 700 files your way?

15 MR STROILOV: Without waiving privilege, what happened was

16 Mr Nazarov said: I’m here, I’ve got the folder called

17 Arkhangelsky, which I have retrieved out of some

18 technical difficulties, as I was searching for this

19 specific disclosure, and here it is, let’s have a quick

20 look. We have a quick look and I say: well, gosh, there

21 must be plenty of disclosable documents there. Let me

22 have a copy, and here we are.

23 So it all comes from the criminal cases, really.

24 Well, my understanding is.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The criminal cases in Russia?

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 MR STROILOV: The criminal cases in Russia against 1 could provide as to areas in which these documents might
2 Mr Arkhangelsky. That would include, I could spot some 2 excite you?
3 documents which are, on a proper view of things 3 MR BIRT: If that’s a question to us, my Lord, I mean, the
4 disclosable. I think the reason, really, the way my 4 difficulty, I suppose, from our point of view, is we
5 mind was working, I actually saw those documents in 5 don’t know what’s in the archive at all. Mr Stroilov
6 the claimants’ disclosure, and at that time I thought 6 says from his initial flick they look like documents to
7 I didn’t — we didn’t have them, on our side, and then 7 do with the criminal proceedings. As I said, Mr Nazarov
8 I suddenly see them in the files of Mr Nazarov, and 8 said he also appeared or represented them in civil
9 I say: well, we should have disclosed that. 9 proceedings, and we don’t really know. I mean, my Lord
10 So that is that. I wouldn’t expect anything really 10 will remember he gave evidence in his witness statement
11 sensational to be there and anything, really, of 11 about certain meetings he attended. He said he didn’t
12 substantive information. Simply because, well, as 12 keep handwritten notes, but there was a suggestion that
13 Mr Nazarov explained to you, he would be sending 13 he would have reported back to Mr Arkhangelsky, although
14 anything really important, he would be sending it to 14 sadly the e-mails, he had moved computers or e-mail
15 Mr Arkhangelsky, and that would be disclosed, otherwise 15 server or something.
16 there would be a lot of procedural correspondence as you 16 For all we know, there may be copies of those
17 have in litigation — 17 e-mails in this archive and those would actually be
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think the point taken is really 18 e-mails which fall within your Lordship’s specific
19 important by reference to what really important to 19 disclosure orders, in a sense they probably should be
20 the defence for the criminal proceedings, or potentially 20 searched for, at least in some sort of proportionate
21 relevant in these. It may be a different perspective, 21 way, my Lord.
22 is the problem. It is a very difficult problem. 22 In a sense, we are not sure what they might be
23 I mean, it sounds to me as if you would be able, 23 there, and I don’t know how helpful us handing over
24 perhaps, to speed-flick through these documents to see 24 a sort of list of — it would be bound to be categorised
25 whether there are any which immediately catch your eye 25 as oppressive, I suspect, on the other side. It would
117 119
1 as being relevant. 1 have to be long because we don’t know what there might
2 MR STROILOV: Mm hmm. 2 be in there.
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And, if they do, look into those and 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, for the same reasons, it is very
4 disclose them, subject to privilege and that kind of 4 difficult for me to identify any real means.
5 thing. 5 Mr Stroilov, I realise how much you must be looking
6 Mr Nazarov, his evidence was a little bit equivocal 6 forward to the break, as I dare say everybody is, but
7 on this. Does he continue to act for the Arkhangelskys? 7 for you it is particularly understandable, but you do,
8 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, all I have is memories of what 8 at least, I think, have to, together with Mr and
9 he has said, and you can look just as well in 9 Mrs Arkhangelsky, turn your mind to some proposal, don’t
10 the transcript. As I understand it, he is formally 10 you, as to how to deal with this?
11 instructed. 11 I don’t think we can — they have emerged, I think
12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s what I understood. It’s simply 12 you yourself wanted to consider Mr Nazarov’s evidence,
13 that if he were furnished with some sort of list, might 13 and there was even a suggestion of him possibly having
14 he be able to assist in this, or does that mean that … 14 to return, so it’s not a closed book. I don’t think we
15 MR STROILOV: A list of things he … 15 can simply put a sticker mark «too difficult» on them.
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Of issues. I suppose, the trouble is 16 I think we have to try and find some way through, if
17 once you get them back to him, he is not going to — 17 necessary, as Mr Birt suggests, by a sort of sample —
18 I don’t think that’s going to be practical. It’s taken 18 look through, see whether there are any obvious
19 a long time to get them. 19 interests, then sample and see whether it looks to you
20 MR STROILOV: It is difficult to make him work, I think your 20 as though there are going to be relevant documents or if
21 Lordship has gathered. 21 not.
22 MR LORD: Don’t send them back there, my Lord, we will never 22 MR STROILOV: Yes, the trouble is, really — well, I can do
23 see them again. 23 that, but I have to be trusted a lot to, really, have
24 Keep a copy, Mr Stroilov. 24 a —
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is there any list that the claimants 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, we do trust you a lot.
118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 MR STROILOV: Obviously I don’t want to — if later I’m 1 MR STROILOV: I’m not sure what format, but they are not
2 told: oh, that looks interesting and you must do 2 searchable, they are not text files.
3 a proper disclosure, that simply means I am doing the 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, so PDF or whatever is not
4 same work twice, essentially, or one and a half times, 4 searchable.
5 and that’s not really … 5 MR STROILOV: So the protocol issue has been resolved in the
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, if you have — I think Mr Birt 6 meantime. Shall I hand it up?
7 is saying they can’t realistically expect every document 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, please. (Handed).
8 to be looked at as it should have been. 8 What else was there?
9 MR STROILOV: Yes. 9 MR BIRT: My Lord, the next item on my little list was the
10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They are looking to test, through you, 10 documents handed up by Mr Arkhangelsky.
11 whether this is likely to yield at least some relevant 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Hold on one moment.
12 documents which might lead on to others, once they 12 MR BIRT: Sorry, my Lord, I apologise. (Pause).
13 receive them. 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, sorry.
14 I think that we are in the business, as Mr Birt very 14 MR BIRT: My Lord, it was the documents handed up by
15 fairly put it, of you having to scratch your head with 15 Mr Arkhangelsky at the end of his oral evidence.
16 Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky to see what you can propose, but 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Ah, yes, the videos and everything.
17 I don’t think I can sanction what I took rather to be 17 MR BIRT: The pictures, the videos and there were some other
18 the invitation to me to say: well, 700, my goodness me, 18 hard copy documents.
19 that’s too difficult, wrap them all up, put them in 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We have Mr Arkhangelsky here.
20 a paper bag and never think about them again. I don’t 20 Mr Arkhangelsky, the videos that we saw in Paris and
21 think we can do that. 21 the further documents and pictures, you indicated then
22 MR STROILOV: Well, I can send some samples to RPC and then 22 that you felt that they had been disclosed and that you
23 they will — 23 would, by the next Monday, indicate to the other side
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Have you signed your, talking of 24 where. That hasn’t really advanced. What’s the
25 the — 25 position now?
121 123
1 MR STROILOV: I am afraid not. As I said, if there is 1 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Yes, your Lordship, actually I told to
2 a copy anywhere near. 2 Mr Stroilov, but I can repeat, that when we were doing
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you could do that, please. 3 disclosure, I have provided all the documents to
4 MR STROILOV: I am sorry, my Lord. 4 Withers, so I am trying to reach Withers to get their
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You have read it, have you? I don’t 5 assistance in finding out the numbers and everything, so
6 wish to witness this, necessarily, just if you could 6 on Monday I managed to speak to Mr Christopher Coffin
7 sign it in due course. 7 and he told me that the person who was taking care about
8 Were there any other matters? 8 disclosure had been ill for quite a while, but he
9 MR BIRT: My Lord, on Mr Nazarov, we will wait to hear the 9 promised to help me to solve this issue.
10 proposal. Other things do occur to me, but it is really 10 So I assume they would finalise it in a few days, so
11 for Mr Stroilov to determine, but I don’t know how these 11 I hope that by the end of Easter, they would tell me
12 are held in terms of their electronic format. It may be 12 everything and I hope that the next hearing — let’s say
13 that it is quite easy to run a word search over them for 13 before the next hearing I think I would be able to get
14 all I know by reference to the words 14 all the information out of them and probably we will
15 «Bank of St Petersburg» or «guarantee» or something like 15 send it in writing by the end of the Easter holidays.
16 that. 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sorry to cut across you,
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think you have a little bit more 17 Mr Stroilov, I didn’t realise.
18 time, I don’t underestimate how much time, but you might 18 MR STROILOV: I think Mr Arkhangelsky has summarised the
19 be able to think of sort of word checks or something 19 position. I don’t think I have a lot to add.
20 like that. 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What do you say about that?
21 MR STROILOV: I am afraid they are all graphics, that’s the 21 MR BIRT: We are glad that something is now being done about
22 difficulty. 22 it my Lord. We look forward to hearing the results. It
23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They are what? 23 happened on 24 February, so it is a month ago, we have
24 MR STROILOV: They are all graphic files. 24 chased in writing but there we go, let’s not look back,
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Oh, paper files, you mean. 25 but look forwards. Can I just say my Lord —sorry, my
122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 Lord —

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, sorry, on you go.

3 MR BIRT: — that I think I mentioned in court before that

4 RPC have done a check and it did not appear to them that

5 all of that material had previously been disclosed, and

6 so insofar as it has not previously been disclosed, we

7 would expect that the written explanation would include

8 an explanation as to why it had not been disclosed

9 earlier, and an identification of its source, if it has

10 come from a new source and, if so, whether that source

11 has been subject to a search.

12 If the explanation is it was all identified and sent

13 to Withers and Withers made a decision on relevance that

14 excluded it, that may explain some of it, but that would

15 have to be part of the explanation, it seems to us, just

16 to tie the threads together.

17 There was one postscript to this which was raised in

18 an RPC e-mail — two RPC e-mails, I think, at least

19 a couple of weeks ago, which was that the USB stick that

20 Mr Arkhangelsky produced in Paris and that was handed up

21 to the Magnum operator, and on which was included all

22 the documents and pictures and so on that he referred to

23 at the end of his evidence, that included, as we

24 understand it, a number of other documents that he did

25 not expressly refer to in court, but they were uploaded

1 MR STROILOV: I think it is, my Lord, yes.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Arkhangelsky, what’s the position?

3 The stick you provided contained information which we

4 didn’t look at in Paris. Was that intentional or not

5 intentional?

6 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Yes, yes, yes, it was intentional, and my

7 personal feeling that — and I assumed that everything

8 has been disclosed, so I disagree with what’s been told

9 by RPC or (inaudible), that I think that everything been

10 disclosed. I assume that actually — to some documents

11 Mr Lord was referring to, so just — you see I am not

12 a specialist on how it was done by Withers, so I just

13 need their advice and you should understand that as long

14 as I am not paying them, they are a bit slow, but I got

15 a promise from Mr Coffin that he would personally take

16 care, so I don’t worry about that any more.

17 So just I suggest that instead of just wasting time

18 on this, just all the documents I assume being disclosed

19 before, so just subject to some clarification from

20 Withers where and how to find them, and I am not really

21 able to help with this as long as I am not — I have not

22 been personally involved in the details of this

23 disclosure by Withers.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s my fault. There are two issues:

25 one is whether, and if so, where, the documents that we

125 127

1 to Magnum and copies are there. We wrote saying: We

2 assume you did mean to disclose these, please tell us

3 immediately if you did not. We never received

4 a response to that so we have been proceeding on the

5 basis that there is no problem with us looking at those

6 other documents, that he, if you like, equivalent to

7 producing in a file and handing over but not drawing

8 attention to.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Have you seen them, read them, done

10 whatever …?

11 MR BIRT: We haven’t done yet, my Lord, out of an abundance

12 of caution for getting a positive clarification. We

13 just want to know now what the position is.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You had better let them know urgently

15 whether they were intentionally or unintentionally made

16 available and whether they were disclosed earlier or

17 not.

18 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes, and in a sense we would appreciate

19 clarification now, given that the Easter vacation is now

20 coming up and if we don’t get it today, we might not get

21 it for another fortnight and then we know what we can

22 do, whether we can look at these or not, they may

23 inform —

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is this something I should ask

25 Mr Arkhangelsky about, Mr Stroilov?

1 did look at in Paris were earlier disclosed. That’s one

2 issue, and you have explained that you asked Mr Coffin

3 and you hope that he will provide the answer, either via

4 the person who has unfortunately been ill or in some

5 other way over the course of Easter; but there is

6 a second issue, rather separate issue, which is the

7 electronic stick you provided, which included the

8 documents we have just spoken about also included some

9 other documents or videos or films which we did not see

10 in Paris.

11 The questions are, first, did you intend to disclose

12 those, and the reason why I ask that is because RPC have

13 refrained from looking at them in case it was your

14 error. The second is, if it was your intention and they

15 are relevant, are those documents which were also

16 disclosed, and in which case, where, and you need to,

17 accordingly, tell Mr Coffin that those documents also

18 need to be explained.

19 Do you see, it is a slightly different point?

20 MR ARKHANGELSKY: I think we actually went through all the

21 documents. We simply have not been discussing some of

22 them because they already been discussed in the court

23 the same day or something like that. So don’t worry,

24 and so I cannot see — I don’t actually accept that any

25 important documents haven’t been discussed, so …

126 128
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right, well, not any error.

2 MR ARKHANGELSKY: So give me a bit of more time.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s not an error and, therefore, RPC

4 can —

5 MR ARKHANGELSKY: No.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s not an error; you agree?

7 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Yes, I agree.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So they can look at them? That’s all

9 right, is it?

10 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Yes, yes. Yes.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

12 MR BIRT: My Lord, I am grateful.

13 Just some very short points, only two more short

14 points, my Lord. One is referred to as a translation

15 error. If I could just ask to turn up {I26/41/2}, this

16 is an e-mail sent to my Lord’s clerk last week and

17 copied to the defendants and Mr Stroilov at the end of

18 the day in question.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I remember looking at these.

20 Mr Stroilov, have you had a look at these? It seems to

21 me that if that’s what the transcript said, then that’s

22 what the transcript said. I wouldn’t be able to swear

23 otherwise. I have no idea.

24 MR STROILOV: Quite my Lord. I am a bit concerned that from

25 my recollection I then, in my questions, I would refer

1 thing, that’s the latest with the underlining, I think.

2 MR BIRT: I think the one with the underlining is on Magnum

3 somewhere, {I25/40/63} and I asked for it to be typed up

4 in clean in the event there weren’t any problems, and

5 my Lord could sign it in court.

6 MR STROILOV: I don’t really see any difficulty with that,

7 my Lord. It’s a matter for you.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. I’ve signed it.

9 MR STROILOV: If I could raise one more micro point —

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that your lot, Mr Birt?

11 MR BIRT: My Lord, it is, thank you very much.

12 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I think I mentioned to — I asked

13 Mr Lord on Monday whether they’ve reached any position

14 on Mr Bromley-Martin and whether they want him back,

15 because he has been in London this week and he is

16 asking: am I needed, can I be released if I am not

17 needed.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, remind me, he might have been

19 needed because?

20 MR STROILOV: Because he handed up some documents as part of

21 his evidence —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s right, yes.

23 MR STROILOV: — and there was a question as to whether

24 Mr Lord might want to cross-examine him. I don’t know

25 if anything has been decided but he wasn’t formally

129 131

1 to dealership office and that would look as if it was

2 an unfair question, but I don’t think it is an important

3 point, is it? Obviously it has to be corrected to what

4 the witness actually said.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Did you mean when asking

6 questions «securities dealing operations»?

7 MR STROILOV: Well, your Lordship will recall that I was

8 actually only interested in the fact that there was

9 an office and there was one of the departments.

10 I didn’t really —

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It didn’t matter to you. There was

12 a presence.

13 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Quite so.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right, well I approve those. Then

15 there was the Russian feed.

16 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes, that’s the last thing. I think

17 simply where we are, we are in exactly the same position

18 as we were last time before my Lord. We wait for the

19 defendants to confirm that they have not got a problem

20 with it. Somewhere I have a clean version if my Lord

21 just wants to sign it.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you content with that,

23 Mr Stroilov?

24 MR STROILOV: Yes, I do think I am, my Lord.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you want to see it? That’s the

1 released and he seems to be concerned about it, as some

2 people might not be, but he says: well, am I going to be

3 released or should I consider myself still …

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What is the position?

5 MR LORD: My Lord, can I take final instructions and confirm

6 it in writing in the next working day or two. I need to

7 take final instruction. I doubt he will have to come

8 back but I had better…

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I shall take it that unless advised to

10 the contrary on good ground by the end of business

11 tomorrow that he is from that time released; is that all

12 right?

13 MR LORD: It is.

14 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I’m grateful.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Have we got to the end?

16 MR LORD: For today.

17 MR STROILOV: I think we have, yes.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, whoever suggested 1.30 obviously

19 had a better crystal ball.

20 All right, we will meet again on 4 April. I hope

21 you have a very good holiday. Thanks for your help.

22 MR LORD: My Lord, there is just the question of what time

23 we are starting on that?

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I am in your hands.

25 MR LORD: Probably in Mr Stroilov’s hands.

130 132
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 23, 2016 Day 31

1 MR STROILOV: Simply because, well, for a change, and not

2 having it always at 9.30, I would suggest we start at

3 10.30 am and see how it goes. I might be asking for

4 early sittings in further days, if I see it goes badly

5 with Ms Mironova.

6 MR LORD: My Lord, could we start at 10.00 am. The way

7 things have gone —

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How are you placed, Mr Stroilov? Were

9 you suggesting 10.30 am because of travel difficulties,

10 or what was the reason?

11 MR STROILOV: No, it’s just a question of —

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Tradition?

13 MR STROILOV: I remember your Lordship indicating that

14 default position would be 10.30.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Nostalgia. Nostalgic looking back at

16 the days when we used to start at 10.30. Well, no, that

17 is kind of you but we will, in case we can have

18 subsequent days on the 10.30, postpone nostalgia and see

19 how we go. 10.00 am. Have a very good break.

20 (5.07 pm)

21 (The court adjourned until 10.00 am on Monday, 4 April 2016)

22

23

24

25

133
1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 Housekeeping …………………………………..1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

134
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

135

March 23, 2016 Day 31

A

abandoned (1) 98:12 able (16) 68:8 74:18 83:16 84:17 88:15 93:19 97:18 99:23

106:7 116:10 117:23 118:14 122:19 124:13 127:21 129:22 absence (1) 101:21 absolute (2) 63:8,11 absolutely (2) 21:11

72:25

abundance (1) 126:11 accept (20) 16:14

17:11 19:11,15 20:17 24:4 25:5 28:13,16 38:11 68:19 70:24 84:9 88:21 92:15 93:23 93:25 103:15 107:12 128:24

acceptable (2) 73:2 102:3

acceptance (1) 100:3 accepted (4) 2:3 33:18

93:9,10

access (2) 56:13 91:10 accommodate (1)

97:15 accommodated (1)

94:9 accommodation (3)

103:18 104:1,2 account (16) 20:11 23:25 37:1 51:10

52:20 58:3,11 69:5 69:17 73:9 77:1,20 80:16 81:21 83:1 107:3

accountant (2) 59:13 72:7

accountants (2) 71:24 72:5

accuracy (1) 27:17 accurate (1) 71:23 achievable (2) 97:7,8 achieve (2) 63:5 74:10 achieved (1) 65:6 Achilles (1) 74:1 acknowledged (1)

88:8

act (5) 68:21,24 71:16 90:12 118:7

actual (3) 3:25 49:4 71:6

add (4) 30:2 87:1 116:4 124:19

added (2) 22:10 24:3 addition (2) 21:18

112:12 additional (2) 35:16

37:5

address (7) 15:6 26:24 60:21 65:21 67:9 67:25 104:6

addressed (6) 12:4,6 20:2 48:17 109:11 110:2

adduced (4) 34:9 54:20 58:15 91:24

adduction (1) 60:4 adequately (3) 22:24

31:18 32:21 adhered (1) 105:6 adjourned (2) 84:1

133:21 adjudicate (2) 52:4

80:23 109:11 Arkhangelskaya (7)
adjudication (3) 51:9 anterior (2) 13:14 26:5 36:15 38:17
55:1,9 55:22 39:12 42:20 59:23
adjunct (1) 54:18 anticipate (1) 86:11 110:23
admissions (1) 2:14 anticipated (1) 6:18 Arkhangelsky (44)
adopted (1) 26:16 anxieties (1) 5:22 10:14 12:8 17:9
advance (1) 88:18 anxious (2) 33:3 28:14 29:12,14,19
advanced (2) 51:1 102:12 43:11 63:2 67:8,25
123:24 anybody (1) 9:20 69:9 70:4 77:9
advantage (2) 63:7 anyway (4) 2:17 14:18 82:16 90:19 92:10
106:24 66:20 79:17 92:20 110:22
adventitiously (1) apart (2) 86:10 95:14 112:22 113:25
29:13 apologise (3) 68:8 115:12 116:10,17
adversarial (1) 103:20 80:8 123:12 117:2,15 119:13
adverts (1) 18:8 apparent (1) 31:6 120:9 121:16
advice (1) 127:13 appear (3) 115:7,18 123:10,15,19,20
advised (1) 132:9 125:4 124:1,18 125:20
affidavit (2) 38:17 appeared (6) 49:1,2,8 126:25 127:2,6
42:1 49:11 114:12 119:8 128:20 129:2,5,7
afford (6) 25:17 36:5 appears (12) 19:20 129:10
38:3 59:25 70:21 20:19 43:23 54:7 Arkhangelsky’s (1)
71:17 58:4 59:22 74:16 28:17
affordable (1) 101:24 100:12 113:17,24 Arkhangelskys (3)
afraid (14) 15:4 33:12 114:5,15 42:14 113:15 118:7
63:16 68:12 71:12 application (3) 27:6 arms (3) 35:21 61:14
73:18 79:6 82:14 43:12 80:22 89:10
91:1,4 100:23 applications (1) 43:7 arose (1) 111:24
111:3 122:1,21 applied (1) 108:23 arrangement (5) 12:1
afternoon (2) 1:6 9:8 apply (4) 5:12 14:24 16:11 17:17 19:6
aggressive (1) 63:18 20:1 98:16 102:3
ago (4) 40:12 92:9 appointed (1) 54:17 arrangements (4) 3:7
124:23 125:19 appointment (2) 8:23 6:25 7:18 14:9
agree (11) 7:25 12:2 9:8 arrest (1) 69:19
21:7 24:25 26:13 appreciate (9) 61:4,10 articles (1) 70:1
29:17,18 68:24 63:1 68:9 72:17 ascertain (1) 89:5
103:24 129:6,7 77:4 115:3,6 aside (7) 14:25 20:1,8
agreed (6) 7:25 26:21 126:18 23:8 101:13,20
36:1 68:21 97:10 appreciated (1) 69:7 106:19
102:10 approach (6) 17:14 asked (13) 15:25 52:9
Ah (2) 43:8 123:16 26:3 58:23 62:6 57:25 58:5 81:17
ahead (1) 101:17 63:19 73:24 90:11 101:1 102:23
aim (1) 98:4 approached (1) 71:15 106:23 108:2 128:2
aiming (1) 88:13 approaches (2) 56:25 131:3,12
alighting (1) 81:2 79:19 asking (10) 17:16
allegation (1) 56:1 appropriate (10) 20:13 47:25 54:7
alleged (1) 30:6 14:17 17:22 19:13 54:23 71:16 80:23
allocated (2) 4:22 20:5,7 73:10 90:6 130:5 131:16 133:3
105:7 98:14 115:8,25 asks (2) 65:10 114:18
allotted (1) 83:23 approve (2) 101:1 assess (3) 52:2 67:16
allow (6) 27:9,10 130:14 69:21
33:25 92:23 96:8 approved (1) 46:12 assessing (1) 79:6
96:10 approximately (1) assessment (6) 31:8
allowed (3) 34:2 51:6 70:16 72:12 76:18 80:4
51:14 April (23) 10:24 11:3 81:16 84:12
allowing (1) 12:13 11:16,25 12:21 asset (6) 7:14 8:10
allows (1) 106:9 13:11 39:19 86:3 31:14 83:4 84:4
alternative (12) 14:21 87:3 93:12 94:17 109:6
26:19 32:6 33:8 95:11 96:14 97:9 assets (13) 27:8 30:7
64:11 75:6 77:5 100:11 104:9,16 32:20 35:23 51:20
84:15 85:3 89:8,14 106:14 110:11 52:17 56:13,24
89:15 111:6,11 132:20 65:3 74:7 77:19
alternatively (1) 65:7 133:21 83:2 84:3
alternatives (1) 26:23 archive (2) 119:5,17 assimilate (1) 99:15
ambition (2) 4:18 area (1) 79:21 assist (7) 51:23 72:16
65:11 areas (1) 119:1 98:18 100:14,21
amendments (1) argue (1) 35:20 103:13 118:14
111:1 argued (1) 19:7 assistance (9) 6:21
amorphous (1) 82:9 arguing (4) 11:12 31:23 47:4 56:5
amount (9) 39:13 18:15 19:11 21:6 72:3 101:9,10,22
42:6 45:19 46:5,9 argument (3) 101:19 124:5
65:5,8 84:4 101:7 105:4 106:19 assisted (1) 28:10
analysis (3) 57:24 argument’s (3) 59:5 assisting (1) 115:13
58:8 70:12 59:16,17 assume (8) 1:25 10:9
and/or (1) 115:12 arguments (2) 22:7 21:19 41:22 124:10
angle (1) 63:20 97:1 126:2 127:10,18
answer (9) 36:2,11 arises (3) 16:12 17:15 assumed (3) 39:23
40:12 60:2 90:8,24 50:18 74:17 127:7
106:8 113:2 128:3 arising (1) 39:15 assumes (2) 62:14
answered (2) 31:14 arithmetic (1) 42:23 65:9

assuming (5) 3:12 20:12 81:1 84:22 84:23

assumption (2) 21:20 63:2

assumptions (13)

62:24,25 63:20,22 64:16 65:3 66:8,9 66:11 74:2 75:12 75:15,25

attend (8) 7:13 23:10 66:24 70:25 95:16 98:16 99:24 101:3

attendance (9) 12:4 22:21,21 83:9 90:1 95:15 101:24 103:2 104:17

attended (1) 119:11 attending (2) 16:24

21:18 attention (3) 13:18

17:21 126:8

auction (4) 62:20,22 66:17 76:7

authorities (1) 70:3 authors (1) 73:3 autumn (1) 114:22 availability (4) 7:17

85:6,11,20 available (27) 6:14,16

6:21 7:13,21 9:2,7 14:11,15 34:21 36:13 37:3 39:23 40:16 41:10 43:4 44:9 45:2,7 51:20 59:23 60:7,7 78:11 92:1 99:19 126:16

avoid (2) 16:3 63:15 avoidance (1) 56:9 avoided (1) 32:8 await (1) 115:17 award (1) 84:9 aware (3) 101:14

108:15 113:10 awful (1) 32:25 axioms (1) 77:10

B

b (1) 31:18

back (22) 3:21 8:2 11:6 18:24 19:2 36:16 38:13 44:12 46:7 55:2 58:18 78:8 92:24 94:14 113:16 118:17,22 119:13 124:24 131:14 132:8 133:15

back-to-back (1) 8:15 background (2) 24:22

72:2

backwards (1) 91:25 badly (4) 4:15 23:2

88:11 133:4 bag (1) 121:20 bail (2) 69:18 70:8 balance (7) 27:24

32:17 37:25 41:18 67:17 80:17,22

bald (1) 26:13 ball (1) 132:19 bank (16) 26:1 29:2

50:19 51:2 62:19 63:25 66:16 67:19 74:9,17,23 76:6 84:2 85:18 109:12 122:15

banks (1) 108:8

Barclays (2) 39:4,5 bare (3) 79:2,3,9 bargain (2) 63:14
65:14 barrister (1) 60:12

base (3) 12:24 108:6 108:16

basement (1) 63:14 bases (1) 75:4 basically (1) 43:18 basis (20) 12:13 32:12

36:1 45:15,18 61:21 62:1 68:23 69:2 70:25 74:4,16 76:14 81:12 94:2 96:15,16 101:24 113:22 126:5

beans (1) 59:25 bear (2) 90:2 92:3 bears (1) 49:16 beg (1) 86:4

beginning (4) 4:2 5:25 6:16 12:15

begins (1) 86:5 begs (1) 52:13 behalf (2) 6:6 16:21 believe (5) 9:10 28:14

70:14 71:7,14

Bench (1) 91:9 benefit (2) 14:17

97:21

Bennett (2) 22:18

90:4

best (6) 5:7 46:6 54:10 63:11 75:1 115:15

bet (2) 107:6,8 better (9) 69:20 87:9

87:20 88:21 99:13 103:22 126:14 132:8,19

Bidault (1) 42:1 bide (1) 62:21

big (3) 60:16 90:16 96:12

biggest (1) 24:8 billion (2) 65:15,16 billions (1) 65:12

Birt (30) 86:18 92:16 104:18 105:24 106:1 107:22 109:22 110:7 111:3 111:20,22,24 119:3 120:17 121:6,14 122:9 123:9,12,14 123:17 124:21 125:3 126:11,18 129:12 130:16 131:2,10,11

Birt’s (2) 109:21,22 bit (21) 5:1 11:19

18:10 20:6,25 27:1 28:5 42:16 66:20 72:2 79:16 91:10 92:23 93:11,15 105:9 118:6 122:17 127:14 129:2,24

bits (1) 2:9 blaming (1) 7:1 blast (1) 8:9 blew (1) 29:14 blindfold (1) 52:21 blow (1) 79:17

board (2) 79:5 103:11 body (1) 27:22 bolstered (1) 29:6 bono (5) 68:21,24

71:16 90:12 92:6 book (1) 120:14

books (2) 24:16 59:10 borrows (2) 75:17,18 bothered (3) 2:21

23:5 75:10 bottom (1) 22:18 bound (2) 82:12

119:24 boxes (3) 112:13

113:21 114:12 breach (1) 40:22 break (9) 60:22 67:8

67:22 73:19 79:9 86:11 110:13 120:6 133:19

breaking (1) 110:15 breathing (1) 97:16 briefly (2) 60:20 104:6 brilliant (1) 23:19 bring (3) 17:7 37:11

95:23 bringing (1) 60:19 brings (1) 58:18 broader (1) 52:25

broadly (2) 3:24 29:25 broke (1) 108:5

Bromley-Martin (1)

131:14

Brown (2) 22:17 90:4 brutal (1) 14:21 brutally (1) 81:19 budget (1) 71:8 build (1) 10:5

built (3) 29:4 64:17,22 built-in (1) 93:18 Bulgarian (1) 77:21 burden (6) 92:20

95:17 98:21 100:15 111:17 116:8

burdensome (1)

94:20

business (34) 11:9,18 13:8 15:14 27:12 29:2 31:22 32:15 50:19 52:3 57:10 62:7,8,9,13 63:4,21 64:13,21 69:10,14 72:8 75:14 76:2,19 76:21 77:8 83:25 84:13 101:2 102:13 102:14 121:14 132:10

businesses (18) 28:17 29:11 30:3,15 32:8 50:1,11,14 51:7 52:2 55:14,25 56:20 57:1 62:5 63:22 66:10 76:7

busted (1) 30:17 buyer (3) 62:12 66:4

76:25 buying (1) 26:6 buys (3) 59:24,24

76:24

C

calculated (1) 84:20 calculation (1) 84:25 call (11) 1:18 2:10

15:19 25:7 51:6,14 60:11 62:10,11 65:6 94:7

called (3) 17:13 19:12 116:16

calling (4) 37:6 49:25 58:4 90:6

capabilities (1) 105:13 capable (3) 33:2 91:2

115:13

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

136

March 23, 2016 Day 31

care (2) 124:7 127:16 checking (3) 3:10 49:2 53:19 59:11 88:17 consideration (5) 15:25 17:7,20 18:6
carpingly (1) 79:8 49:15 114:19 116:23 18:17 60:3 73:7 19:5,14,19 20:13
carries (1) 35:4 checks (1) 122:19 comfort (1) 104:18 82:13 101:16 23:10,21 34:20,21
case (61) 1:5 11:24 children (2) 78:15 comfortable (2) 9:16 considerations (2) 37:11,16 45:5,11
12:16 13:18 15:1 79:1 85:13 19:9 88:25 45:12 46:4,6,9,12
17:20,22,22 18:8 choice (4) 26:17 37:8 comfortably (1) 27:11 considered (2) 22:8 46:22 48:3 51:10
19:21 20:16 22:17 60:11 73:12 coming (15) 13:15 116:2 51:12,23,24,25
22:17 23:4 24:14 choices (3) 37:4 78:10 17:6 22:3 31:23 considering (3) 13:7 52:16 53:13,14
24:19,23 27:16,18 98:14 44:24 45:17,24 70:3 111:8 54:10 55:18 56:4
27:23 28:22 29:9 choose (4) 18:19 60:8 60:10 91:21 92:13 conspiracy (1) 50:8 58:25 59:11 60:10
29:24 30:4,22,23 60:8 62:17 93:4,24,25 94:23 constantly (1) 97:3 79:19 90:17 91:8
31:2,3 32:6,14 34:5 choosing (1) 36:6 126:20 constructive (2) 90:9 94:2,14 95:24
37:21 48:8,9 50:3 Christopher (1) 124:6 commencing (3) 10:7 100:3 98:21 99:8 101:6
50:12,22 51:1 chronological (1) 12:11 97:9 contacted (1) 102:23 101:12 102:15
52:22 57:6 64:5 110:19 comment (1) 56:15 contain (2) 108:7 103:16 110:14
66:15 73:7 76:4 chunk (1) 81:23 comments (2) 13:25 116:13 111:4,20 112:3
78:7 89:25 90:4 circle (2) 18:24 44:12 21:12 contained (1) 127:3 125:3,25 128:22
92:2 94:8,13 95:10 circumstance (1) 14:7 commitment (1) 8:14 container (1) 75:3 131:5 133:21
101:11,12 102:16 circumstances (11) commitments (1) content (2) 9:18 court’s (7) 34:6 46:15
103:5 104:4 106:3 7:12 14:10 17:2 91:17 130:22 54:5 58:16 59:21
113:5 128:13,16 18:6 24:10 60:1 committed (1) 4:19 contents (1) 16:14 102:12,14
133:17 66:2,22 74:18 communicate (1) 70:1 contest (1) 36:9 courts (1) 27:25
cases (6) 12:11 27:20 100:1 103:23 companies (14) 28:11 context (8) 19:24 cover (5) 23:11,20
92:18 116:23,25 civil (2) 113:14 119:8 28:23 30:8,9 31:16 37:17,19 38:1,2 25:15 44:11 68:17
117:1 claim (3) 28:7 55:23 33:2 51:4 64:9,16 51:24 61:23 74:4 covered (3) 45:20
cash (5) 33:1 42:21 84:22 64:19,22 66:4 contexts (1) 104:20 78:20 89:16
81:25 82:1,2 claimant (2) 16:6 46:1 109:6,10 contingency (1) 70:7 covering (1) 1:9
cashed (1) 39:8 claimants (13) 2:2 company (2) 76:22,24 continue (2) 47:22 CPR (3) 53:6,21 61:7
catch (1) 117:25 25:20 35:17 39:20 compartmentalise (1) 118:7 crack (1) 90:10
categories (2) 108:22 49:24 50:5 51:14 76:3 continuing (1) 109:16 creates (2) 9:12,13
108:24 69:23 84:21 100:4 compel (3) 2:9,13 contra (1) 61:20 credibility (10) 27:25
categorised (1) 103:8 109:11 17:20 contrary (3) 71:4 28:3,4,9,18 29:16
119:24 118:25 compelling (1) 18:4 77:23 132:10 30:19 50:12,21
causation (1) 50:3 claimants’ (2) 28:24 complaint (2) 51:13 contrast (1) 113:19 55:23
cause (1) 14:22 117:6 60:6 control (5) 23:14 34:7 credible (1) 50:25
cauterisation (1) clarification (3) complaints (1) 60:16 46:23 114:8,10 credit (1) 50:9
107:2 126:12,19 127:19 complete (4) 6:2 72:4 conveying (1) 100:18 credit-poor (1) 75:9
cauterise (3) 57:7 clarified (1) 59:1 77:25 109:19 convinces (1) 97:25 creditors (1) 79:14
98:8 100:19 clarify (3) 45:23 59:3 completed (2) 10:19 cope (1) 7:4 creeping (1) 105:11
cauterised (1) 99:9 83:10 12:18 copied (1) 129:17 crib (1) 92:21
cauterising (2) 104:12 clarity’s (1) 103:12 completely (2) 23:17 copies (3) 108:17 cries (1) 14:7
104:13 clean (2) 130:20 131:4 80:2 119:16 126:1 criminal (8) 112:22
caution (2) 5:14 clear (4) 6:21 44:7 complex (3) 14:6 28:7 copy (7) 19:21 108:19 113:11 114:1
126:12 45:15,18 116:8 112:13 116:22 116:23,25 117:1,20
cautious (1) 12:13 clearly (5) 13:6 45:7 comply (1) 15:24 118:24 122:2 119:7
ceased (1) 21:15 55:21 56:1 92:1 composite (1) 33:7 123:18 criticising (1) 36:23
cent (2) 78:22 108:9 clerk (1) 129:16 computers (1) 119:14 corporate (3) 30:12 criticism (1) 29:8
central (2) 50:11 client (1) 40:2 concern (1) 35:16 50:7 56:2 cross (2) 17:12 40:23
108:8 clients (4) 36:5 41:13 concerned (3) 64:18 corrected (3) 39:1 cross-examination (…
certain (6) 34:2 40:16 69:14 95:7 129:24 132:1 66:10 130:3 3:11 6:2,17 10:17
88:17 101:9 115:6 close (1) 14:3 concerning (1) 39:10 correspondence (1) 13:13 14:8,13
119:11 closed (1) 120:14 conclude (1) 95:13 117:16 16:23 26:5 34:16
certainly (9) 13:9,22 closer (1) 72:22 concluding (1) 55:6 cosmetic (2) 111:8,13 34:22 35:3 61:8
17:25 44:20 58:8 closing (7) 80:20 81:5 conclusion (1) 112:16 cost (3) 25:23 43:5 65:24 75:21 81:24
67:5 104:23 108:1 85:20 92:3 96:10 conclusions (1) 31:11 95:22 83:8,14,15 89:9
114:8 104:23 105:2 conditions (1) 98:15 costs (6) 37:21 40:16 91:12 93:12 95:7
cetera (1) 109:7 closings (3) 95:12 conduct (1) 79:6 44:2 82:4,5 88:18 95:17 98:17,18,20
chains (1) 23:21 110:13,15 conducted (1) 74:5 count (1) 37:7 99:5,8,25 100:6,15
challenge (1) 25:3 closure (2) 96:12 97:6 confine (1) 55:19 counterclaim (12) 100:22 104:19
challenges (1) 24:7 coach (1) 3:22 confirm (2) 130:19 30:22 32:1 37:7,9 cross-examine (11)
chance (4) 11:17 36:8 Coffin (4) 124:6 132:5 50:4 55:12,20,24 3:3 4:4 77:6,9,11
84:3,7 127:15 128:2,17 confirmation (1) 12:9 64:12 77:3 84:15 83:17 87:11 91:19
change (4) 7:1 22:6 CoFrance (1) 69:10 confirmed (1) 112:24 90:21 94:4 107:17 131:24
27:13 133:1 colour (1) 25:3 confused (1) 109:8 couple (2) 109:3 cross-examined (8)
changed (4) 79:13 come (45) 7:8 8:2 9:5 connection (2) 28:13 125:19 16:10,25 61:10
92:5 110:18,20 10:8 15:14 16:13 78:18 course (38) 4:15,20,24 66:23,25 88:3 96:5
changing (1) 105:4 16:19 17:10,20 connote (1) 84:10 7:20 10:6 13:13 99:22
chaotically (1) 85:15 18:6,25 21:2,14 conscience (1) 15:3 14:23 15:20 20:4,6 cross-examining (7)
chap (1) 63:13 23:23 34:19 37:16 consent (2) 29:19 21:19 31:7 36:10 3:2 4:8 6:22 10:11
charge (3) 71:19 39:16 45:5,25 46:6 39:16 36:12 39:9 50:24 14:14 86:17 91:14
81:13 89:23 46:9 55:5 66:5 71:7 consider (14) 11:23 58:13 60:23 61:15 crucial (2) 66:11 72:19
charged (1) 90:2 76:8 81:17 86:24 19:5 32:16 44:18 61:22 64:5 66:1,15 crying (1) 73:13
charging (1) 72:6 90:17 91:13,20,25 51:11 56:19,20 69:6,12,12 71:11 crystal (1) 132:19
chase (2) 38:4 90:11 92:11 95:16,22,25 57:25 58:5 67:3 77:1,4 82:25 85:19 cunning (1) 62:20
chased (1) 124:24 96:4 101:10 102:9 72:18 79:24 120:12 90:21 95:17 102:25 curious (1) 57:6
cheaper (1) 26:7 102:10 103:3 132:3 113:22,25 122:7 currency (2) 84:19,25
check (2) 109:13 104:13,14,14 considerable (1) 75:8 128:5 current (4) 41:13,24
125:4 125:10 132:7 considerably (1) coursing (1) 30:11 47:3 91:21
checked (1) 7:11 comes (8) 19:2,15,24 104:10 court (60) 12:10 13:3 curtail (1) 13:21

cushion (1) 12:13 cut (2) 38:3 124:16 cutting (2) 27:22

90:11

D

D211/3064.2/148 (1)

108:19

D212-D213/3065/2…

108:20

D212-D213/3066/2…

108:17 damage (1) 32:11 damages (1) 84:9 dancing (1) 45:3

dare (2) 101:7 120:6 data (1) 77:2

date (18) 13:1 37:18 43:24 46:21 48:20 49:4 67:2 68:18 74:5 76:6 105:7 110:9,14,16,21,22 110:24 111:5

dated (2) 48:21 100:13

dates (2) 49:6 110:3 day (44) 2:18 3:14

4:16,19 5:4 6:1,7,7 6:8,13,14 7:15 9:4 9:24 10:19,20 13:3 13:4 59:6,7,7 71:20 71:21,22 72:19 86:13 88:4,6 91:13 93:6,8,22 94:10 95:1 96:1 97:11,15 100:7 108:5 110:2 112:3 128:23 129:18 132:6

day-to-day (1) 42:15 days (34) 3:13 4:12,23 4:25 5:16,17,19,24 11:16 12:13 45:13 59:10,11,12,12,13 71:21 83:23 86:9

86:13 87:7 88:9,10 88:14 95:8,8 96:3 98:5 105:6,10 124:10 133:4,16,18

days’ (1) 59:3

deal (19) 16:16 25:10 31:3 32:6,24 40:24 53:3 67:10 76:1 85:4 86:14 87:22 98:1 99:10 105:16 107:24 115:15 116:10 120:10

dealership (1) 130:1 dealing (2) 104:18

130:6

deals (2) 32:20 50:13 dealt (1) 39:15

dear (1) 57:19 debate (1) 81:4 debated (1) 110:12 debating (1) 39:21 debts (2) 32:10 51:19

December (1) 43:16 decide (6) 26:22

60:11,13,14 67:14 104:3

decided (2) 64:12 131:25

decides (1) 87:5 deciding (1) 82:17 decision (6) 9:23 15:1

33:22,22 50:23 125:13

decisions (1) 25:4

declarations (2) 30:24

30:25

declining (1) 101:13 default (7) 30:16 32:8

32:17 35:5,6 63:25 133:14

defence (2) 29:15 117:20

defend (2) 70:10 75:20

defendant (1) 16:13 defendants (28) 1:10 16:21 17:2,15

18:13 21:8 25:7 36:14 37:14 38:3 45:11,23 46:3 49:2 57:8 58:22 60:7,19 70:6,21 77:18 90:24 91:8 95:21 103:9 112:15 129:17 130:19

defendants’ (4) 16:19 37:22 113:8 114:8

defer (1) 107:12 deferment (1) 12:3 deferred (4) 93:6 99:9

105:25 107:10 definite (1) 97:6 definitely (5) 78:4 88:21 97:7,8,21 definition (2) 33:20

35:2

definitive (2) 97:20 106:8

degree (4) 21:5 24:21 44:6,25

delaying (2) 20:22,23 deliberation (1) 13:10 Deloittes (1) 58:1 demonstrate (1) 36:4 denied (1) 30:16 departments (1)

130:9 depend (5) 28:17

57:10 61:14 63:21 66:1

depending (1) 85:6 depends (4) 11:19 28:14 30:8 62:24

deploy (1) 53:2 deponent (1) 48:1 description (3) 82:9

109:2 116:13 despair (1) 63:12 despite (3) 31:5 94:6

97:19 destabilise (1) 12:16 detail (1) 71:10 detailed (1) 36:1 details (2) 40:7

127:22 detect (1) 100:3 determinately (1)

100:7 determination (1)

84:12

determine (13) 27:4,7 32:3 62:1,3 83:25 98:11 101:20,21 103:11,13 105:2 122:11

determined (1) 75:1 determining (2) 33:5

76:17

detract (1) 109:21 detrimental (1) 27:23 developed (1) 76:23 difference (4) 40:14

61:11 64:24 72:9

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

137

March 23, 2016 Day 31

differences (3) 14:4,5 14:5
different (15) 16:10 17:17 19:6,17 40:5 62:7 63:20 80:2,3 84:25 88:25 108:22 115:24 117:21 128:19

difficult (20) 2:5 5:7 14:10 20:2 27:16 57:6,7 72:17 74:18 76:2 78:1,9 79:8 97:4 104:10 117:22 118:20 120:4,15 121:19

difficulties (3) 9:13

116:18 133:9 difficulty (6) 8:1 18:2

20:8 119:4 122:22 131:6

direct (3) 13:24 66:23 83:12

directed (1) 52:6 direction (2) 46:15

48:1

directions (7) 15:24 46:12 47:13,19 48:11,12,13

directs (1) 48:3 disadvantage (1)
22:24 disagree (1) 127:8

disavowed (2) 29:13 31:9

disavowing (1) 81:5 discipline (1) 34:15 disclosable (2) 116:21

117:4

disclose (3) 118:4

126:2 128:11 disclosed (17) 38:9

41:5,6 113:7,23 117:9,15 123:22 125:5,6,8 126:16 127:8,10,18 128:1 128:16

disclosure (14) 38:10 86:23 113:9,16,18 114:4,7 116:19 117:6 119:19 121:3 124:3,8 127:23

discrepancy (1) 65:5 discrete (1) 81:10 discretion (2) 33:24

53:1

discussed (3) 80:25 128:22,25

discussing (1) 128:21 discussion (1) 24:3 discussions (1) 68:15 disentangle (1) 50:9 dishonest (1) 56:3 dishonestly (1) 31:9 disposed (1) 100:25 disproportionate (3)

26:2 70:20 79:24 dispute (4) 26:14 50:5

55:15 84:19 disputed (1) 81:1 distance (2) 11:13

115:7 division (1) 57:4 doable (2) 85:24

100:12 document (1) 121:7 documents (46) 4:9

107:24 111:22 112:10,13,21,25 113:4,6,10,17,18

113:23 114:6,21,25 115:2,4,11,20 116:21 117:3,5,24 119:1,6 120:20 121:12 123:10,14 123:18,21 124:3 125:22,24 126:6 127:10,18,25 128:8 128:9,15,17,21,25 131:20

doing (10) 3:11 26:17 29:3 30:9 43:9 46:6 104:20 114:18 121:3 124:2

doomed (1) 63:23 double-check (1) 71:1 double-quick (1)

100:17

doubt (4) 56:9 73:20

114:2 132:7 doubts (1) 89:4 down-time (1) 93:13

Dr (8) 17:9 43:11 85:9 90:19 92:10,20 104:8 110:22

draft (1) 110:8 dragged (1) 23:21 draw (1) 96:15 drawing (1) 126:7 drawn (3) 13:18 43:23

97:2

drew (1) 17:21 drive (1) 3:22 ducking (1) 16:3 due (3) 13:13 110:6

122:7 duties (1) 54:17

duty (5) 53:14,15 54:11,25 67:17

E

e-mail (9) 1:9 100:13 104:11 109:24 111:18 112:12 119:14 125:18 129:16

e-mails (4) 119:14,17 119:18 125:18

E8/26.1/4 (1) 57:11 E8/27/1 (1) 73:25 E8/27/41 (1) 73:25 earlier (7) 3:2 9:21

20:11 53:24 125:9 126:16 128:1

earliest (1) 10:2 early (5) 8:24 9:2

28:24 106:17 133:4 earnest (1) 29:11 earth (1) 37:11

easier (1) 111:10 easiest (1) 28:6

Easter (9) 86:10 102:5 105:18 106:10,10 124:11,15 126:19 128:5

easy (4) 20:6 67:13 81:2 122:13 economic (1) 75:9 educate (1) 34:20

educated (2) 34:23,23 effect (3) 9:3 41:6

100:18 effectively (9) 16:6

18:3 21:14 35:19 42:10,21 68:3 75:6 77:10

efficient (2) 62:11 63:5

efficiently (1) 77:24 85:11 98:23 75:15 98:10 46:16,17 47:3,4
efforts (1) 70:23 evidence (93) 1:19,22 expensive (3) 25:23 fail (3) 27:11 31:20,24 71:9 73:18 93:15
eight (1) 11:16 11:3,17 12:4 13:4 72:15 106:24 failing (1) 54:25 95:21 103:18,18
either (16) 18:17 29:4 14:6 15:9,19,21 experience (2) 52:1 fair (14) 5:5,21 7:16 104:1,2 106:1
52:1,3,25 66:25 16:8 17:11 19:13 72:5 12:14 24:11 55:1,9 120:16 127:20
67:3,8 83:14,15 31:14 33:21,25 expert (53) 12:3,5 60:5 66:17,22 78:4 finding (1) 124:5
99:7 100:23 106:1 34:2,8,9,10,20 35:1 14:17 15:22 16:2,7 82:11 83:6 113:9 finds (2) 32:7 93:17
107:9 116:7 128:3 35:2,18,19 36:14 16:8,19 18:5 19:13 fairly (8) 17:1 36:18 fine (3) 2:19,20 91:1
either/or (1) 18:25 38:4 41:24 45:5,6,6 19:22 20:19 33:25 45:4 52:5,20 93:9 finish (16) 5:20 11:3
electronic (6) 112:7 46:2,13,14,15,22 34:8,20 44:1,3,19 98:11 121:15 11:17,25 13:10
112:11 113:20 48:2,9 49:20 51:6 46:13,15,22 47:1,2 fairness (8) 21:5 24:9 32:15 59:9 91:22
114:15 122:12 51:11,14,22 52:4,6 47:19 48:8 51:22 33:19 45:25 61:13 92:1 93:4,23 94:17
128:7 52:16,20 53:10 52:6 53:6,10 54:6 71:14 84:7 102:22 95:10 96:2,9 105:8
emerged (3) 40:17 54:6,12 55:6,8,22 54:12 55:6,8 57:7 fall (3) 95:17 107:9 finished (2) 93:14,21
41:25 120:11 56:18 57:8 58:15 57:24 59:13 60:4 119:18 finishes (2) 11:15
emergencies (1) 4:6 59:21 60:4 61:4,22 60:12 69:1 73:24 falling (1) 95:7 106:22
emphasise (1) 102:12 67:16 70:4 80:14 77:9,11,11 78:2 family (4) 25:14 78:14 finishing (2) 11:14
empty (1) 96:3 83:10,11 88:22 89:11 90:3,7 91:8 78:24 82:6 93:15
enables (1) 106:2 91:24 94:1 96:13 94:19 99:3,14 far (7) 6:23 10:23 fire (2) 63:15 75:6
encourage (1) 95:22 99:14 101:7 103:6 103:19 106:13 29:23 46:7 55:5 firm (6) 14:24 20:1
encouraged (2) 46:23 103:16 105:17 expert-driven (1) 113:10 114:10 21:6,14 23:3,9
54:13 106:8,13 108:13 92:15 fault (3) 41:16 59:19 first (20) 2:22,24 3:4
endorse (2) 93:3 95:5 111:25 112:8,16,21 expertise (4) 46:11 127:24 9:16 14:18 15:13
energy (3) 65:11 112:24 113:2,13 53:15 90:15,25 favour (3) 22:14 23:6 16:16 18:11 24:5
93:16,17 114:12,19,24 118:6 experts (42) 3:4 6:22 101:25 36:2 46:16 61:1
enforce (1) 31:1 119:10 120:12 6:22 11:10,15 13:8 feature (1) 109:22 74:9 77:10,13
enforcing (1) 101:12 123:15 125:23 13:12 15:15 16:5 February (4) 42:5 45:8 106:10 108:9
engaged (3) 87:12 131:21 18:25 27:13 31:23 92:11 124:23 109:17,25 128:11
100:11 106:4 ex (1) 74:23 32:16 34:16 35:20 fed (1) 58:9 fit (1) 11:24
engages (1) 60:15 exacerbates (1) 57:8 47:2,12,17 51:10 fee (3) 18:21 70:24 fitted (1) 116:2
engaging (1) 102:1 exact (1) 68:12 53:14,16 56:5 61:9 90:6 five (5) 59:4,10 71:20
English (1) 99:4 exactly (4) 22:19 62:10 68:14,15,25 feed (2) 25:14 130:15 71:22 105:6
enquiries (2) 73:18 26:20 43:16 130:17 76:1 85:5 86:1,12 feel (6) 14:12 58:14 fixed (3) 87:8 98:20
98:15 exaggerations (1) 86:14,17 87:6,22 83:16 88:15 99:23 106:9
enquiry (1) 81:12 82:15 89:3 92:13,24 93:1 101:9 flag (2) 11:11 105:16
ensure (1) 98:4 examination (1) 99:8 94:18 96:4 104:13 feeling (2) 106:15 flagged (2) 11:12
enterprise (1) 74:25 example (7) 17:19 explain (5) 3:23 13:16 127:7 109:24
entire (1) 31:17 24:15,17 25:19 15:18 22:14 125:14 fees (15) 16:23 18:7 flagging (2) 18:15
entirely (3) 6:20 37:23 50:14 55:14 115:21 explained (4) 75:13 18:14,18 19:23 106:20
83:4 examples (1) 30:4 117:13 128:2,18 25:13 26:9 37:16 flatly (1) 40:2
entitled (7) 2:8,15 exceed (1) 84:4 explanation (6) 12:7 44:6 45:10 46:7 flexibility (1) 97:10
14:24 33:24 35:22 exceptional (5) 19:4 51:1 125:7,8,12,15 68:20 71:17 79:25 flexible (4) 3:1,5,5
36:11 60:8 46:8 101:12 102:16 explanatory (1) 1:9 98:16 85:12
environment (1) 75:9 104:4 exposed (1) 105:21 felt (1) 123:22 flick (1) 119:6
envisaged (1) 84:14 excessively (1) 82:13 expressed (1) 16:15 fettling (1) 92:7 fling (1) 116:14
equality (1) 61:14 exchanging (1) 47:20 expression (1) 82:20 field (11) 15:22 34:2,7 floor (1) 82:16
equally (3) 5:15 excite (1) 119:2 expressly (1) 125:25 34:7 46:11,13,24 flurry (1) 109:7
107:13,14 exclude (7) 33:21 46:2 extent (6) 31:13 32:3 47:17 54:24 90:15 flushes (1) 30:17
equanimity (1) 98:2 46:14 52:4 61:4 73:15 75:19 99:15 90:25 flying (1) 55:3
equation (1) 73:11 66:21 73:8 115:12 fifth (3) 4:16 88:13 focus (1) 24:6
equivalent (1) 126:6 excluded (2) 107:3 extra (8) 5:24 7:15 93:8 folder (1) 116:16
equivalents (1) 109:5 125:14 60:12,12,13 93:15 figure (4) 68:12,13,20 following (3) 12:11
equivocal (1) 118:6 excluding (1) 58:15 95:1 107:21 72:11 68:4 107:15
error (5) 128:14 129:1 exegesis (1) 40:19 extracted (1) 1:23 figures (7) 46:4 60:25 follows (3) 31:17 64:4
129:3,6,15 exercise (10) 16:24 extradition (7) 69:18 67:12,19 71:23 64:6
especially (1) 84:11 54:2 56:25 84:6 69:24 70:10,19 84:17 89:22 footing (3) 21:15 52:8
essential (1) 97:22 102:16 112:25 78:16 79:4 82:5 file (2) 1:23 126:7 98:3
essentially (2) 50:8 113:3 115:13,21,23 extremely (4) 4:2 filed (1) 1:8 force (1) 20:4
121:4 exhibits (1) 57:17 27:16 77:24 115:5 files (12) 108:19 112:7 forego (1) 73:1
establish (2) 1:15 existence (1) 40:14 eye (2) 59:11 117:25 112:11 113:20 foremost (1) 36:2
46:24 expect (12) 16:2 eyes (1) 76:1 114:8,15 116:12,14 forensic (2) 72:5,7
estate (14) 31:15,16 19:25 45:11 46:3 117:8 122:24,25 foreseeable (1) 8:4
31:20,25 32:9 65:20 67:15 76:25 F 123:2 forever (1) 108:1
61:21 62:7 64:4 95:19 116:10 fabricated (1) 50:7 filling (1) 110:3 forfeited (1) 41:13
74:7 75:22 76:5 117:10 121:7 125:7 films (1) 128:9 form (3) 74:7,14
face (2) 26:18 44:9
84:23 88:22 89:3 expectation (1) 18:5 final (3) 9:23 132:5,7 110:7
facie (1) 34:19
estimate (11) 4:11,12 expected (6) 7:10 finalise (1) 124:10 formally (2) 118:10
fact (16) 5:17 24:6
4:12 10:21 43:20 16:22 22:23 41:7 finally (1) 10:2 131:25
38:5 51:19 56:12
43:23 44:19 71:5,8 62:23 90:2 finance (6) 18:13 format (2) 122:12
59:18 62:15 82:23
72:4 88:10 expecting (1) 104:16 27:10 36:13 41:1 123:1
93:7 95:20,23
estimated (1) 4:25 expedient (1) 114:2 58:19,25 formed (1) 84:2
97:20 99:18 110:8
estimates (1) 44:18 expended (1) 41:19 finances (2) 80:24 formerly (1) 66:5
112:10 130:8
et (1) 109:7 expenditure (4) 36:15 99:19 fortnight (2) 93:18
factor (3) 69:4,16
eve (1) 114:24 73:10,14 79:7 financial (6) 25:6,11 126:21
101:5
event (3) 24:1 65:7 expense (1) 68:22 37:23 62:15 67:9 fortune (2) 63:8,10
factors (1) 28:6
131:4 expenses (12) 25:15 68:7 forward (4) 22:11
factual (10) 4:7,8
events (2) 8:9 15:21 25:16 42:13 43:3 financing (1) 93:1 53:19 120:6 124:22
11:17 36:2 46:19
everybody (1) 120:6 69:6 70:18 71:23 find (21) 18:24 33:13 forwards (1) 124:25
47:25 61:2 75:11
everyone’s (2) 85:6 72:25 78:15,17,19 34:3,4,18 38:13 fought (1) 82:24

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

138

March 23, 2016 Day 31

found (3) 1:11 29:23 91:12
four (11) 4:13,23 5:16 5:17,19 59:4,10 71:21 92:14 98:5 105:5

four-day (2) 43:14,17 fourth (6) 3:14 14:20 14:21 87:8 88:12

93:8

frame (1) 96:11 France (1) 70:9 fraud (3) 64:5,6 65:6 free (2) 21:19 101:3 freed (1) 2:18

freer (1) 6:7 freezing (2) 38:9,18 Friday (4) 3:16 6:11

7:5 12:19 friend (2) 9:16 36:7 frozen (1) 69:12

full (4) 20:4 33:5 40:7 115:5

fully (8) 5:22 34:23 74:14,19 75:2 76:11,13 79:5 functioning (4) 74:14 74:19 76:11,14

fund (1) 74:25 funded (1) 81:25 funding (3) 18:2 33:2

40:4

funds (3) 37:3 39:24 39:25

furnished (3) 67:15 101:6 118:13

further (18) 11:22,24 44:21,21 69:24,24 75:8 76:10 89:7,15 97:11 98:14 101:18 105:6 109:9 112:10 123:21 133:4

future (2) 82:4 84:5

G

G1/7/1 (2) 38:14,15 G1/7/6 (1) 38:19 G4/105/5 (1) 43:6 gallery (1) 109:18 gathered (1) 118:21 gears (1) 47:1 general (5) 14:18,19

29:21 34:19 73:8

Générale (4) 38:23 39:3,11 44:10 generalist (1) 96:20 generally (1) 72:12 generously (1) 78:25 genuinely (1) 18:21 getting (4) 35:25 46:2

52:12 126:12 give (21) 25:19 29:19

30:4,5 36:7,12 38:19 45:5,9 68:12 71:10 72:18 81:23 84:17 88:9 102:21 106:3,7 112:8 114:19 129:2

given (18) 15:20 24:23 30:7 31:9,10 34:3 45:1 46:14 47:6 49:20 70:4 72:23 73:5 94:9 95:3 101:8 112:6 126:19

gives (3) 4:25 80:3 106:1

giving (3) 80:19

114:18,24

glad (2) 7:7 124:21

Gladyshev (8) 11:15 85:9 92:6,7,17 100:11,19,20

Gladyshev’s (1) 104:8 global (1) 82:9

glory (2) 23:11,20 go (26) 2:22 28:22

33:9 36:16 37:21 41:17,24,25 42:3 42:17 47:1,2 51:3 53:25 55:2 57:5 73:5,25 88:13 90:18 94:13,14 99:14 124:24 125:2 133:19

goes (18) 28:19 30:3 30:18,19 43:5 47:10,23 48:4 51:6 53:6 55:12,14,22 59:23 88:11 113:9 133:3,4

going (69) 3:12 4:14 6:19 8:20 11:23,25 13:1 15:14 16:3 17:3,4,5,7 18:7 21:1 23:7,10 26:7 30:12 31:12,13 35:5 38:7 41:8,23 42:22 43:17 45:25 56:18 57:4 59:6,6,8 59:8,9 60:2 62:16 63:9,13,15 67:10 70:15 74:10,20,21 74:22 79:2 85:14 87:14 91:17,25 92:17 94:7,8,9,20 95:23 98:8,9 99:22 99:22 105:3,3 107:14,14 118:17 118:18 120:20 132:2

Goncharuk (8) 11:5,7 11:8 87:17 97:17 97:19,23 98:6

Goncharuk/Yatvetsk…

87:21

good (12) 10:22,22,23 23:1 81:23 84:8 95:19 102:4 110:16 132:10,21 133:19

goodness (2) 63:7 121:18

goodwill (1) 91:11 gosh (1) 116:20 granted (3) 15:23

46:21 52:15 graphic (1) 122:24 graphics (1) 122:21 grasp (1) 102:4 grateful (8) 3:6 6:3,9

10:1 105:23 109:17 129:12 132:14

great (2) 14:4 32:24 greater (1) 94:16 greatest (2) 25:2

52:12 grey (1) 79:21

ground (2) 103:18 132:10

grounds (2) 36:10

60:4 group (1) 29:3

Guadalupe (1) 36:19 guarantee (1) 122:15 guarantees (10) 28:8 29:10,17 31:1,9,19 32:19,22 33:6 50:6

guess (1) 55:3 guesswork (1) 24:22 guidance (2) 14:18

27:1 guide (1) 56:7

guided (1) 83:18 guillotine (2) 5:4,16 guillotined (1) 4:13 gun (2) 101:4,15

Guriev (4) 8:16,22

9:16 97:13

H

H2/37/1 (1) 42:1 H2/37/3 (1) 42:4 H2/37/4 (1) 42:18 half (9) 5:25 10:21

34:23 70:14,15,16 84:25 93:10 121:4

halt (1) 96:15

hand (7) 27:12 31:20 34:25 49:21 61:12 110:4 123:6

handed (7) 22:17 110:5 123:7,10,14 125:20 131:20

handing (2) 119:23

126:7

hands (3) 115:8 132:24,25

handwriting (2) 44:3 73:14

handwritten (1)

119:12

happen (4) 56:3 61:5 94:10 105:7

happened (5) 24:13 39:7,8 116:15 124:23

happening (3) 42:20

95:20 112:4 happens (1) 91:16 hard (10) 18:16 20:25

50:9 82:24 85:14 105:1 108:16,19 112:13 123:18

harp (1) 52:24 harsher (1) 65:17 head (6) 57:4 77:7

98:22 101:5,15 121:15

heading (1) 43:19 heads (1) 71:12 hear (9) 22:1 56:18

80:12 90:13 105:3 106:18 107:14 116:4 122:9

heard (4) 83:23 96:13 96:16 112:1

hearing (10) 43:17 49:1,3 88:22 106:12,13 107:11 124:12,13,22

hears (1) 102:7 heart (1) 30:3 heaven (1) 37:11 heavy (1) 10:20 heel (1) 74:1

held (2) 32:1 122:12 help (12) 6:17 7:13

27:3 52:16 53:14 71:12 81:24 86:21 91:12 124:9 127:21 132:21

helpful (8) 17:21 61:22 68:6 103:5 104:5 109:6,17 119:23

helpfully (2) 13:18 94:21
helps (2) 4:8 19:2 high (1) 78:6 highest (1) 75:1 highly (2) 4:16 7:3 HILDYARD (301) 1:13

1:18,22,25 2:7,17 2:20,25 3:5,23 4:17 5:9,14 6:4,12,14,19 7:7,20 8:4,8,17,22 9:7,18,22 10:6,11 10:16,19,22 11:5 12:2,24 13:21 14:2 15:10,12,16 16:1 19:10,17,20 20:15 20:18 21:4,11 22:1 22:10,15 23:1,15 23:25 24:13,21,25 26:12,21,25 27:14 28:2,5,21 30:21 32:23 33:18 34:1 34:18 35:9,25 36:9 36:18,22 37:24 38:7,15,21,24 39:3 39:6,11 40:5,18 41:2,11,15,17,21 42:2,12,17 43:8,13 43:15,22 44:4,15 45:14 46:10,18 47:9,15,22,24 48:6 48:14,20,22,25 49:4,7,12,22 50:22 51:22 52:23 53:5,8 53:20,23 54:9,16 54:22 55:8,16 56:7 56:22 57:3,14,16 57:19 58:12,20 60:23 61:1,6 62:3 62:14 63:6,24 64:2 64:14 65:1,23 66:6 66:13,20 67:5,10 67:13,20 68:2,5 70:23 71:3,19 72:10 73:5,22 75:16,24 76:13,16 77:13 78:8,23 79:14 80:3,12,21 81:6,9,15,19 82:2,8 82:12,24 83:5,8,15 83:21 84:10 85:4 85:16,25 86:3,5,14 86:17,19,24 87:2 87:10,16,20 88:1,4 88:8,15 89:5,13,16 89:20 90:8 91:14 93:5 96:15,20,24 97:25 98:8 99:2,6 99:13,21 100:9 102:11,18,25 103:10,21 104:11 104:22 105:1,13,21 105:25 106:7,15 107:5,19,23 108:4 108:9 109:3,14 110:6 111:2,5,9,12 111:15,18,21,23 116:5,12,25 117:18 118:3,12,16,25 120:3,25 121:6,10 121:24 122:3,5,17 122:23,25 123:3,7 123:11,13,16,19 124:16,20 125:2 126:9,14,24 127:2 127:24 129:1,3,6,8 129:11,19 130:5,11 130:14,22,25 131:8 131:10,18,22 132:4

132:9,15,18,24

133:8,12,15 hills (1) 76:1 hint (1) 80:7

historically (1) 90:16 history (2) 41:9

114:20 hit (1) 29:12

hmm (3) 48:6 49:22 118:2

Hold (1) 123:11 holding (1) 47:21 holds (1) 112:13 holiday (5) 79:21,22

85:18 99:13 132:21 holidays (4) 26:7

36:21 83:3 124:15 homework (1) 72:18 homeworks (1) 109:3 hone (1) 15:5 honest (1) 66:17 hope (15) 4:1 6:5

15:18 19:2 28:25 35:18 48:10 49:14 58:6 93:21 97:18 124:11,12 128:3 132:20

hopeful (1) 6:24 horrendous (1) 71:25 horses (1) 3:22 hot-tubbing (1) 14:9 hotly (1) 80:25

hour (9) 5:24,25 8:20 10:21,21 71:20 72:6 87:15,18

hours (3) 71:20,21,22 house (4) 62:16,17,19

62:20 housekeeping (5) 1:3

68:11 89:17 107:23 134:3

huge (4) 22:22 37:7 61:10 116:11

hugely (1) 51:19 hurt (1) 29:13 hypothesi (1) 74:23

I

I2/27/143 (1) 44:14 I25/40/63 (1) 131:3 I26/41/2 (1) 129:15 iceberg (2) 22:21 80:9 idea (7) 8:18 30:14

37:10 40:2 41:12 55:18 129:23

ideally (1) 85:9 identification (1)

125:9

identified (4) 8:5 34:8

39:19 125:12 identifies (1) 74:1 identify (3) 19:8 49:16

120:4

ignore (3) 78:15,17 82:4

ignoring (1) 115:25 ill (2) 124:8 128:4 imagine (1) 46:12 immediately (6) 28:12

45:17 84:17 104:15 117:25 126:3

impact (2) 104:23,24 impacted (1) 31:10 impecuniosity (1)

39:21 impecunious (1)

22:25

implicit (3) 7:8,10

100:2 importance (1) 61:11 important (16) 1:6 5:5

33:19 48:13 51:15 52:22 53:18 56:17 56:19 59:21 87:25 117:14,19,19 128:25 130:2

imposed (2) 17:17 30:16

impossible (7) 58:1 61:24 99:6 107:10 107:12,13,20

impressed (1) 79:15 improvements (3)

74:7,12 76:11

inaudible (3) 62:10

66:16 127:9 include (7) 44:1 78:25

79:3,6 98:13 117:2 125:7

included (4) 125:21 125:23 128:7,8

includes (2) 61:8 68:20

including (6) 15:24 29:16 42:13 44:21 82:5 90:15

income (2) 43:2 62:6 incorrect (1) 75:12 increase (1) 98:21 indebtedness (2)

31:17 84:5 independent (1)

50:16

INDEX (1) 134:1 indicate (2) 13:19

123:23 indicated (4) 5:18

27:5 107:16 123:21 indicating (3) 70:2

99:23 133:13 indication (2) 45:9

115:19 indications (1) 6:24 indicatively (1) 100:6 inequality (4) 24:12

26:10 35:21 89:10 inevitable (2) 63:25

101:18

infer (2) 80:10 114:16 influence (1) 101:23 inform (1) 126:23 information (5)

109:10 112:11 117:12 124:14 127:3

informed (1) 104:7 ingenious (1) 31:24 inherent (1) 56:10 initial (1) 119:6 injunction (1) 38:18 input (2) 45:3 94:19 inquire (1) 100:20 inserted (2) 2:5 110:9 insist (2) 83:11 84:21 insofar (5) 4:18 29:20

35:23 113:9 125:6 instructed (2) 45:16

118:11 instruction (2) 57:21

132:7 instructions (5) 45:16

53:17 57:12 60:22 132:5

insurance (3) 29:1 50:14 70:17 intend (1) 128:11 intention (2) 6:13

128:14 intentional (3) 127:4

127:5,6 intentionally (1)

126:15 interconnected (1)

61:19

interest (2) 4:24 96:12 interested (1) 130:8 interesting (1) 121:2 interests (1) 120:19 interim (4) 27:9,10

32:14 43:12 interlocutory (1) 20:3 interpose (3) 87:14,16

87:17 interpreted (2) 74:3

78:25 interrupt (2) 13:22

46:11

intolerable (1) 102:14 invested (1) 42:6 investment (5) 32:25

33:1 74:21,22 75:8 invitation (1) 121:18 invite (4) 11:23 21:22

69:16 116:1 inviting (2) 27:21 61:3 involved (4) 71:25

113:13,14 127:22 irrelevant (2) 63:13

73:7

issue (38) 16:25,25 17:15 18:11,21 21:3 26:14 28:3,4,9 30:19,23,25 32:13 34:17 49:23 50:11 55:8,10,11,13,14 61:16,25 62:1,4 67:1 91:7 95:14 98:9,22 111:5,8 123:5 124:9 128:2 128:6,6

issued (3) 17:19 101:17 102:19

issues (25) 1:5 10:25 18:9 20:2 28:1 29:16 31:13 32:17 39:10,15 46:25 50:9 51:15 61:2,18 68:11,11 77:5 92:7 99:11,12 113:5 116:8 118:16 127:24

issuing (3) 19:22 20:7 102:1

item (1) 123:9 items (1) 36:15

J

J1/11/2 (1) 48:5

J1/11/3 (1) 48:15 J1/20/1 (2) 48:18 49:5 J1/20/4 (1) 48:19 J1/3/1 (1) 47:5 J1/3/2 (1) 47:12 J1/3/3 (1) 47:23 J1/3/4 (1) 47:24 January (2) 12:15

92:10

job (2) 23:19,23 joint (2) 16:15 47:1 judge (2) 53:2 90:13 juggernaut (1) 77:14

June (3) 105:9,10,10 jurisdiction (13) 46:14

52:7,23,24,25 53:1 60:15,21 61:1,3,16

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

139

March 23, 2016 Day 31

67:5 102:15

Justice (310) 1:13,18 1:22,25 2:7,17,20 2:25 3:5,23 4:17 5:9,14 6:4,12,14,19 7:7,20 8:4,8,17,22 9:7,18,22 10:6,11 10:16,19,22 11:5 12:2,24 13:21 14:2 15:2,10,12,16 16:1 17:23 18:8 19:10 19:17,20 20:3,10 20:15,18 21:4,11 22:1,10,15 23:1,4 23:15,25 24:13,14 24:21,25 26:12,21 26:25 27:14 28:2,5 28:21 30:21 32:23 33:18 34:1,18 35:9 35:25 36:9,18,22 37:24 38:7,15,21 38:24 39:3,6,11 40:5,18 41:2,11,15 41:17,21 42:2,12 42:17 43:8,13,15 43:22 44:4,15 45:14 46:10,18 47:9,15,22,24 48:6 48:14,20,22,25 49:4,7,12,22 50:22 51:22 52:23 53:5,8 53:20,23 54:9,16 54:22 55:8,16 56:7 56:22 57:3,14,16 57:19 58:12,20 60:23 61:1,6 62:3 62:14 63:6,24 64:2 64:14 65:1,23 66:6 66:13,20 67:5,10 67:13,20 68:2,5 70:23 71:3,19 72:10 73:5,22 75:16,24 76:13,16 77:13 78:8,23 79:14 80:3,12,21 81:6,9,15,19 82:2,8 82:12,24 83:5,8,15 83:21 84:10 85:4 85:16,25 86:3,5,14 86:17,19,24 87:2 87:10,16,20 88:1,4 88:8,15 89:5,13,16 89:20 90:5,8 91:14 93:5 96:15,20,24 97:25 98:8 99:2,6 99:13,21 100:9 101:11 102:11,18 102:25 103:10,21 104:11,22 105:1,13 105:21,25 106:7,15 107:5,19,23 108:4 108:9 109:3,14 110:6 111:2,5,9,12 111:15,18,21,23 116:5,12,25 117:18 118:3,12,16,25 120:3,25 121:6,10 121:24 122:3,5,17 122:23,25 123:3,7 123:11,13,16,19 124:16,20 125:2 126:9,14,24 127:2 127:24 129:1,3,6,8 129:11,19 130:5,11 130:14,22,25 131:8 131:10,18,22 132:4 132:9,15,18,24 133:8,12,15

justified (1) 51:23

K

keen (1) 103:6

keep (6) 58:11 87:21 106:25 109:18 118:24 119:12

keeping (1) 79:4 kept (3) 52:20 94:12

107:3

key (5) 50:2 56:10,13 62:24 109:4

kind (5) 60:5 79:4 80:15 118:4 133:17

kindly (2) 68:21 105:24

knew (3) 23:7 41:2,4 know (56) 4:9 5:8 9:7 9:8,24 12:8 13:17 15:5 24:13,14,25 32:23,23 33:10

34:6 35:11 36:9,10 38:7 41:21 48:3 52:8 54:9 59:16,18 59:19 61:23 62:15 63:15 71:22 72:8 75:9 77:7,22 93:25 97:21 104:12,14,15 106:21 108:13 113:3,5,22 114:14 119:5,9,16,23 120:1 122:11,14 126:13,14,21 131:24

knowing (7) 28:10 34:21,22 40:14,15 62:4 67:14

knowledge (1) 24:10 known (1) 40:12 knows (8) 12:21 37:20

46:22 56:12 77:9 85:22 105:18 109:1

L

La (2) 36:21 59:24 lack (1) 40:4
Lair (1) 29:7

land (21) 3:25 32:24 33:9 52:3 61:20,25 62:4,12 63:8 64:20 65:11 66:3 74:7,8 74:12 75:1 76:9,23 83:21 102:8 106:6

large (6) 31:2,13 56:25 78:14 114:6 115:4

late (1) 94:10 latest (2) 110:12

131:1 lavished (1) 73:16 law (17) 11:14,18

13:12 29:20 78:24 85:5 86:1,9,12,18 87:6 92:5 93:1 94:18 100:10 105:23 116:9

lawyers (2) 70:9 71:24 lead (3) 11:25 19:5

121:12 learn (1) 69:1

learned (2) 9:15 36:7 leave (3) 10:14 38:1

52:14

leaves (5) 42:24 46:21 84:24 93:23 95:24

leaving (1) 44:11 left (7) 11:16 21:15

44:11 53:22 70:17 82:8 102:5

legislate (1) 100:23

lesser (1) 44:25 116:20,20 118:3,9 105:12,16,16,23 Maggs (4) 11:15 92:8 meet (3) 37:15 40:16
lest (2) 15:2 31:7 119:6 120:18 106:5,5,11,11,16 92:19 100:15 132:20
let’s (12) 36:1 57:20 124:22,24,25 107:18,21,21,25,25 Maggs/Gladyshev (1) meeting (2) 9:10
59:4,5,15,16 63:20 126:22 127:4 128:1 108:5,11,11 109:13 100:24 47:21
63:21 94:5 116:19 129:8,20 130:1 109:13,20,20,25 Magnum (5) 68:4 meetings (1) 119:11
124:12,24 looked (7) 27:20 37:2 110:1,4,7,11 111:1 94:15 125:21 126:1 memories (1) 118:8
letter (8) 19:25 21:13 37:2 62:12 108:6 111:20,22,24 112:3 131:2 memory (4) 39:14
22:6 44:13 45:8 109:6 121:8 112:19 113:13 maintain (1) 58:2 43:9,10 84:19
49:15 57:21 111:25 looking (21) 24:5 114:5,20 116:3 making (11) 6:16 mentioned (2) 125:3
letters (1) 49:18 30:22 32:2 44:15 118:8,22,22 119:3 10:23 22:20 26:11 131:12
levels (1) 80:2 53:13 57:1 63:4 119:9,21 122:4,9 33:21 40:13 55:21 merit (1) 25:25
liability (10) 27:4,7,7 64:13 76:9,22,22 123:9,12,14 124:22 69:11 103:15 107:5 mess (1) 77:25
27:15 30:18,21 79:25 80:17 92:13 124:25 125:1 115:14 micro (1) 131:9
32:4,13 55:22 62:1 113:16 120:5 126:11,18 127:1,11 manage (2) 7:4 86:10 midday (1) 1:11
lie (1) 3:24 121:10 126:5 129:12,14,24 managed (1) 124:6 middle (3) 87:19
lies (3) 102:9,15 106:6 128:13 129:19 130:13,16,18,20,24 management (6) 1:5 103:18 116:6
life (10) 7:12 38:6,20 133:15 131:5,7,11,12,13 25:10 34:14,17 mildly (1) 58:15
38:21 39:13 40:9 looks (12) 42:7 45:7 131:24 132:5,5,13 48:9 109:7 Millard (18) 2:22,24
42:21 44:10 70:17 47:8 48:10 52:18 132:14,16,22,22,25 manner (1) 54:16 6:8,17 7:6,13 8:12
79:10 58:7 62:8,9 64:19 133:6,6 mantle (1) 106:2 8:13 9:14 11:15
lifestyle (3) 26:6 37:1 64:21 120:19 121:2 Lord’s (4) 4:17 86:5 marathon (1) 93:17 14:6 35:22 43:18
37:2 Lord (334) 1:4,14,14 100:16 129:16 March (10) 1:1 48:5,6 75:13,17 87:24
lift (1) 75:25 1:20,20,24,24 2:2,8 Lordship (93) 1:4,7,9 85:24 86:2 92:12 88:2 97:14
light (3) 38:6,8 39:9 2:23,23 3:1,9,9 4:5 1:12,16 9:20 11:10 100:13 110:21,25 million (5) 25:24 26:2
liked (1) 67:25 5:2 6:10,10,13,15 11:13,20,23 12:20 112:1 84:18,24 90:21
likelihood (2) 31:8 6:23 7:16 8:7,13,13 12:21 13:16,17,19 marine (2) 74:14,19 mind (10) 33:4 57:14
101:23 8:15,18 9:1,5,18,19 13:19 16:6 17:5,11 mark (1) 120:15 89:4 98:20 102:17
limit (1) 61:7 9:19 10:1,1,8,8,18 17:16,21 18:3,20 market (8) 32:10 110:14 111:17
limitation (1) 100:5 10:23,23,25 11:6,6 21:9,22 22:17 24:8 62:14 63:17 64:7 112:4 117:5 120:9
limited (3) 68:22 12:20 13:1,1,5,6 26:3 30:2 32:5,7 65:14 74:6,10 77:2 minded (1) 94:1
98:17 100:14 14:1 15:7,7,11,13 36:14,16,24 37:20 Marshall (1) 40:21 minds (1) 10:13
limiting (1) 89:8 15:13,17,17 16:3 37:21 38:4 39:5,10 Martinique (1) 36:19 mine (1) 12:22
line (2) 51:5 94:17 16:20 17:24 19:2 40:11 41:23 42:8 material (3) 8:8 113:4 minimum (3) 62:22,22
lines (3) 17:20 32:12 19:15,15,18 20:9,9 43:20 44:17 46:22 125:5 65:5
57:13 20:16,22 21:7,7,22 47:11,13 50:12,15 materially (1) 17:25 minus (1) 32:10
linked (1) 30:14 22:5,18 24:4 26:13 50:24 52:9,10,21 materials (1) 114:14 minute (1) 30:5
list (7) 24:3 113:16 26:20 27:18 28:12 53:3,24 54:6 55:4,5 matter (35) 2:2,6 5:3 minutes (2) 66:14
118:13,15,25 28:22 29:25 30:1,1 56:18,23 59:5 5:17 8:25 12:22 67:20
119:24 123:9 31:12 33:12,23 67:24 68:9 69:20 13:20 14:3 15:2 Mironova (7) 3:12 4:4
listen (1) 89:3 34:25 36:4,13,13 72:24 77:1 80:23 21:5,20 23:6,19 4:23 5:15 95:4
listening (1) 80:18 36:21 38:1,1,3,11 85:21 86:20 87:5 24:21 25:8 33:24 97:10 133:5
litigant (2) 60:11 38:11,17,22 39:1,4 89:22,24 90:22 34:13 39:25 51:5 misfortune (1) 73:4
104:16 39:7,12,18 40:11 93:25 94:13 95:5 55:2 56:1 58:16 missed (2) 64:14
litigation (10) 37:17 40:19,23,23 41:8,8 96:7,13 102:17 60:17 65:19 71:24 65:23
60:14 77:19,21 41:12,16,16,20,20 103:3 105:18 79:19 82:24 83:20 misunderstand (1)
78:7,18 83:2,4 41:23 42:3,13,20 106:12,21 108:2,14 83:20 91:24 92:1 41:8
90:16 117:17 43:9,14,16,16,23 108:15,21,25 107:11 108:13 misunderstanding (1)
little (16) 2:4 5:1 9:2 44:5,5,17 45:22,22 114:22 118:21 130:11 131:7 41:20
27:1 42:16 67:16 45:25 46:16,16,20 124:1 130:7 133:13 matters (6) 1:21 13:17 misunderstood (1)
73:5 79:16 105:9 46:20 47:6,10,17 Lordship’s (10) 13:2 29:20 53:15 56:6 65:1
107:25 108:2 47:23 48:4,7,7,17 20:17 22:16 47:4 122:8 Mm (4) 48:6 49:22
109:20,22 118:6 48:21,23,24 49:1,5 92:2 102:7 108:11 mean (37) 4:12 5:6 111:23 118:2
122:17 123:9 49:8,13,13,14,17 113:2 114:25 6:10 9:5 15:18 modest (1) 79:13
live (2) 42:15 111:5 49:19,23,23 50:10 119:18 20:18 22:2 25:25 moment (10) 7:2,3
living (5) 42:13 43:2 50:18,24,24 52:9 lose (3) 24:6 84:22 26:1 29:23 32:24 33:3 38:19 40:12
69:6 70:18 78:15 53:3,6,9,21,21,24 97:21 34:5 37:24 50:22 58:12 81:7 97:7
LLC (1) 63:3 54:15,15,21 55:4 loss (2) 65:12 86:15 51:22 67:13 71:3 99:16 123:11
loans (4) 29:5 31:18 55:11,11,17 56:17 lost (1) 92:3 72:22 73:12 78:9 Monday (10) 8:17,23
32:21 64:8 56:23 57:11,15,17 lot (23) 11:1 21:17 79:7,18 80:21 8:24 10:17 85:18
locus (1) 109:21 57:21 58:18,18,21 28:14 32:25 35:4 81:19 89:2 97:1 106:22 123:23
logistical (2) 6:24 36:3 60:20 62:6 63:19 36:3 59:14 69:11 102:19 107:2 111:9 124:6 131:13
London (2) 112:8 66:9,19,25 67:7,18 69:17,19 80:10,14 117:23 118:14 133:21
131:15 70:12 71:2 73:17 86:11 87:1 90:14 119:3,9 121:6 money (36) 35:7 37:5
long (17) 4:4 5:11 9:8 75:11 76:4,15 96:13,17 101:8 122:25 126:2 130:5 37:15 39:16,19,23
40:8,18 41:7 56:8 78:13,21 79:11,20 117:16 120:23,25 meaning (1) 35:11 40:15 41:7,14 43:3
73:15 87:14 92:9 80:6,12,19,19,23 124:19 131:10 meaningful (1) 29:2 44:9 45:2,7 46:9
96:8 102:5 105:14 81:14 82:7,21,25 lots (1) 45:14 meaningfully (1) 69:7 60:7 65:11 67:10
118:19 120:1 83:7 84:14 85:18 lottery (1) 23:18 means (14) 25:13,17 68:25 69:17 70:7
127:13,21 86:7,7,16 87:13 lower (1) 68:19 26:2 35:4 45:15,18 77:17,17,19 78:5,9
long-standing (1) 89:18,20,21,21 luck (1) 73:20 52:4 99:6 103:25 78:11,20 80:17,24
77:14 90:9,9 91:16,16,22 lunchtime (1) 10:10 104:22 106:11 83:5 90:14,15 91:3
longer (6) 1:18 4:21 93:7,7 96:7,18,18 lure (1) 28:21 107:5 120:4 121:3 91:10,11 101:7
5:19 41:3 74:25 96:22,22 97:16,24 luxuries (1) 78:5 meant (3) 39:25 80:7 monies (1) 40:8
87:15 97:24 98:7,24,24 Lyle (1) 35:10 82:22 month (3) 92:13
look (29) 19:15,18 99:4,5,11,11,18,18 measure (2) 41:17 110:16 124:23
29:24 37:4 57:20 100:8,8 102:4,4,17 M 56:25 months (3) 39:22 40:3
59:25 66:3,13 102:22 103:1,12,15 machinations (1) mechanical (1) 20:13 68:10
73:22 76:5,19 103:15 104:5,6,20 mechanics (1) 104:3 motion (1) 104:2
58:10
78:10 80:4 85:7 104:21,25 105:12 mechanism (1) 90:1 motivation (1) 51:2

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

140

March 23, 2016 Day 31

motivations (1) 30:12 move (7) 3:3 18:19
37:10 88:9 95:11 98:3 104:1

moved (4) 8:17 87:3 115:6 119:14

muck (1) 63:12 muster (1) 98:2 mutually (1) 102:2

N

name (1) 109:5 narrative (1) 108:7 nature (3) 31:6 46:8

56:10

Nazarov (19) 89:17 112:7,9,13,20 113:7,12,19,20,24 114:10,16,21 116:16 117:8,13 118:6 119:7 122:9

Nazarov’s (7) 86:22 107:24 111:22,25 112:16,23 120:12 near (2) 93:14 122:2

nearly (1) 77:25 neat (1) 16:10 necessarily (2) 5:5

122:6 necessary (14) 5:20

9:21 29:20 46:23 46:24,25 51:9 54:12 55:1,7,9 87:19 97:3 120:17

necessities (4) 37:5 79:2,3 82:5

necessity (3) 37:8 73:12 79:10

nee (1) 11:7

need (35) 21:17 26:25 32:25 38:13 46:16 47:3 51:11 59:4 71:1 72:2 74:20 76:5 77:2,11 78:24 81:4,9 85:8,9 87:7 92:8,19,20 93:13 93:14 95:10 98:25 98:25 99:12 105:5 105:14 127:13 128:16,18 132:6

needed (3) 131:16,17 131:19

needs (8) 16:11 46:5 46:8 51:24,25 56:5 77:2 98:5

neither (1) 96:3 nettle (1) 102:4 Neuberger (5) 18:8

20:3,10 22:18 90:5

Neuberger’s (5) 15:2 17:23 23:4 24:14 101:11

never (6) 31:10 33:2 79:14 118:22 121:20 126:3

nevertheless (6)

14:25 25:17 27:24 35:15 64:3 82:3

new (3) 69:14 112:11 125:10

news (1) 112:6 nice (2) 82:17 103:3 nine (1) 39:22 normal (1) 69:2 normally (4) 19:6

46:18 48:1 71:23 nostalgia (2) 133:15

133:18

Nostalgic (1) 133:15 note (2) 89:22 108:11 notes (2) 10:3 119:12 notice (1) 95:19 notion (3) 33:19

34:21 73:8

November (5) 43:15 43:16,25 47:10,14

number (8) 1:5,20 52:9 107:21 114:1 114:6 115:4 125:24

numbers (1) 124:5

O

object (1) 98:4 objecting (1) 55:17 objection (1) 100:4 objective (1) 25:10 obligation (2) 53:16

59:2

observation (1) 89:24 observations (2)

17:23 20:10

observed (2) 36:24

50:15 obvious (6) 20:5

30:10 33:4 46:11 50:20 120:18

obviously (46) 2:13,24 3:19 4:1 6:25 9:1 10:4 23:17 24:9 28:13 30:8 33:23 35:1,22 49:20 50:11 51:5,20 52:13 55:4 68:16 68:23 70:8,13 72:3 74:20,22 75:11,19 78:14 79:3,11,23 82:22,23 86:8 87:23 88:23,25 90:4 99:24 111:13 116:11 121:1 130:3 132:18

occasion (2) 48:10 110:12

occasionally (1) 108:2 occasions (1) 48:10 occur (3) 39:20 87:12

122:10

October (5) 48:18,21 49:9,11 114:23

odd (1) 34:24 offer (1) 62:21 office (2) 130:1,9

oh (6) 7:20 42:2 49:7 57:19 121:2 122:25

okay (5) 2:20 10:6 38:16 42:19 62:13

OMG (3) 50:1,15 64:10

once (7) 34:8 49:9,9 105:2 107:11 118:17 121:12

one’s (1) 115:8 Onega (1) 50:2 onerous (1) 95:6 ongoing (2) 42:13

78:17 open (1) 93:23

operations (1) 130:6 operator (3) 62:11

63:5 125:21

opinion (3) 16:8,14 17:11

opinions (1) 74:3 opposed (2) 68:11

83:3

oppressive (1) 119:25

option (6) 14:21 22:11,13,13 24:2,3
options (3) 22:11 24:5 33:12

oral (1) 123:15 order (36) 2:23 5:20

6:2 8:24 18:3,23 27:10 32:14 38:10 39:16 40:22 42:24 46:16,17,20 47:8 47:13 48:4 49:8,10 49:15 58:16 59:15 59:21 61:9,16 88:18 94:3 100:21 102:20 110:4,20 111:16 114:22,23 115:1

orders (2) 49:18 119:19

ordinarily (1) 7:10 ordinary (2) 15:20

17:14

organisational (1)

71:13

original (3) 47:8,8 113:8

originally (1) 11:4 originated (1) 114:21 ought (3) 8:5 11:2

115:13 outcome (3) 13:10

18:23 32:2 outlook (1) 34:19 outside (1) 64:23 outstanding (4) 32:10

32:16 68:18 94:6 over-egg (1) 82:19 overrides (1) 53:15 overriding (1) 25:9 overspill (5) 4:15 6:6

93:7 94:24 95:8 overspilling (2) 87:7

88:12 overspills (1) 3:13 overwhelmed (1)

51:19 overwhelmingly (1)
60:18 owed (1) 79:15

owned (3) 31:16 63:7 66:5

P

page (9) 22:18 42:3 42:18 48:14 53:7 53:21 57:17 109:17 134:2

paid (12) 18:5,7 23:21 23:22 37:18 53:17 59:4 67:14 68:17 69:2,4 101:8

paper (2) 121:20 122:25

paradigm (1) 35:7 paragraph (16) 22:19

38:19 42:4,7,9 43:19,21 47:11,11 48:7,19 53:12 57:23 110:9,21,24

paraphernalia (1)

94:15 pardon (1) 86:4

parenthesis (1) 37:6 paring (1) 46:7

Paris (9) 70:5 80:13,25 82:17 123:20 125:20 127:4 128:1 128:10

part (21) 12:3 15:5 persuades (1) 58:14 ponies (1) 79:17 premise (6) 21:11,12
38:9 42:22 50:2,7 pertain (1) 19:7 poor (3) 23:23 25:21 21:24 29:5 54:24
51:17 52:22 53:6 Petersburg (2) 50:19 68:1 71:14
57:24 63:1 66:11 122:15 Popov (38) 11:10 14:2 premised (2) 71:5
72:4 73:11 77:3 phase (1) 13:4 14:15 15:16 16:7 87:5
97:15,16 100:4 photocopying (1) 16:13 17:10 49:21 premises (3) 28:18
106:17 125:15 25:16 50:1,13 55:19 58:1 57:9,10
131:20 photographs (1) 58:11 59:7 66:21 preparation (4) 13:12
participate (1) 69:7 109:16 75:17 77:6 81:25 59:3 92:23 94:18
particular (3) 42:11 phrase (1) 19:11 83:9,17 87:6,11,18 preparations (1) 69:8
61:9 77:3 pick (1) 3:17 89:10 91:5,6 93:24 preparatory (1) 22:22
particularly (6) 12:14 picture (1) 33:5 94:4 95:24 96:4 prepare (11) 5:1
37:16 55:23 93:17 pictures (3) 123:17,21 98:18,25 99:7 22:24 45:5 54:2,4
94:13 120:7 125:22 103:4,14 105:21 85:9,9 86:9 91:12
parties (2) 16:5 54:11 pinch (1) 5:24 107:8,15 93:19 95:18
parts (1) 57:7 place (5) 10:17 12:1 Popov’s (5) 35:18 prepared (4) 9:23
party (8) 15:21 22:25 19:5 24:11,15 46:2 58:8 77:13 23:2 85:11 103:24
25:12 37:19 96:12 placed (2) 88:21 133:8 83:10 preparing (3) 16:24
98:23 101:21,22 plain (5) 20:19 31:1,5 Popov/Steadman (4) 44:23,24
pass (2) 113:25 114:2 49:19 80:25 13:15 98:9 100:24 presence (1) 130:12
passage (1) 103:5 planning (1) 99:11 104:12 present (1) 88:16
passed (5) 102:8 plans (1) 26:15 position (34) 2:7 4:10 preserve (2) 63:17
112:7 113:21 114:9 play (4) 59:22 76:8 12:25 13:7 17:18 70:7
114:10 93:22 103:5 19:4 22:5 25:6,11 press (4) 70:1 89:6,7
path (1) 51:12 playing (1) 23:18 27:5,8 42:4 58:2 89:12
Pause (2) 72:19 pleading (1) 110:1 67:4,9 68:7 69:20 pressure (1) 102:14
123:12 pleas (1) 100:2 74:24 79:13 91:4 Presumably (1)
pay (24) 16:23 18:13 please (12) 1:4 41:25 92:5 98:19 104:8 102:22
18:18 25:13 26:9 42:3 44:13 47:24 105:19 112:1,18 pretty (4) 33:10 51:15
26:15 35:7 38:3 48:14 57:11 67:24 123:25 124:19 51:25 68:1
39:13 58:22,23 83:10 122:3 123:7 126:13 127:2 prevent (3) 49:25
60:12 63:9 65:16 126:2 130:17 131:13 56:13 104:19
67:3 68:25 70:8,9 pledge (3) 66:16,17 132:4 133:14 previous (2) 7:22 79:6
71:17 74:21 79:17 74:10 positions (1) 103:20 previously (4) 9:12
84:5 85:1 90:20 pledged (1) 30:7 positive (1) 126:12 112:9 125:5,6
paying (3) 69:18 pledges (1) 64:1 possibility (2) 3:15 price (5) 32:10 63:9
70:18 127:14 plenty (1) 116:21 81:20 63:14 66:18 79:24
paymaster (1) 29:3 plug (1) 17:5 possible (8) 22:11 prima (1) 34:19
payment (7) 27:9,10 plugged (1) 91:20 42:17 64:16,20 primary (1) 89:14
32:14 42:13 43:12 plugging (1) 11:22 65:3 71:9 81:17 principally (1) 17:25
43:13 70:13 plus (1) 5:17 102:21 principle (3) 2:20
payments (2) 43:2,2 pm (4) 1:2 67:21,23 possibly (8) 18:7 23:19 49:25
PDF (1) 123:3 133:20 31:21 44:21 67:2 priorities (3) 78:12,13
peering (1) 28:10 point (78) 2:17 3:18 71:13 95:11 113:3 80:5
pence (1) 82:10 11:2,12 14:18,19 120:13 privilege (3) 116:9,15
pencilled (1) 12:21 16:4 19:8 20:1,17 postpone (1) 133:18 118:4
people (11) 35:12 20:24,25 21:1,1,6,8 postscript (1) 125:17 privileged (1) 114:14
65:14 68:24 69:1,2 21:23 22:19 25:19 pot (4) 40:15 78:20 pro (6) 61:20 68:21,24
71:25 79:9,21 25:25 26:13 32:18 81:3 91:10 71:16 90:12 92:6
101:3 102:13 132:2 35:14,17 37:13 potential (7) 32:24 probabilities (1) 32:18
peoples’ (1) 80:4 39:18 40:1,2,5,13 62:9,11 64:22 66:4 probability (1) 50:21
perception (2) 83:24 40:21,24,25 41:13 70:19 90:1 probably (19) 8:19
84:2 42:14 45:12,23 potentially (5) 15:8 13:14 17:25 28:24
perfect (2) 62:14 52:6 53:24 55:21 20:22 95:16 106:13 44:25 48:12 59:14
111:16 56:23 63:4 64:20 117:20 59:15 87:15 96:14
perfectly (1) 103:24 64:21 65:2,13 66:3 potentials (2) 76:19 98:21 101:8 104:7
period (7) 12:17 43:3 69:25 74:11 77:22 76:21 108:1 111:24
69:10 77:16 91:21 80:6 81:10,15 pounds (1) 82:9 114:13 119:19
93:18 98:17 83:25 87:18 91:1 power (5) 53:3,4 54:5 124:14 132:25
periods (1) 93:13 94:17 98:24 99:25 61:7,9 problem (19) 8:21
permission (10) 10:15 100:1 103:10,15 powerful (1) 35:13 14:15 19:21,24
13:2 15:19,20,22 104:9 105:17 practical (5) 23:9 35:5 20:20 21:10 27:14
40:22 46:17 49:19 106:11 107:25 35:15 83:20 118:18 31:11 32:19 57:9
54:19,19 108:2,8 109:4,14 prayer (1) 28:25 65:13 90:10 93:1
permissions (1) 47:6 112:20 113:6,9 pre-trial (2) 12:22 94:24 115:25
permit (1) 25:7 117:18 119:4 13:2 117:22,22 126:5
permitted (1) 54:20 128:19 130:3 131:9 preceding (1) 9:25 130:19
person (4) 53:16 points (20) 2:1 15:5 precise (1) 60:25 problems (2) 8:4
66:23 124:7 128:4 19:10 28:15 35:23 precisely (1) 32:6 131:4
personal (12) 28:8 36:4 44:17 58:13 predicament (1) 65:18 procedural (1) 117:16
29:10,17 31:1,8,19 60:18 65:21 81:5 prefer (5) 1:16 13:20 procedure (1) 106:24
32:18,22 33:6 50:6 86:2 92:8,18 87:4 89:2 111:7 proceed (1) 1:17
111:14 127:7 107:21 109:20,22 preferable (3) 86:2 proceeding (3) 14:12
personally (2) 127:15 113:7 129:13,14 89:9 99:24 75:5 126:4
127:22 policies (2) 38:20,21 preferably (1) 31:22 proceedings (21)
perspective (1) policy (11) 38:6 39:5 preference (1) 7:8 53:11 54:13 69:18
117:21 39:13 40:9,15,22 preferred (1) 24:2 69:25 70:11,19
persuaded (2) 18:20 42:21 44:10,10 prejudging (1) 106:20 78:16 109:23
26:4 70:17 108:3 preliminary (1) 6:23 112:22 113:1,4,11

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

141

March 23, 2016 Day 31

113:12,14 114:2,4 114:7,17 117:20 119:7,9

process (4) 18:23 20:13 26:16 42:23

produce (1) 34:11 produced (1) 125:20 producing (1) 126:7 professional (4) 18:4

23:22 101:3 102:13 professional’s (1)

101:5

Professor (7) 8:16,22 9:16 92:8,19 97:13 100:15

profits (1) 69:11 progress (3) 10:23 106:16,18

prohibitively (1) 25:23 prolong (1) 5:12 promise (1) 127:15 promised (1) 124:9 promises (1) 107:5 promote (1) 81:24 promoted (1) 33:19 prompting (1) 91:9 proof (1) 60:13 proper (5) 30:15 34:7

54:24 117:3 121:3 properly (4) 53:2 54:1

54:2,4 properties (1) 56:24 property (6) 52:1

74:13 75:7 77:21 88:17 107:11

proportion (1) 83:2 proportional (1) 67:17 proportionality (5)

41:18 73:6,9 88:24 100:2

proportionate (5)

25:11 26:9 34:14 115:15 119:20

proportionately (2)

26:15 105:14 proposal (8) 9:6
115:10,14,17 116:1 116:4 120:9 122:10

proposals (1) 85:4 propose (2) 85:2

121:16 proposed (2) 6:5 7:5 proposition (1) 36:4 prospect (1) 98:13 prospecti (1) 108:6 prospective (1) 15:14 prospects (1) 28:16 prospectus (3) 108:16

108:18,20

prospectuses (2)

108:6,25 protocol (1) 123:5 proved (1) 55:20 provide (3) 56:12

119:1 128:3 provided (4) 57:8

124:3 127:3 128:7

PTR (1) 27:6

public (3) 66:17 76:6 96:12

pudding (1) 82:19 purchaser (4) 62:20

63:6 64:20 74:17 purely (6) 81:25 82:1 82:2 83:20 111:8

111:13 purpose (6) 34:20

66:1,2 80:24 113:1 114:11

purposes (2) 40:23 114:3
pursued (2) 37:9,10 put (36) 12:1 14:20

17:13 20:6 22:7,11 23:16 26:13,14 28:23 29:9,15,24 37:23 38:2 40:11 51:10 58:14 59:25 62:18 67:11 75:12 77:6 83:22 84:11 85:21 88:20 92:8 92:24 94:5 102:13 109:1 110:11 120:15 121:15,19

puts (1) 23:17 putting (6) 19:5 52:21

91:1,6 101:4,15

Q

quality (1) 68:1 quantification (1)
55:17 quantum (5) 27:15

30:19 32:6 50:3 55:12

query (1) 11:10 question (69) 3:10

11:9,21 12:3 13:5 13:11,15 15:13 16:4,12,16,19 17:8 18:1,2,21 19:3,23 20:23 22:20 27:24 30:6,8,10,11,14 36:23 37:8 40:9 41:9 44:23 45:4 48:8 50:1,10,18,21 50:21 51:7,21 52:13,14,19 53:4 53:25 54:22 58:19 58:24 65:17 74:9 75:14 76:10 78:12 78:13 86:15 89:21 91:6 93:24 94:6 95:24 96:18 99:5 110:3 119:3 129:18 130:2 131:23 132:22 133:11

questioned (2) 16:13 17:10

questions (16) 14:16 15:8,25 19:16 30:13 40:20 55:22 65:24 69:3 87:11 91:13 107:15 113:2 128:11 129:25 130:6

quick (4) 30:4 73:22 116:19,20

quickly (4) 30:2,5 43:9 73:19

quite (36) 8:14,18 10:23 21:20 26:20 27:11 34:13 35:25 37:24 40:18 53:18 54:13 58:20 60:17 65:2 68:22 77:14 79:8,20 80:14 81:12 82:21,23 84:8,14 85:11 87:25 101:8 103:21 107:19 109:25 116:10 122:13 124:8 129:24 130:13

R

radical (1) 27:21

raid (3) 31:18 50:7 120:22,23 121:5 56:1 58:17 82:13 95:2 97:17 109:10
56:2 122:10 123:24 101:5,16 114:17 respectful (2) 52:15
raiding (1) 30:12 127:20 130:10 115:22,24 117:21 93:2
raise (3) 69:3 106:11 131:6 118:1 120:20 respectfully (4) 11:22
131:9 reason (16) 11:11 121:11 128:15 13:16 45:6 96:14
raised (4) 16:17 90:5 14:25 19:18 27:14 reliable (1) 55:18 respective (1) 76:7
108:14 125:17 47:25 58:10 92:22 reliably (3) 52:20 54:1 respite (1) 93:19
raises (1) 50:20 92:25 93:8 94:11 103:17 respond (1) 114:23
range (1) 24:5 94:16,22 98:12 reluctant (1) 9:20 response (3) 1:10
rarely (1) 28:2 117:4 128:12 rely (10) 1:19 2:9,16 38:18 126:4
rate (3) 20:20 60:3 133:10 15:21 16:7 35:12 responsibility (1)
100:5 reasonable (4) 18:14 47:17 50:5 61:7 69:22
rates (1) 108:17 37:16 61:14 65:15 75:22 responsible (1) 69:22
ratio (1) 73:2 reasonably (12) 39:23 remaining (2) 4:7 responsive (1) 111:1
Re-Gata (1) 80:14 41:18 46:23 53:11 47:19 rest (4) 4:1 25:16 29:3
re-read (2) 19:25 55:6 62:11,23 63:5 remains (1) 3:14 93:18
21:13 63:21 70:21 73:1 remember (12) 2:7 restrict (3) 33:25 54:5
re-treading (1) 108:12 76:25 36:18,20 39:6,7 54:11
reach (3) 94:16 102:2 reasons (5) 24:2 25:22 40:6 85:16 113:13 restricted (3) 51:9
124:4 96:5 98:13 120:3 114:20 119:10 53:10 56:13
reached (2) 4:3 recall (5) 27:20 32:5 129:19 133:13 result (2) 70:2 89:10
131:13 66:10 111:24 130:7 remind (3) 2:8 82:14 results (1) 124:22
reaching (1) 84:11 receive (1) 121:13 131:18 retainer (1) 21:15
read (7) 14:2 46:18 received (3) 7:18 reminded (1) 94:21 retrieved (1) 116:17
48:2 53:13 99:4 53:16 126:3 remit (1) 64:23 return (2) 3:25 120:14
122:5 126:9 reciting (1) 50:22 remunerated (2) 45:4 returned (2) 64:8,10
reading (5) 6:7 13:4 reckons (1) 63:7 45:19 Returning (1) 100:25
88:4 95:8 97:15 recognised (1) 74:12 Renord (2) 87:24 88:7 returns (1) 96:19
ready (2) 59:19 77:25 recognising (1) 3:1 repaid (1) 33:3 reveal (2) 65:4 91:17
real (20) 20:20 28:8 recollect (3) 38:4 39:5 repeat (4) 93:10 99:18 revealed (2) 40:10,10
31:15,15,20,25 42:8 99:19 124:2 reverse (2) 7:9 23:12
32:8 61:21 62:7 recollection (1) repeatedly (2) 35:17 review (7) 12:22 13:2
64:3 70:8 74:6 129:25 73:13 107:4 112:17,25
75:22 76:5 84:3,7 reconsider (1) 22:8 repo (3) 30:6,11 51:17 114:13 115:5
84:23 88:22 89:3 record (4) 45:17 48:23 report (8) 44:22 57:18 reviewed (3) 10:2
120:4 68:16 71:16 57:25 58:3,4 73:24 114:6 115:11
realisation (1) 40:21 recovery (1) 93:13 77:13 99:3 reviewing (2) 31:21
realise (4) 39:12 42:10 reduce (1) 98:23 reported (1) 119:13 116:7
120:5 124:17 refer (3) 46:21 125:25 reports (14) 15:23 revised (1) 110:3
realised (4) 42:22 129:25 16:5,8,15,20 31:22 revision (1) 1:8
64:1 76:6 108:5 referable (1) 44:6 34:15 44:22 47:20 revisited (1) 48:9
realising (1) 74:9 reference (5) 58:5 47:20 73:15 75:22 rhetoric (1) 82:22
realistic (2) 85:3 88:11 113:8,18 117:19 78:2 90:14 rhetorically (1) 114:18
realistically (1) 121:7 122:14 repossess (1) 62:19 right (83) 1:19,20,21
reality (2) 63:16 83:16 references (2) 38:12 represented (1) 119:8 1:24 2:11,21,23
really (132) 2:13 3:10 42:8 representing (1) 5:11 7:23 8:11,13
6:6 8:25 10:25 11:1 referred (3) 38:20 114:1 10:12 12:2 18:12
11:21 12:9,20 125:22 129:14 request (2) 5:18 42:9 20:5,16,17 21:20
15:13 17:1,24 18:1 referring (1) 127:11 requested (1) 8:23 21:22,23 22:1
18:11 19:2 20:11 refers (1) 46:18 requests (1) 109:9 29:24 31:3,15 33:6
20:15,22 21:2,3 refinancing (1) 30:15 require (4) 4:21 7:16 33:9 34:4,5,6,9,12
22:7,16,21 23:5,7 reflect (2) 14:5 23:2 101:3,9 35:9,11 37:12
24:11,19 25:2,5 reflection (2) 83:24 required (14) 8:20 38:20,22 39:18
26:10 27:22 28:16 95:20 12:10 16:9 18:17 40:11,25 41:13
28:19,25 29:2 30:2 reflective (2) 36:25 23:10 25:9 32:22 44:3 48:16,20,25
30:10,19 32:2,3,15 86:15 37:7 53:11 73:1 54:15,21,22 58:21
32:20 33:13,15 reflects (1) 63:10 94:25 95:25 96:4 58:23,24 64:3
34:14,16 35:16 refrained (1) 128:13 99:7 67:20 76:16,17
36:23 37:7,8,9,12 refusing (1) 21:14 requires (2) 66:22 81:8 83:5,12 84:10
37:25 38:2,11 regale (1) 37:20 68:13 86:19 87:13 89:13
44:12 50:9,15 regard (7) 2:1 11:20 research (1) 20:20 89:16 90:20 95:4
52:19 54:1 56:7,20 13:17 16:18 71:6 researched (1) 20:9 97:12,24 99:6
58:2,18,21 60:17 98:24 100:1 reserve (3) 5:11 108:8 100:7,16 103:21
64:12,24 67:24 regards (3) 5:15 8:10 109:2 105:24 107:19
68:10,22,25 69:9 83:21 reserves (1) 108:3 109:9 110:6 111:12
70:20 71:9 72:1,8 region (2) 70:16 81:22 reserving (1) 108:23 129:1,9 130:5,14
72:20,23 73:2,19 rehearsed (1) 97:1 resolve (6) 1:5 13:20 131:8,22 132:12,20
74:10 75:14 76:5 related (1) 74:13 53:11 54:12 61:25 rightly (2) 52:14 89:24
77:16,24 78:12,21 relating (2) 113:11,12 81:2 rights (1) 101:21
78:25 79:2,16,24 relation (7) 17:17 19:7 resolved (3) 61:21 risk (7) 23:3,15 69:24
80:10 81:12 83:20 36:13 80:24 112:2 95:15 123:5 78:16 87:7 88:11
85:8,13 88:16 112:5,22 resolving (1) 55:5 108:22
90:11,13,25 91:7,8 relatively (1) 64:11 resource (1) 60:5 risks (1) 73:10
95:4,9 96:18 98:1 relax (1) 2:4 resources (6) 24:12 road (1) 101:2
99:2,15 104:8 released (5) 75:8 25:13,14 26:8 roubles (1) 84:21
105:10,14,20 131:16 132:1,3,11 72:24 80:11 roughly (2) 46:5 92:13
115:17 116:6,7,23 relevance (1) 125:13 respect (11) 8:2 52:13 round (2) 45:22 52:18
117:4,10,11,14,18 relevant (18) 4:9 19:9 56:19 75:7 80:14 RPC (8) 111:25 121:22
117:19 119:9 33:22 35:23 51:20 88:19 89:24 94:2 125:4,18,18 127:9

128:12 129:3

RPC’s (1) 109:24 rubbished (1) 35:3 ruled (1) 56:4

rules (2) 11:20 109:2 ruling (2) 97:20

106:12

run (5) 57:1 62:10,13 62:15 122:13

running (5) 59:8 63:3 63:3 69:14 96:8

Russia (4) 112:14 113:11 116:25 117:1

Russian (21) 11:14,18 13:12 29:20 70:1,2 85:5 86:1,9,12,14 86:18 87:6 92:5 93:1 94:18 100:10 104:13 105:23 116:9 130:15

Russian-English (1)

109:5

Russians (1) 107:7

S

sadly (1) 119:14 safe (1) 55:18 safely (2) 10:3 58:11 sake (4) 59:5,16,17

103:12

sale (2) 63:15 75:6 salutary (1) 103:10 sample (2) 120:17,19 samples (1) 121:22 sampling (2) 115:21

115:23

sanction (1) 121:17 sand (2) 29:5 64:17 sane (1) 53:1 satisfied (3) 25:6 26:8

84:8

save (2) 18:7 41:22 saved (2) 26:8 79:12

Savelyev (2) 28:15

108:25

saw (4) 79:7 110:8 117:5 123:20 saying (17) 5:8 16:6 26:12 30:2 41:2

45:13 46:4 59:20 60:18 76:16 94:25 95:1,2 99:21 115:18 121:7 126:1

says (16) 22:18 28:19 35:10 46:5 50:14 54:16 62:12 63:10 65:12 66:18 74:2,6 102:7 115:4 119:6 132:2

Scala (2) 36:21 59:24 scale (1) 24:8

scam (1) 29:22

Scan (5) 50:2,14 51:16

64:9 76:8

scan-read (1) 24:18 Scandinavia (1) 29:1 scenario (2) 32:7

66:15

scratch (1) 121:15 scratched (1) 57:3 sealed (1) 49:10 search (3) 105:13 122:13 125:11

searchable (2) 123:2,4 searched (1) 119:20 searching (1) 116:18 second (7) 14:19

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

142

March 23, 2016 Day 31

19:20 27:11 38:22 96:8,11 97:5 size (2) 24:19 72:24 27:19 30:23 31:4 strikeout (1) 110:10 85:20 92:4 96:10
38:25 128:6,14 101:13,20 104:2 slack (2) 10:5 42:16 33:16 67:1 77:5 strikes (1) 34:24 104:23 105:3,15
secondly (2) 45:18 106:19 108:18 sleep (1) 82:16 98:9 striking (1) 45:9 108:21
61:15 settle (1) 92:17 slight (2) 19:23 82:18 splitting (1) 89:8 stripping (1) 18:12 submit (10) 5:2 24:6
secure (1) 90:1 shame (3) 73:13 slightly (6) 40:5 46:10 spoken (1) 128:8 Stroilov (203) 1:25 2:2 32:13 45:6 70:12
secured (5) 31:19 90:17 103:1 63:19 111:7,9 spot (1) 117:2 2:12,19 3:2,8,23 72:20 77:23 82:21
32:21 33:1 90:16 shape (1) 11:24 128:19 spots (1) 63:7 4:5 5:2,10 6:3,9,15 91:23 96:14
101:25 shared (1) 69:23 sloppy (1) 47:15 spousal (1) 29:19 6:23 7:17,21 8:7 submitted (2) 25:20
securing (1) 24:9 shares (9) 30:7 51:4 slot (4) 5:23 12:16 St (2) 50:19 122:15 9:10 10:13,18,21 77:23
securities (1) 130:6 51:16 52:10,12 103:14 106:1 stage (9) 12:5 20:3,12 12:7 17:9 21:12 subparagraphs (1)
see (56) 3:24 7:11 55:13 56:9,11 64:9 slots (15) 1:16 3:10 20:21 24:1 27:6 22:2,3,5,13,16 110:18
11:13 13:17 18:16 sheet (1) 92:21 4:19,19,20,22,22 33:21 70:22 76:7 23:13,17 24:4,18 subsequent (4) 20:21
20:25 23:5 28:12 shillings (1) 82:10 6:4 7:14 8:9 11:22 stages (2) 15:17 38:12 24:22 25:2 26:20 45:20 48:9 133:18
28:19 32:18,23 shoes (6) 26:7 36:18 83:23 87:8 97:9 stand (7) 11:2 17:3 26:23 27:4,18 28:4 substance (1) 29:11
34:11 35:14 37:24 59:24 78:5 79:24 106:9 46:1 91:18 92:22 28:12 31:12 33:12 substantial (2) 70:10
39:3 42:24 43:19 83:3 slotted (1) 105:5 94:11 95:9 33:23 34:13,25 83:3
43:20 48:7 49:17 short (8) 8:18 67:8,22 slow (1) 127:14 starkly (1) 19:3 35:14 36:7,12,23 substantive (3) 48:11
50:24 54:9 62:3 95:18 109:25 small (1) 64:11 start (17) 6:7 8:24 38:7 40:1,1 41:4 68:10 117:12
70:23 75:5 76:20 116:13 129:13,13 smaller (2) 84:16 89:1 10:3 11:21 13:4 49:2 57:4 58:2,13 succeed (2) 27:7
78:9,10 81:11 shortfall (1) 65:8 Société (4) 38:23 39:3 37:13 69:21 87:9 60:17,20,24 61:3,7 84:23
83:19,19 85:3 shortly (1) 111:3 39:11 44:10 92:3 93:8 95:2 62:6 63:1,19,25 successful (1) 69:15
99:15 102:2,8 shoulders (1) 37:23 sold (3) 64:4,7 66:2 97:18 98:1,3 133:2 64:3,18 65:20,24 suddenly (2) 8:9
104:21,25 106:6 shout (1) 49:14 solution (3) 21:9 133:6,16 66:9,15,25 67:7,12 117:8
108:22 116:6 117:8 show (3) 34:6 41:23 35:15 90:24 start-up (1) 69:10 67:18,24 68:3,6 sufficient (5) 26:8
117:24 118:23 101:2 solve (1) 124:9 started (1) 38:5 71:1,7 72:7,11 44:10 81:3 103:17
120:18,19 121:16 showed (2) 115:21,23 somebody (1) 49:14 starting (6) 9:15 11:2 73:17 75:11,19 115:19
123:3 127:11 128:9 shown (1) 72:24 soon (1) 102:19 16:4 21:7 37:13 76:4,15,21 77:16 suggest (11) 9:15
128:19,24 130:25 shunted (2) 3:21 27:2 sorry (28) 38:11 40:23 132:23 78:13 79:11,20 60:20 85:10 88:18
131:6 133:3,4,18 shut (1) 41:3 41:16,20 46:10,20 starts (1) 9:11 80:6 81:8,14,18 90:10 93:20 103:8
seeing (1) 28:10 side (16) 2:10 16:12 47:23 49:5 52:24 state (1) 30:10 82:1,7,11,21,25 103:17 110:15
seek (3) 4:24 14:16 17:14 34:11 47:17 53:20,21 60:2 statement (7) 2:14 83:7,14,18 84:7,14 127:17 133:2
105:25 65:14 67:11 68:10 64:14 65:1 68:2,5 43:11 82:22 101:13 85:6,19 86:1,4,8,16 suggested (5) 1:8
seeking (2) 39:12 76:2 79:12 82:25 72:10,16 85:25 103:23 110:23 86:20 87:1,4,13,17 16:21 80:8 95:12
42:21 83:5 86:18 117:7 88:1 106:7 109:23 119:10 87:23 88:2,6,10,20 132:18
seen (7) 1:7 3:14 119:25 123:23 122:4 123:12,13 statements (3) 16:15 89:7,14,18 92:10 suggesting (7) 17:16
73:20 80:9 86:22 sides (1) 103:6 124:16,25 125:2 67:19 78:2 92:16,18,20 93:9 17:18 21:9 81:6
111:2 126:9 sign (4) 29:18 122:7 sort (29) 12:1 14:7 Steadman (76) 11:11 94:3,20,25 97:25 107:1 108:12 133:9
sees (2) 42:7 47:19 130:21 131:5 18:22 19:4 29:2 14:3,10,14,22,23 100:13,17,20 suggestion (3) 101:11
selected (2) 113:24,24 signed (3) 110:23 42:15 44:12 45:10 15:16 16:20 17:4 103:22 104:6,21,25 119:12 120:13
sell (5) 62:16,19,20 121:24 131:8 50:16,20 60:16,16 17:13 18:18 19:7 107:10,16 111:2,7 suggests (2) 71:4
63:14 74:23 significant (1) 94:19 62:14 75:6 78:24 19:12 20:24 22:3 111:10,13,17 112:3 120:17
sells (1) 66:16 signify (1) 65:6 79:7 81:5,22 82:17 22:20 25:7 37:6,11 112:20 113:6,21 suitable (1) 110:16
send (4) 111:18 similar (1) 108:18 96:20 102:13 41:1,19 43:5 44:2,8 114:9,19 115:4,12 sum (1) 89:1
118:22 121:22 Simonova (30) 2:22 112:25 115:10 44:20 45:1,3,4,8 116:5,6,15 117:1 summarised (1)
124:15 3:15 6:10 7:5,8 116:12 118:13 46:5 49:20 54:1 118:2,8,15,20,24 124:18
sending (3) 15:1 8:11 14:6 35:20 119:20,24 120:17 55:19 58:25 59:3,7 119:5 120:5,22 summarising (1)
117:13,14 43:18 44:2,7,24 122:19 59:9 60:19 62:8 121:1,9,22 122:1,4 112:1
sensational (1) 117:11 56:23 57:9,22,24 sorted (1) 91:2 64:24 67:3 68:13 122:11,21,24 123:1 summer (1) 106:4
sense (9) 1:14 2:3 58:3 62:9 64:15 sorts (3) 9:13 40:20 68:17,23 70:14,24 123:5 124:2,17,18 summons (20) 14:22
28:7,18 52:25 65:9,21,25 68:24 45:20 71:15 80:1 81:13 126:25 127:1 14:25 17:19,24
110:19 119:19,22 72:13,14 73:23,23 sought (2) 39:15 99:2 85:1 89:11,21,23 129:17,20,24 130:7 18:22 19:22 20:1,7
126:18 75:18,22 97:11 sound (1) 24:19 90:11,17 91:4,11 130:13,23,24 131:6 20:12,13 22:12,23
sensible (1) 78:10 Simonova’s (6) 35:19 sounds (2) 24:20 91:15,19,25 93:24 131:9,12,20,23 23:1,8 89:25 101:1
sensibly (1) 116:3 57:12,18 58:9 63:2 117:23 94:7 95:22 96:5 132:14,17 133:1,8 101:17 102:1,18
sent (4) 19:21 112:21 68:20 source (8) 39:19 98:15 99:7 100:25 133:11,13 106:19
125:12 129:16 simple (3) 17:1 18:11 40:25 41:14 42:11 101:1,14 102:2,6 Stroilov’s (2) 6:6 summonsed (1) 23:7
separate (4) 47:12 60:17 113:7 125:9,10,10 102:22 103:4,14 132:25 sums (1) 25:1
61:16 100:9 128:6 simply (32) 1:22 4:7 space (1) 97:16 105:22 107:9 strong (1) 28:13 supplemental (1)
separated (1) 99:16 5:8 7:23 20:12 spade (1) 72:2 Steadman’s (10) stuff (2) 60:14 104:20 44:22
separately (1) 67:2 25:19 33:13 34:4 spare (1) 37:15 17:18 18:14 21:13 stupid (1) 38:24 support (3) 37:12
separating (1) 15:8 35:6 78:7 83:9,19 speak (1) 124:6 26:9 37:15 44:13 subject (24) 3:7,9 4:5 43:6,12
September (5) 21:16 85:3 98:10,12 speaking (1) 29:25 60:10 83:11 88:19 4:14 5:10 7:11,15 suppose (7) 24:21
49:6,9,11 114:22 100:18,22 101:12 special (1) 18:16 95:14 7:18 8:8 18:23 29:8 32:19,20 45:22
sequence (2) 7:10 107:13 110:2,18 specialist (1) 127:12 steal (2) 50:19 51:4 30:23,24 31:21 55:20 118:16 119:4
46:3 115:8,18 116:9,13 specific (2) 116:19 step (1) 83:12 58:13 85:10 89:16 supposing (1) 71:19
sequencing (1) 4:1 117:12 118:12 119:18 steps (3) 11:6 44:21 91:16 106:16 110:8 sure (20) 3:9 10:5
serious (2) 28:2 90:22 120:15 121:3 specifically (2) 86:21 103:17 114:13 118:4 20:16 34:9 37:25
seriously (2) 37:10 128:21 130:17 96:23 stick (3) 125:19 127:3 125:11 127:19 43:24 48:17 49:1
84:2 133:1 spectacles (1) 80:4 128:7 submission (21) 13:9 52:7 65:20 66:7
serve (2) 15:23 sinew (1) 37:14 speed-flick (1) 117:24 sticker (1) 120:15 13:14 15:7 18:9 71:1 85:19 94:23
103:23 singing (1) 45:2 speedily (1) 14:2 stipulate (1) 98:19 49:24 50:25 52:15 102:15 103:8,10
served (6) 14:22 16:5 sit (9) 4:21 5:18,24 spend (5) 21:24,25 stock (1) 106:5 52:19 56:4 59:2 104:7 119:22 123:1
16:20 110:10,24 9:2,4,20,20,23 60:3,8 78:21 stop (1) 83:10 60:18 61:8,13 surplus (2) 32:9 64:8
111:1 108:1 spent (12) 40:8 68:10 straight (2) 10:9 98:22 69:20 70:5 73:21 surprising (1) 34:3
server (1) 119:15 sitting (2) 11:16 68:3 69:17 70:18 77:19 strain (2) 37:14 97:19 89:14 93:2,10 survival (1) 82:6
services (1) 18:6 sittings (1) 133:4 77:21,24 78:5,6 stream (1) 33:1 99:18 100:16 suspect (1) 119:25
set (17) 14:24 16:8 situation (3) 58:7 79:9 83:2,4 90:14 strength (1) 35:11 submissions (13) swear (1) 129:22
20:1,8 22:5 23:8 97:5 spitting (1) 11:13 stress (1) 94:17 13:11 21:23 40:3 sweep (1) 41:12
48:13 65:3 80:3 six (3) 39:22 59:12,13 split (10) 6:1 27:15,16 strict (1) 5:3 50:4 56:8 80:19 swirling (1) 18:10

symmetry (1) 60:5 synergistic (3) 74:13
74:19 76:14 syrup (1) 35:10

T

t’other (1) 33:3 table (1) 60:1 tail (1) 77:7

take (50) 4:4 7:7,10 10:17 11:6 14:23 15:17 20:6,24,24 20:25 21:1 22:2 23:3,9,15,18,20,25 24:11 26:3 36:1 44:1 46:20 50:14 51:12 55:3 58:3,12 60:22 65:2 69:13 69:16 71:11 73:9 79:5 81:20 83:1,9 96:20 106:2,5,24 112:17 115:22,24 127:15 132:5,7,9

taken (13) 2:12 20:11 29:5 37:22 69:5 77:20 80:16 103:11 103:17 105:24 108:24 117:18 118:18

takes (3) 5:6 20:4 77:1 talk (1) 71:7

talking (5) 45:10 56:20 59:1 70:4 121:24

tango (1) 5:6

tape (2) 11:14 93:15

Tate (1) 35:10 tax (2) 43:2 92:19 taxed (2) 39:10

106:21 taxes (1) 70:18 technical (2) 36:3

116:18 teeming (1) 30:13

tell (13) 10:6 13:22,23 25:12 57:5 64:15 66:6 73:22 81:12 104:24 124:11 126:2 128:17

telling (1) 66:7 tells (2) 75:5 101:25 ten (1) 71:20

tend (2) 69:1,3 tendency (1) 82:18 tender (5) 16:22 17:3

17:4 18:18 90:6 tendered (2) 19:23

48:2

tendering (3) 15:25 16:7,9

tens (2) 72:21,22 term (1) 106:4 terminal (10) 50:2

51:18,18 63:3 64:9 74:15 75:2 76:8 84:18,23

terminate (1) 5:23 terminated (1) 45:16 terms (14) 4:11 7:23

9:13 26:23 35:5 50:5 61:3 81:25 82:1,2 91:22 92:7 116:2 122:12

terrible (1) 7:12 terribly (1) 4:15

test (4) 78:24,24 79:3 121:10

tested (5) 21:21 34:22

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

143

March 23, 2016 Day 31

35:1 89:11 103:7 thinking (5) 6:8 9:19 71:11
testing (2) 56:16 14:19 54:10 55:5 topic (1) 30:1
75:24 thinks (1) 62:18 totally (3) 4:14 35:3
text (2) 108:7 123:2 third (2) 101:21,21 35:21
thank (7) 10:8 53:23 thirdly (1) 82:3 touch (1) 12:24
60:23 104:25 thought (13) 5:20 tough (1) 54:13
111:21 129:11 8:19 13:24 40:8,24 track (3) 47:5 56:8
131:11 41:12 72:3 73:10 78:8
Thanks (1) 132:21 84:18 88:23 94:9 trade (3) 74:13 75:2,3
theatres (1) 36:19 114:16 117:6 trade-related (1)
theirs (1) 34:11 thoughts (2) 54:11 56:24
theoreticians (1) 100:18 trading (2) 74:14,20
63:17 thousands (2) 72:21 Tradition (1) 133:12
theory (1) 75:18 72:22 transcript (4) 97:2
thereabouts (3) 3:13 threads (1) 125:16 118:10 129:21,22
42:25 86:6 threat (1) 70:8 transferred (1) 30:6
thick (1) 59:22 three (13) 3:12 4:12 transhipment (1) 75:3
thing (21) 3:21 24:6 4:25 12:13 27:20 translatable (1) 98:5
29:4 33:11,20 57:12 59:4,10 87:7 translating (2) 25:22
34:15 36:1 43:15 88:10,14 112:12 94:24
51:22 62:18 63:11 114:12 translation (3) 97:23
65:9 71:13 78:23 throw (1) 115:8 99:1 129:14
79:5 80:15 82:18 throwing (1) 80:22 translations (1) 25:21
90:22 118:5 130:16 Thursday (1) 3:20 translator (1) 98:25
131:1 tick (1) 1:15 translators (2) 94:15
things (25) 2:3 11:1 tie (2) 9:22 125:16 94:21
17:3 29:9 33:6 tight (4) 77:17 86:12 travel (3) 25:15 78:18
39:14 45:14,21 87:9 88:7 133:9
46:1 51:3 56:3 65:4 time (58) 3:20 4:11,21 treacherous (1) 51:12
70:13 72:20 73:14 5:1,12 7:15 8:25 treasury (1) 50:16
75:20 79:1 91:18 14:23 20:4,9 21:25 treat (1) 70:20
95:9 96:22 101:22 23:1,4 28:24 38:8 treated (1) 89:11
117:3 118:15 45:12 46:6,20 trespass (1) 21:5
122:10 133:7 62:17,21 68:9 trial (44) 1:6 12:17,18
think (174) 1:21 2:8,9 69:13 72:18 81:24 13:10 24:7,9,11,17
2:11,12,14,15,19 92:1,2,9 95:19 25:10,16,20 26:16
3:10,11 4:6,10,16 96:11 97:11 98:2,5 27:11,19 33:9,16
4:17 5:21 6:23 7:3 98:19,20 100:14,17 34:14,17 38:5,6
7:22 8:4,19 9:4 101:19 102:21 39:9 41:25 43:14
10:15 12:20,23 104:9,10 105:6,9 44:20,24,24 59:20
22:16,19 24:5,16 105:10 106:1 110:1 60:5 61:13,16
25:20 26:4,12,25 110:7,9,13 112:2 66:22 69:8,8,11,13
27:5,12,19 31:12 117:6 118:19 69:21 70:2 77:25
31:24 34:1,1,13 122:18,18 127:17 78:1 86:5 91:23
35:17,25 36:9,17 129:2 130:18 95:13 96:8 115:6
36:19,24 38:18,22 132:11,22 trials (1) 96:16
39:1,8,14,22 40:18 time-consuming (1) tributaries (1) 58:9
40:19,23 43:6,10 115:5 tricky (1) 36:3
43:11,11,16 44:2,5 times (5) 31:16 71:20 tried (3) 49:16 67:1
44:13,19 47:15 100:5 108:14 121:4 73:18
48:12,24 49:5,8,8 timetable (24) 1:7,15 trouble (7) 2:12 21:4
49:10,13 52:23 2:4 3:17 6:5 7:4,19 30:24 51:3 62:15
53:25 57:12,18,21 17:6,12 18:18 19:1 118:16 120:22
61:19 62:2 63:12 85:8 91:7,20 92:23 Trout (1) 111:17
64:18 66:19 69:25 92:24 93:3 94:12 true (2) 92:16 112:23
70:16 71:8,14 72:7 94:12 95:6 96:8 truly (2) 5:19 98:5
73:25 74:1 77:8 97:6 107:1,2 trust (4) 1:11 23:9
78:23 79:2 80:7,8 timetabling (2) 15:11 102:7 120:25
81:9 82:11,19 83:7 18:24 trusted (1) 120:23
84:1,7,16,17,20 timing (1) 105:17 truth (5) 29:6 65:18
85:7,16,21 86:5,21 tin (1) 35:10 87:10 92:15 110:23
86:24 87:4,5,20 tiny (1) 107:25 try (19) 1:15 5:6 8:3
88:10,10,12 89:9 tip (2) 22:21 80:9 11:2,25 15:7 37:15
89:18 91:11 92:19 tiptoeing (1) 21:3 49:17 67:18 70:6
93:9 94:8 97:3,5,8 tiring (1) 4:2 81:11 93:4 94:16
97:12 98:24 99:5 toast (1) 60:1 95:10 98:22 99:15
99:17 101:4,16 today (13) 1:10 21:23 104:1 106:23
102:18 103:3,4 43:10 68:1 108:1 120:16
105:1 106:8 107:7 110:14 111:4,20 trying (8) 3:1,24 19:8
107:8 110:2,25 112:2,11 113:17 47:5 89:5 90:9,10
112:2,8,10 115:1 126:20 132:16 124:4
117:4,18 118:18,20 today’s (1) 80:24 Tuesday (2) 102:19,20
120:8,11,11,14,16 told (11) 3:20 7:25 tune (1) 40:15
121:6,14,17,20,21 67:25 73:3 95:19 Turetsky (6) 8:15 9:6
122:17,19 124:13 100:12 112:9 121:2 9:17 10:8,12 97:13
124:18,19 125:3,18 124:1,7 127:8 turn (4) 40:7 112:4
127:1,9 128:20 tomorrow (2) 102:20 120:9 129:15
130:2,16,24 131:1 132:11 turned (2) 112:9
131:2,12 132:17 top (4) 53:21 57:12,22 114:25

turning (1) 45:22 126:15 130:20
turns (2) 7:24 115:1 universe (1) 28:25 viability (12) 28:16
twelfth (1) 96:9 unjustified (1) 35:21 30:3,13 50:10,13
twice (2) 49:9 121:4 unorthodox (1) 16:17 50:16 51:7 55:25
two (38) 5:6 10:13 unprecedented (1) 64:19 65:10 66:4,9
11:18 12:10 15:14 24:10 viable (4) 28:11 51:16
15:19 19:10 27:20 unreasonable (1) 70:6 62:5,5
30:4 33:15 35:20 unsatisfactory (4) videolink (1) 68:1
39:15 44:22 47:2 33:11,13,16 58:7 videos (4) 123:16,17
47:17 49:6 51:4 untested (1) 89:12 123:20 128:9
59:11 64:25 65:4 unusual (2) 72:4 94:3 view (27) 1:20 4:3
72:14 81:22 86:9 updated (1) 47:7 13:9 17:8 23:9,18
86:13 88:9 93:11 upfront (1) 43:13 23:20 28:25 29:21
93:22 95:3 100:1 uploaded (1) 125:25 30:25 31:2 33:7
105:10 106:10 urge (5) 83:1 95:5 63:4 64:20,21 66:3
109:20 112:12 96:7 98:3 107:11 70:13 72:20 86:2
114:11 125:18 urged (2) 112:3,16 96:21 104:9 105:22
127:24 129:13 urgently (1) 126:14 114:3 115:22,24
132:6 USB (1) 125:19 117:3 119:4
type (2) 74:4,6 use (2) 75:1 106:23 visited (1) 112:8
typed (2) 111:3 131:3 useful (2) 66:7 81:24 vital (1) 72:25
uselessly (1) 97:4 volume (1) 53:7
U usual (3) 41:4 85:15
ultimately (5) 2:6 5:2 92:21 W
usually (4) 15:24 48:8 wait (4) 12:15 116:4
18:12 61:24 75:21
62:25 63:16
unclear (2) 45:15,21 122:9 130:18
utilised (1) 75:2
underestimate (2) waived (1) 40:25

82:4 122:18 waiving (1) 116:15
V
underestimating (1) want (34) 7:24 9:1,4
v (2) 22:17 90:4
59:14 9:25 16:7,13 28:21
underlined (1) 110:10 vacation (3) 85:17 30:25 32:1 35:20
underlining (2) 131:1 100:21 126:19 50:19 54:24 62:18
131:2 validity (1) 75:25 79:1,9 87:10 88:8
undermine (1) 35:18 valuable (6) 32:9 90:25 91:8 94:4
underpinning (1) 42:9 52:12,16 56:12,14 95:21 102:5 103:19
understand (29) 3:6 56:14 105:1,19 107:6,8
5:14,22 26:25 27:3 valuation (50) 7:14 108:15 111:16
40:6 61:17,19 8:10 11:9,19 13:8 121:1 126:13
65:22,25 66:18 27:8,13 31:14,21 130:25 131:14,24
68:16 72:11 75:4 31:22,25 32:15,20 wanted (5) 12:24
79:8 82:20 89:2 33:10 35:24 44:1 15:21 45:11 87:2
96:24 97:22 98:7 47:14,18 51:24 120:12
103:22 106:3 52:14 55:9,10,11 wants (4) 13:19 17:9
107:18 112:12,15 55:13,13,21 56:25 90:22 130:21
114:11 118:10 57:9 61:21 62:7,8 warrant (1) 101:12
125:24 127:13 62:10,24,25 64:4 wasn’t (9) 23:4 29:3
understandable (1) 64:16 74:3,4,5,5,6 52:11 77:14 80:7
120:7 74:10,16 75:7,21 81:6 82:22 99:3
understandably (1) 83:22 88:17,22 131:25
6:20 89:3 96:1 wasting (1) 127:17
understanding (5) valuations (6) 29:7 way (47) 1:11 5:12
65:9 66:12 71:18 63:21 64:13 74:2 10:16 11:3 12:7,8
72:13 116:24 77:8 84:1 13:21 14:20 15:14
understood (1) value (28) 13:23 30:6 20:6 23:16 25:10
118:12 32:9 50:13 52:3,5 26:14 27:21,23
undertake (1) 54:17 52:10 55:19,25 28:20 30:22 31:12
undertaken (1) 56:2 56:9,10 61:20,25 36:12 44:20 53:4
undervalued (1) 84:3 62:4 63:16 64:7,15 54:24 55:18 62:22
undesirable (2) 61:18 65:3,7,19 66:3 65:25 67:11,16
77:4 74:13,19 75:7,14 79:18 80:6,8 83:19
uneasy (3) 14:12,13 76:5,22,23 84:11 88:18,20
58:14 valuer (1) 72:8 91:4 92:21 95:12
unexpected (1) 4:14 valuers (1) 44:19 101:22 107:6,20
unexpectedly (1) 5:11 values (4) 56:23 76:19 116:6,14 117:4
unfair (8) 24:17 34:10 84:4,13 119:21 120:16
35:1 46:1 49:24 valuing (1) 52:1 128:5 133:6
51:8 75:17 130:2 vanilla (2) 31:2,5 we’ve (1) 40:12
unfairly (1) 30:17 various (9) 12:5,23 weakness (2) 35:10
unfairness (2) 33:20 16:15 36:15 39:13 35:12
35:8 43:2 44:21 97:1 weapon (1) 35:13
unforeseeable (3) 8:5 109:5 Wednesday (2) 1:1
8:6,9 vast (1) 29:5 110:25
unforeseen (1) 4:5 vendor (2) 63:11 week (16) 3:3 4:2
unfortunate (2) 3:19 65:18 6:16 9:25 10:7
82:19 ventilated (2) 15:3 12:12 85:8,23 87:8
unfortunately (1) 90:25 87:21 96:10 97:9
128:4 version (5) 7:19,22 111:10 114:24
unintentionally (1) 110:10 111:18 129:16 131:15

week-to-week (1)

42:15

weeks (7) 92:14 93:11 95:3,9 96:16 106:10 125:19

weigh (1) 61:12 weight (4) 15:8 19:13

19:16 35:4 welcome (1) 115:10 went (2) 112:23

128:20 weren’t (2) 51:14

131:4

Western (8) 50:2 51:18,18 63:3 64:9 76:8 84:18,23

wherewithal (1) 98:10 whilst (1) 100:11 wildly (1) 29:6

willing (1) 74:25 win (1) 35:5 winning (1) 35:6 wish (15) 1:18 2:6,10

4:17 6:21 9:1 22:10 44:17 66:21 81:20 83:17 100:9 101:4 109:21 122:6

wishes (2) 36:4 99:14 Withers (16) 21:15

45:17 48:23 57:22 68:14 71:5,7,9,15 124:4,4 125:13,13 127:12,20,23

witness (41) 2:14 4:7 5:5,7 11:18 14:22 14:24 17:19,24 18:4,5,22 19:18,22 20:7,12,14 22:12 23:8 43:10 45:12 46:19 47:25 53:19 60:13 78:2 87:24 88:7 89:25 95:3 101:1,13,16 102:1 102:18 103:23 106:19 108:12 119:10 122:6 130:4

witnesses (11) 1:15 4:8 8:19 11:1 12:5 15:19 20:19 25:15 52:10 56:16 109:16

wonder (1) 20:18 wondered (1) 80:13 word (3) 41:5 122:13

122:19 wording (1) 108:18 words (5) 17:4 54:3

71:21 102:7 122:14 work (22) 1:14 21:16

21:17 22:22 23:23 44:25 45:20 68:18 69:2,9 70:10 71:22 72:2 79:18 88:19 92:9 102:6 111:13 112:16 116:11 118:20 121:4

working (7) 6:15 73:12 85:14 91:24 92:6 117:5 132:6

works (1) 25:18 world (1) 17:8 worried (3) 31:6,7

100:10 worry (4) 81:8,9

127:16 128:23 worst (4) 5:22 64:15

65:2 66:15 worth (10) 13:7 15:8

30:7 31:16 51:17 51:19 53:13 65:15

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

144
March 23, 2016 Day 31

78:5,6 wouldn’t (14) 3:15

21:24 32:1 37:10 74:24 79:5 84:16 88:16 94:11 101:4 102:5 116:9 117:10 129:22

wrap (1) 121:19 wrapping (1) 96:24 wriggling (1) 31:24 write (1) 99:4 writing (5) 17:12

52:11 124:15,24 132:6
written (5) 56:8 105:15 110:13,15 125:7

wrong (7) 49:13,25 57:5 60:2 76:17,18 99:17

wrote (2) 19:25 126:1

X

Y

yards (1) 93:16 Yashkina (3) 1:19 2:5
2:18

Yatvetsky (9) 11:7,7 13:6 87:14,17 93:3 93:20 94:22 106:22

Yatvetsky/Goncharu…

87:2

year (6) 42:5 43:7,25 48:5,18 108:10

years (1) 114:1 yesterday (4) 1:8 7:19

12:9 109:24

yield (2) 74:18 121:11

Z

0

1

1 (7) 25:24 26:2 53:7 110:9,18,21 134:3
1.30 (2) 1:2 132:18

1.5 (2) 65:15,16

10 (7) 47:11 66:14 67:20 71:21 90:18 90:20 96:16

10-minute (2) 60:22 73:19

10(d) (1) 47:14

10.00 (4) 10:3 133:6 133:19,21

10.30 (5) 133:3,9,14 133:16,18

100 (1) 78:22

100,000 (1) 44:11

11 (1) 87:21

11.00 (1) 9:3

11.30 (1) 10:4

1161 (1) 53:7

1164 (1) 53:21

1167 (2) 53:12 54:5 11th (3) 7:14 8:14

97:13 12 (7) 10:24 11:16

40:3 42:7,9 87:8,21 12.00 (3) 8:23 9:9,11 12th (8) 7:6,17,20,23

8:11 9:11 10:20 97:14

13 (1) 12:21 13th (1) 88:5

14 (1) 47:10

14th (8) 87:9 93:4,9 93:21 94:23 95:2 97:19 98:4

15 (2) 87:3 90:20

150 (2) 59:19 70:14

150,000 (6) 44:18 59:15 68:13,20 70:15 72:11

15th (2) 88:9 98:1

17 (1) 38:19

17.2 (2) 39:1,13

180,000/€190,000 (1)
44:4
18th (2) 93:21 106:23
19 (2) 106:13,24
19th (4) 94:5,22 96:1
96:3

2

2 (7) 45:8 47:11 85:10 85:13 110:18,24 111:5

20 (6) 72:22 90:18,20 95:13 106:14,24

20,000 (2) 60:10

102:10

2007 (1) 108:18

2008 (1) 108:20

2012 (1) 39:19

2013 (3) 47:10,14 108:16

2014 (1) 77:13

2015 (4) 43:25 48:6 48:21 57:22

2016 (3) 1:1 45:8 133:21

20th (3) 95:16 96:2,3 21 (3) 106:14,25

108:9

21st (1) 107:7

22 (12) 11:3,25 13:11 94:17 95:11 96:14 100:11 104:9 106:14,25 110:11 111:6

22nd (4) 91:23 93:23 97:6 107:8

23 (5) 1:1 49:11,11 92:12 100:13

24 (1) 124:23

25 (1) 90:18

25th (3) 12:11 86:6 104:15

26.1 (1) 57:17 26.1.4 (1) 57:16 26th (1) 86:6

27 (2) 110:2 112:3

28 (2) 85:23 86:1

28th (1) 49:10

29 (3) 85:24 86:1 111:11

290,000 (1) 42:25

29th (2) 111:12,15

2nd (1) 85:16

3

3 (4) 22:18 42:3 85:10 85:13
3.13 (1) 67:21

3.28 (1) 67:23

30 (2) 90:18 110:25

30,000 (2) 59:16 60:9

300,000 (2) 40:16 59:23

32.1(3) (1) 61:7 35 (1) 53:6

35.1 (3) 53:9 54:10,18

35.3 (3) 53:12,21 54:16
35.4 (2) 54:5,18

366,000 (1) 42:6

4

4 (6) 5:4 57:17 93:12 97:9 132:20 133:21
4,000 (1) 71:20

4.30 (1) 109:22

40,000 (3) 60:9 71:20 81:22

41 (3) 113:17,18,23

4th (1) 10:7

5

5 (2) 48:7 90:20

5.07 (1) 133:20

50 (2) 72:23 93:16

50,000 (2) 60:9 71:21

500 (1) 72:6

56 (1) 113:8

6

60,000 (1) 81:23

7

7 (2) 48:19 110:21

700 (9) 90:21 112:7 112:10 113:20 114:8,15 115:1 116:14 121:18

75,000 (6) 39:14 41:22 42:10,22,25 43:1

77 (2) 84:18,24 7th (2) 5:20,23

8

8 (1) 42:4

800 (1) 71:19

8th (6) 6:11 7:5,9,21 8:10 97:12

9

9 (3) 43:19,21 112:1

9.15 (1) 9:3

9.30 (3) 9:24 10:1 133:2

9c (3) 43:22,23,23

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