Day 38

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

Day 38

April 14, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 Thursday, 14 April 2016

2 (9.45 am)

3 Housekeeping

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good morning.

5 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. First, I think

6 I need to report that Mr Arkhangelsky is stuck in

7 a traffic jam but he is coming in five to 10 minutes, as

8 he indicated. He does apologise.

9 My Lord, I gather from the transcript of Tuesday

10 that you meant to do some housekeeping today in terms of

11 the Popov/Steadman dispute and in terms of the Russian

12 law timetabling.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I felt we needed to take stock

14 now that we are approaching the final factual witness,

15 and to work out how we do progress, lest everyone’s

16 diaries fill up and make it even more difficult to

17 establish the route forward.

18 MR STROILOV: In terms of Russian law, on our side the week

19 starting 2 May is fine with me and with Dr Gladyshev.

20 So if that is fine with everyone else, that would be our

21 preference.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Now, let me get — I am sorry,

23 I was in a different court yesterday so my grip is even

24 more haphazard.

25 Yes, the week commencing 2 May, which delightfully

1 MR BIRT: My Lord, it is, and I think Mr Stroilov is right

2 to say we should be able to do that within three days.

3 I suppose if there was a spillover onto the Friday and

4 your Lordship had some time then there is the safety

5 valve, but I would have thought we can do it in three

6 days; that would be my best estimate at the moment,

7 my Lord.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s very helpful. And both experts

9 have been apprised of this and they are clear?

10 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, well, Dr Gladyshev.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Because you would, presumably, each

12 need your expert when cross-examining in that.

13 MR STROILOV: I do hope so, yes.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s helpful.

15 MR BIRT: My Lord, can I just check now a point of logistics

16 for the evidence?

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

18 MR BIRT: It is simply because I don’t know, I don’t know

19 whether we have made enquiries, actually, whether we

20 will be in this court this week, and if so — in other

21 words, whether we need to obtain a court which has the

22 videolink for Mr Arkhangelsky for the purposes of

23 Russian law or not. I don’t know whether we have the

24 interpreters as well.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That is a helpful and good point,

1 3
1 commences with a bank holiday, those were the ones 1 Mr Birt. We won’t need the interpreters or we will need
2 pencilled in, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9, I cannot do 11 and 12. 2 the interpreters?
3 I think I have a matter which I had not spotted 3 MR BIRT: For the purposes of the witnesses I understand we
4 previously on 6 May. I would have an interrupted day on 4 won’t need the interpreters, I understand Dr Gladyshev
5 Friday the 6th, where I have an appeal to deal with, 5 is fluent in English.
6 which I am told will last about an hour, so that can be 6 MR STROILOV: We won’t, Dr Gladyshev is fluent, that’s
7 fitted in. 7 correct, and I think really even if Dr Arkhangelsky is
8 Then on the 10th, but that’s beyond the time when 8 here, his English is —
9 you would require me, I cannot sit either, nor on the 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He is content with English.
10 9th. So that’s the way of things, so far as I am 10 Mrs Arkhangelskaya has not been present since Paris,
11 concerned. 11 really.
12 MR STROILOV: My Lord, on the estimates as they stand, 12 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, I think except on one or two
13 I think between ourselves three days for Russian law 13 occasions, and I don’t think Russian law is something
14 evidence is quite enough. I don’t think I will need 14 she will find the most exciting bit.
15 longer than a day. Well, I know my time estimates are 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, you never know. Okay.
16 not always accurate, but I think it’s just a day, and 16 MR BIRT: So, my Lord, we won’t arrange for the simultaneous
17 Mr Birt has indicated that it’s a day, maybe slightly 17 interpreters for that week.
18 longer, so I think 2nd, 3rd and 4th sound fine with… 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It seems unless Mr Stroilov or his
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The 2nd is a bank holiday, so we 19 quasi clients want it, I think we can save you the
20 wouldn’t sit on that, so it would be the 3rd, 4th and 20 expense of it.
21 5th. 21 MR BIRT: My Lord, my clients would appreciate that.
22 MR STROILOV: Sorry, my Lord, I misspoke. I meant 3rd, 4th 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s agreed, is it?
23 and 5th. 23 MR STROILOV: It is.
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So is that agreed, that we have those 24 MR BIRT: And I suppose the other question is the videolink,
25 three days for the Russian evidence? 25 my Lord. Does Mr Arkhangelsky want —
2 4
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What about the videolink?

2 MR STROILOV: Well, I confess I haven’t checked. I think we

3 had better ask him when he turns up, my Lord. I am

4 sorry about that.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, that’s all right. The reason this

6 court is required immediately on the week after —

7 I can’t remember, 25th or 26th — is that there is some

8 large event sponsored by the Chancellor for which the

9 court is required. I don’t think immediately after that

10 it is required, but I will ask my clerk to make the

11 enquiries. It just seems to me that we have got used to

12 the scenery in here. It probably is easiest. It means

13 that subject to my clarification with the powers that

14 be, you could leave the files over the time, which would

15 save a bit of back strain and expense, no doubt, so

16 I shall ask for that.

17 If, on the other hand, my lease runs out, never to

18 be restored for the case, well there we are, I am

19 afraid.

20 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes, I will ask RPC to liaise with,

21 maybe, my Lord’s clerk to find out things like whether

22 we have to clear the court of all the computer equipment

23 for the purposes of the Chancellor’s event.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have a feeling that he does — well,

25 I am personalising it too much. It is required.

1 and the oral hearing, and the Popov/Steadman matter.

2 Those are the three things which are impacted; is that

3 right?

4 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, I think Popov/Steadman is

5 really something that needs to be resolved first,

6 because we either have to — obviously if your Lordship

7 is not prepared to do what we invite you to do, that’s

8 either to split them off or to limit that to written

9 reports, obviously they must — or Mr Popov must come

10 before closing submissions.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

12 Submissions by MR STROILOV

13 MR STROILOV: Your Lordship has seen written submissions,

14 and obviously I invite you to do the opposite; that’s to

15 say, to split them off or to limit that evidence to

16 written reports.

17 I don’t think I need to add a lot over and above the

18 written submissions.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

20 MR STROILOV: Except, perhaps, two points, one general and

21 one specific, which I don’t think have been quite made

22 in the written submissions.

23 Firstly, I would say it’s easy, but inadvisable, to

24 lose focus on the need to ensure fairness of the trial,

25 and that includes equality of arms, even though

5

1 MR BIRT: Very well, my Lord.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That we have to get all those out.

3 And of the papers?

4 MR BIRT: My Lord, I will ask RPC to maybe liaise with your

5 clerk. We will have, of course, next week, or whenever

6 we finish this witness, the remainder of the week to

7 arrange the logistics of whatever clearing or tidying is

8 required.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m very grateful.

10 MR BIRT: And we will wait for Mr Stroilov to come back to

11 us on whether we require the videolink for the Russian

12 law witnesses.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think we all know what our

14 preference would be, which is to be able to leave as

15 much as possible, at least of the files, in the corners

16 and on my bit, as we can, and to leave as much of

17 the infrastructure, the electronic equipment, as is

18 consistent with this event, but to spruce it up by

19 taking all those boxes out, and that kind of thing,

20 I think is probably what is wanted.

21 MR BIRT: Very good. That’s probably as far as we can take

22 it in court today, I suspect.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. That deals with the Russians.

24 We will have to, in due course, and possibly now, at

25 least indicatively, to decide about written submissions

7

1 your Lordship has quite stressed the subjective element

2 of that on all the occasions when that was discussed,

3 and quite rightly too.

4 Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the

5 case where it comes from, Perotti, that dealt with

6 fairness of a 20-minute hearing on an application for

7 permission to appeal, and there is also quite massive

8 and consistent case law on the need to ensure equality

9 of arms in presentation of evidence at the trial, and

10 I submit that the situation where we are simply left, in

11 practice, in a position where it is unrealistic to call

12 Mr Steadman, or at the very least unrealistic to make

13 him prepare as well as Mr Popov no doubt will, that puts

14 the defendants at a substantial disadvantage and,

15 accordingly, puts the fairness of the trial at risk.

16 Secondly, as far as the issue of availability of

17 resources is concerned, one additional point to bear in

18 mind is that unfortunately, really, this battle, these

19 proceedings between the claimants and the defendants,

20 are not quite limited to this trial. There have been

21 extradition proceedings, and your Lordship has heard

22 some evidence as to the claimants’ role in them. There

23 is a risk of further extradition proceedings being

24 commenced now there have been indications from Russian

25 authorities to the media as a result of evidence

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 elicited at this trial. There are proceedings which put

2 the — well, at least the claimants have pursued the

3 proceedings which put the family home at risk, that’s

4 enforcement of BVI costs, and they have lost in

5 the first instance in France, but there have been

6 indications that an appeal is possible.

7 We don’t quite know, there have been moves, equally,

8 in Russia to try and enforce a BVI costs order against

9 OMG Ports, which again might undermine the defendants’

10 position in these proceedings. So it is perfectly

11 reasonable, in addition to the defendants’ need, really,

12 to survive this, for their children, it’s also

13 reasonable to keep some emergency fund in case there are

14 further proceedings which threaten Mr Arkhangelsky’s

15 liberty, or the family home, or something vital.

16 So in these circumstances it is particularly

17 incorrect, really, to treat all resources that are

18 available as being available for Mr Steadman. There are

19 other things which have to be — which potentially have

20 to be funded, and obviously the proportion of what

21 Mr Steadman requires is quite a lot compared to what the

22 defendants literally have at their disposal.

23 Apart from that, my Lord, I simply incorporate the

24 written submissions I have made.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, was Mr Steadman aware that his

1 really to tell a court, if that’s what he intended to

2 do, that he is just busy for the next few weeks, is

3 somewhat surprising for a professional man who has

4 already given evidence and charged, no doubt, quite

5 considerable sums for it.

6 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, it wasn’t quite a letter to

7 court, and I’m sure that if he wrote to your Lordship he

8 would have perhaps worded it a little more — well, in

9 different terms. I don’t think the substance would be

10 very different. Ultimately, really, it is a respectable

11 reason in itself in substance. If he is a professional,

12 he is not paid for this job and he has to work on

13 matters for which he is paid. I wouldn’t criticise him

14 for that. Even though I accept perhaps he should have

15 worded it more politely.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s not only more polite, but more

17 detail, to tell me exactly when he is and when he isn’t

18 available.

19 The impression that he gives in his letter, and it

20 may be that you can’t take this further, is there was

21 a one-off offer, take it or leave it, £10,000; is that

22 fair or not fair?

23 MR STROILOV: I wasn’t part of the discussion myself and

24 perhaps it is better to wait for Mr Arkhangelsky to

25 address you on that.

9 11
1 letter would, as it were, be produced to the court as 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.
2 a statement to the court of his position? 2 MR STROILOV: My understanding was that it wasn’t quite
3 MR STROILOV: I believe he was. That’s certainly the case 3 a one-off offer and he addresses it on a more narrow
4 in relation to the first letter, because that was 4 basis than the oral discussion was, in particular
5 preceded with a confidential letter. A letter was 5 I understand there was some discussion about the
6 marked confidential where he set out in more detail the 6 potential witness summons.
7 breakdown of work he anticipates is necessary, and for 7 So I think, essentially, what was discussed is what
8 one reason or another, Alvarez & Marsal considers that 8 was envisaged in court; that there is a risk of witness
9 would be inappropriate to make it anything other than 9 summons and perhaps there is a way to find some middle
10 confidential. 10 ground where he would give a discount, whereby it would
11 My understanding is that the second letter was meant 11 become affordable, but nothing came out of that.
12 to be produced on the same basis. 12 When you try to crystallise it in writing and when,
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: A letter to me as much as to your 13 essentially, the answer is no, it is somewhat natural to
14 client? 14 crystallise it to really, to a figure which was given.
15 MR STROILOV: Well, I don’t think it was. From memory, 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He is based in London, is he?
16 my Lord, I think Mr Steadman indicated that if it is 16 MR STROILOV: I believe he is, yes.
17 necessary for him to write to the court, he would be 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, it is difficult to gauge, and
18 prepared to do so, but for the moment he was writing to 18 possibly impossible at this stage, and without waiver of
19 Mr Arkhangelsky about that. 19 privilege to do so, I simply don’t know, but one of
20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: One mustn’t be injured by these 20 the things which has troubled me, really — and this is
21 things, but it is a rather dismissive letter in terms of 21 a particular example of it — is that one would have
22 its tone. 22 thought that if you had a finite amount of money, you
23 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, obviously we are all 23 would work out what you could and what you couldn’t
24 disappointed. 24 afford, and you would say: right, we can allocate X to
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s not only with his message, but 25 an expert on business values, that’s got to carry us
10 12
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 through to the process of trial and including it. We 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, that is what I am saying:
2 need an expert who can do that. 2 supposing they did, I could make clear to them that
3 To some extent it is surprising that one has simply 3 I didn’t agree with them, couldn’t I?
4 has an expert, pays him what he wants, gets a report, 4 MR STROILOV: Well — at the end of the day, the defendants
5 accepts a 12.5 per cent discount, realise you have no 5 would be prejudiced by all that whereas it is not their
6 money and, therefore, the entire report is capable of 6 choice.
7 being a complete waste of time; do you see what I mean? 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Because you would have a crosspatch
8 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, but of course something that has 8 expert, you mean? A reluctant expert.
9 to be kept in mind, that at the time the experts were 9 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, well, obviously it is like
10 instructed and we were preparing, really the strategy 10 with a factual witness, it is much better to have
11 was to spend the money in the most efficient way to take 11 a willing witness than a hostile witness, and with
12 us to a stage where third party funding might become 12 an expert I imagine it will be the same.
13 possible, and that has unfortunately failed. 13 Obviously, even if he prepares himself just
14 So in a way it’s a — yes, well I take the point, 14 satisfactorily, it’s not the same thing as when you have
15 but there was simply a very limited sum on the whole in 15 an expert who is really arguing his view because —
16 terms of trying to put the case into shape so that it 16 well —
17 might potentially be funded by someone, and obviously 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So I shouldn’t place much weight on
18 it’s helpful to the court and to everyone to have the 18 professional pride and obligation to the court?
19 case — well, to have all the papers there rather than 19 MR STROILOV: Well, it would be a bit of gambling, my Lord.
20 thinking now: well, what do we do to obtain a business 20 It would have an element of gambling in it, frankly.
21 valuation report. 21 In adversarial litigation, you need — well, I wouldn’t
22 But the downside is that, really, beyond the point 22 say, really — you need some enthusiasm, really, in
23 of having the case in shape on papers, no money could be 23 a way, for the expert to argue his view, not to argue
24 saved, and well, really, it’s really tricky to prepare 24 his — a party’s case, but to argue his view of things,
25 a case like that on £700,000. 25 well, you need him to be free and willing. It is

13

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is, but it rather emphasises how

2 important it is — though I take your point on third

3 party funding — to have planned in advance as to what

4 you can do and what you can’t do and that’s

5 a disappointment, you know, it is not of much assistance

6 to the court to have the first chapter of a four-chapter

7 book.

8 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I take the point, but really that was

9 the best we could do with 700,000, I am afraid, and in

10 my submission, really, it is really difficult. If more

11 was allocated for business valuation expert, other vital

12 things wouldn’t have been done. It’s as simple as that,

13 really.

14 On top of that, really, I think Withers and

15 Mr Milner deserve a lot of credit for the work they did

16 over and above what they have been paid for.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I suppose if he were summonsed and the

18 summons was not set aside, it would be implicit in that

19 that it wouldn’t be a proper excuse for the expert to

20 say that he hasn’t been able to do the work necessary to

21 give the court assistance, it would carry with it the

22 implication he had to put himself in a position to

23 assist the court.

24 MR STROILOV: Well, perhaps, or perhaps Alvarez & Marsal

25 might take a different view, one never knows.

15

1 a disadvantage. I accept it is in a way a practical

2 solution, but the risk is wouldn’t that shift the

3 balance of fairness too far against the defendants?

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Anyway, in your squash ladder of

5 preferences, what you would like most is for it to be

6 split off — this element of the evidence to be split

7 off. Forever?

8 MR STROILOV: No, my Lord, what we would suggest is, really,

9 what was, I think, envisaged as one of the scenarios in

10 the start. So this is split off as a trial on quantum,

11 even though some issues of quantum have already been

12 addressed, but this particular issue is split off as

13 a quantum trial. So your Lordship rules on liability.

14 In my submission the asset valuations plus all the other

15 evidence, are sufficient for that.

16 If we succeed on liability, then as your Lordship

17 has —

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Proceed on liability to the tune of in

19 excess of $200 million?

20 MR STROILOV: Well, I don’t think it has to be in excess of

21 $200 million; it may well become that if your Lordship

22 accepts the valuation of Mrs Simonova.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m not saying whether I do or

24 I don’t, but the thing is that you accept that the money

25 is owed and that any claim you have must overtop that

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 before you start being above the water.

2 MR STROILOV: We only need to overtop, from memory,

3 something around $60 million, or if you count in

4 roubles, it is less than that, but then our valuation

5 also.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. For some reason I had stuck in

7 my mind $200 million, but that’s wrong.

8 MR STROILOV: That’s roughly Ms Simonova’s valuation for

9 Western Terminal. Of course, Western Terminal is

10 simpler because there is no problem of reflective loss,

11 and there is no problem of ownership, as Onega Terminal

12 was owned by two different companies, one of them was

13 not the claimant. So in that respect, the business

14 claim is more important because we claim for business of

15 Onega, but not for most of the underlying assets.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, with apologies for the

17 (inaudible), what I mean is, what I think you are

18 getting at, although your latest skeleton was a little

19 shy on this, is that what you envisage is that at some

20 point I would determine that it was now appropriate, in

21 a difficult set of circumstances, to require

22 Mr Steadman’s attendance in effect to be funded by the

23 claimants?

24 MR STROILOV: Quite, my Lord.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That is what you are really saying.

1 out of the pockets of the claimants, even if you had

2 been successful? You would have improved your moral

3 position but financially it is just as much an

4 imposition as ever it was, isn’t it?

5 MR STROILOV: No, I don’t think so, my Lord, well, unless

6 your Lordship is minded to reduce Ms Simonova’s

7 valuation very dramatically, which I would submit is

8 wrong, that would easily overtop the claimants’ claim on

9 any view.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

11 MR STROILOV: Roughly speaking, their claim is 60 million

12 and ours is 200 million. I think there is a calculation

13 which we did at the time we hoped to get there in two

14 days.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I was groping about for it, yes.

16 MR STROILOV: So we could look at that, because I think it

17 is a little more complicated, because the debts for

18 which credit has been given also need to be taken out of

19 Ms Simonova’s valuation, but from memory, I think the

20 difference which we calculated was something in

21 the region of $75 million.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So you would have plenty of room if

23 I accept Ms Simonova’s approach and figures.

24 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, yes.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. When would you have in mind

17 19

1 You don’t quite say it in your skeleton, but you have

2 said it before and that is the underlying premise.

3 MR STROILOV: I am sorry if I didn’t quite make that clear

4 in the skeleton. Of course it is the underlying

5 premise. I would suggest an interim payment of much

6 more than what Mr Steadman requires is in order. Really

7 the test is irreducible minimum. So what your Lordship

8 would need to do is look at assets — assuming that all

9 other elements are proven and accepted, in terms of

10 quantum you would need to look at assets valuations,

11 see — well, you can now choose between the experts.

12 You can consider whether you need to make any

13 adjustments to the figures given by Ms Simonova, and

14 order an interim payment of the irreducible minimum of

15 damages to which the counterclaimants —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s my point, or am I confused?

17 Supposing you establish your counterclaim and you

18 establish the valuations up to a certain limit, say,

19 proposed by Ms Simonova. You are not above water, as it

20 were, unless you exceed the amount of the underlying

21 debt which, though the personal guarantee is disputed,

22 the indebtedness is not.

23 MR STROILOV: Indeed.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In those circumstances, why would it

25 be any fairer for me to require payment of Mr Steadman

1 that that second part be done, or are you saying that is

2 a matter for the court and for consultation with

3 diaries, but some time quite far?

4 MR STROILOV: Well, I suppose, really, in a way that needs

5 to be — I can’t imagine that it needs to be later than,

6 say, two months after any interim payment is made,

7 because obviously Mr Steadman needs time to prepare, but

8 I think two months would give him plenty of time, given

9 availability problems.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

11 Then your second suggestion is, in effect, that both

12 reports be admitted, but neither expert cross-examined?

13 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, you simply read them and

14 choose who to believe. It’s not very satisfactory

15 because it effectively pushes the difficulty away from

16 us onto your Lordship, but if your Lordship is in

17 a position, given all the surrounding evidence, the

18 evidence of all the assets —

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you would consider that fair? You

20 wouldn’t complain thereafter of not being able to

21 cross-examine Mr Popov?

22 MR STROILOV: No, we wouldn’t, my Lord. It is an equal

23 position and we are not in a position to complain, if

24 your Lordship is content to proceed on that basis.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I simply want your assurance it isn’t

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 going to be relied on thereafter as having deprived you

2 of some right; do you see what I mean? I would take you

3 as promoting that and therefore not able to complain

4 about it.

5 MR STROILOV: My Lord, we are promoting that, in

6 the alternative to the proposed split off, my Lord that

7 is simply the only realistic —

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t want that. I know you have

9 anxieties about the fairness of the trial and there we

10 are, but I would want to have cordoned this off as not

11 a matter of complaint.

12 MR STROILOV: I don’t think that we are, because we are in

13 an equal position. We accept that puts us in an equal

14 position in that regard.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Then the third, and the least

16 favoured because of the question of enthusiasm and

17 difficulties which are evident from the letter, is the

18 witness summons, but of course, that would probably be

19 quite a delayed process because we would have to issue

20 it, we would have to dispute it in all probability, and

21 it is obviously a very exceptional course. So that’s

22 right down at the bottom of your list?

23 MR STROILOV: Very much so, my Lord. It is just we would

24 prefer that to being simply deprived of an expert. It

25 is very much the last resort. It is embarking,

1 over-striking has gone on in this document, but it is

2 certainly right that this is the starting point of

3 the counterclaim.

4 If we go to the previous page, please {I25/39/31},

5 your Lordship can see at the foot of that page is headed

6 «Counterclaim».

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

8 MR LORD: Then if we could please go to {I25/39/32},

9 your Lordship can see the defendants’ case is as

10 follows:

11 «The counterclaim concerns a conspiracy intended to

12 defraud Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky and Oslo Marine Group

13 Ports LLC (‘OMGP’) (the Additional Counterclaimant) of

14 two very valuable businesses:

15 «Western Terminal LLC …

16 «Scandinavia Insurance LLC…»

17 So the context for the present debate about Mr Popov

18 and Mr Steadman is really the counterclaim, which is

19 premised upon a conspiracy to steal two very, allegedly,

20 valuable businesses.

21 Now, your Lordship knows the value claimed. If we

22 go to paragraph 181B, if we go towards the back of

23 the document, {I25/39/74}, if we could then just scroll

24 on if that is possible, please {I25/39/75}, we can see

25 there are claims for loss and damage arising from loss

21 23

1 effectively, on satellite litigation against a third

2 party, risking costs, which would be really terrible: we

3 would lose money and do not get the benefit, and then at

4 the end of the day it’s a big question whether that

5 cures the inequality, so it’s a very problematic

6 scenario from our point of view.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And in terms of timing, the punch line

8 of three, and a thing common to all of them, is that

9 there would be no Mr Popov in the immediate future?

10 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, yes. I think that is fair,

11 yes.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

13 MR STROILOV: Thank you, my Lord.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Mr Lord.

15 Submissions by MR LORD

16 MR LORD: May it please your Lordship. I obviously adopt

17 the written submissions that we put in the note to

18 your Lordship over the weekend. My Lord, the starting

19 point, in our submission, is the counterclaim.

20 I wonder, could we have {I25/39/32}, please, on the

21 screen, which I think is the most recent version of

22 the verified pleading by the defendants. Your Lordship

23 only needs a very quick reference, I think, to this.

24 Although it has been crossed out, I think it is

25 paragraph 100. I am not sure how the marking up and

1 of business which I accept is potentially a quantum

2 matter. Can we have paragraph 181B, if you could just

3 scroll on, please. Your Lordship can see the values

4 claimed there in terms of the business losses. If you

5 go, please, to the last page of the document,

6 appendix 2, your Lordship will get a feel of the overall

7 size of the counterclaim {I25/39/92}.

8 Your Lordship can see that the quantification of

9 this counterclaim straddles two different headings

10 «Business», and «Real estate», and if one just scans

11 down the page, one can see that this is a counterclaim

12 in aggregate of considerably more than US $500 million.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But it does seem to have two branches,

14 does it not? One is businesses, one is assets.

15 MR LORD: That’s right, my Lord, that is how the loss is

16 put, your Lordship is absolutely right, there are two

17 aspects to it.

18 My Lord, in my respectful submission, the alleged

19 value of these businesses is central to the conspiracy

20 case. Not just to its quantification, but also to

21 liability.

22 In my submission, the starting point for the

23 analysis and the adjudication on this huge conspiracy

24 counterclaim should, therefore, be an analysis of these

25 OMG businesses. It should be the starting point for the

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 forensic analysis, not what you reach at the end in some 1 of the two companies, Western Terminal and Scan, said to
2 bifurcation or splitting off. It should be the starting 2 be the target of the corporate raid, goes to the motive
3 point. The claim is a conspiracy to steal valuable 3 of the claimants to raid or steal or conspire to steal
4 businesses, overall generating a half a billion dollar 4 in the first place, and it goes to the credibility of
5 claim or more. The very first question is: well, is 5 Dr Arkhangelsky and these counterclaimants, given their
6 that right? What are these businesses? What are they 6 allegations about their businesses. If, in fact, these
7 about? Would anyone steal them? 7 are not valuable businesses, and if in fact they are
8 In my submission, we are coming at it, with the 8 deeply questionable enterprises, that goes right to
9 greatest of respect, there is a danger of coming at it 9 the heart of the credibility of the counterclaimants.
10 from the wrong end of the telescope. Your Lordship 10 Nothing to do with quantum; it’s all about liability.
11 knows that the defendants place great store upon the 11 Secondly, Mr Popov says this goes to the viability
12 alleged value of certain assets in order to infer a case 12 of the OMG businesses, including those that I have
13 of fraud and conspiracy, so it is not really a case 13 identified. It goes to the question of whether
14 where they have built it up. 14 Bank of St Petersburg were engineering a premature
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The value of assets, yes. They say 15 demise of viable companies or just moving to protect the
16 that the assets were disposed of by incestuous 16 Bank’s exposure to them in their insolvent default
17 transactions involving the Renord Group for a fraction 17 state. The viability of the businesses goes to
18 of their true value. They maintain that conspiracy and 18 Dr Arkhangelsky’s credibility again. He has been
19 they say that the persons identified were party to it. 19 adamant that these were very valuable and viable
20 MR LORD: My Lord, I am going to develop my submissions. 20 businesses, suffering, in effect, some temporary and
21 I hope to cover the intertwining of the issues as to 21 soluble problems.
22 the businesses with the conspiracy case and its 22 If in fact they were nothing of the sort, if in fact
23 liability. 23 they were built on sand, then that will have a very
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. 24 profound implication for his credibility generally and
25 MR LORD: I’m going to try and deal with that. Could we 25 for much of what he has to say, including as to his

25

1 have {A1/2/55}, please, paragraph 176.

2 This is part of the scheme claim. So the conspiracy

3 claim under the scheme is to seize the businesses. It

4 is not just — and it is important to remember, however

5 it may have mutated, and whatever is maybe its final

6 resting point in closing this trial, the pleaded case,

7 and the way it has been conducted for many, many years

8 around the globe, is that this was a corporate raid, not

9 an attempt to grab a valuable asset or two through a

10 collateral disposal at an auction, that’s not been the

11 claim. Whatever it might end up being at the end of

12 this process, it’s very important to remember the

13 counterclaim that is currently still advanced, and it

14 starts with a corporate raid: to steal valuable

15 businesses.

16 So in my respectful submission the idea that the

17 court — this court, would not look very, very carefully

18 at expert evidence which analyses any of those

19 businesses would be an unlikely answer to a proper

20 adjudication of the matter.

21 Now, in terms of the relevance of Mr Popov’s

22 evidence, it’s really as follows: he values

23 Western Terminal and Scandinavia Insurance and

24 Onega Terminal as businesses.

25 Now, first, the nature and value of these companies,

27

1 counterclaim.

2 It obviously goes to causation. If the Bank could

3 have called default anyway, then no December 2008

4 conspiracy to bring down OMG, as alleged, has caused any

5 subsequent losses. These OMG companies were always

6 going to go into default, they were always going to

7 fail, and their assets were always going to be

8 liquidated.

9 Thirdly, Mr Popov’s evidence goes to the value of

10 the assets on the income approach, in other words,

11 Ms Simonova’s preferred approach to valuing assets at

12 Western Terminal and Onega Terminal.

13 Mr Popov’s evidence on the business model and its

14 profitability is clearly relevant to the valuation

15 approach adopted by Ms Simonova. She adopts the income

16 DCF approach, and therefore Mr Popov’s opinion is

17 relevant to these issues.

18 That there is a clear link, therefore, between

19 Mr Popov’s evidence and that given already by

20 Ms Simonova, is shown by the following — not just the

21 obvious connection, but the instructions to Ms Simonova

22 from Withers, the references to which are in our note

23 that I will give your Lordship again, {E8/26.1/4} and

24 {E8/26.1/9}, and {E8/27.2/3} where Ms Simonova is asked

25 to consider Mr Popov’s evidence.

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 Your Lordship will, I think, recollect that

2 I took — it is actually footnote 19 in our note on

3 page 7, so I won’t repeat that.

4 Mr Popov’s report, if we could have that up, please,

5 at {E5/18/16}. This is the second example. He looks at

6 Ms Simonova’s approach and assumptions to the valuation

7 of Onega Terminal. If we could have page {E5/18/22} up,

8 please, as well. Mr Popov considers what he sees as

9 contradictions between Mr Steadman and Ms Simonova’s

10 approach to the business valuation of

11 the Onega Terminal.

12 Thirdly, your Lordship knows that Mr Stroilov has

13 submitted that Ms Simonova has apparently offered to

14 assist in the cross-examination of Mr Popov, should

15 Mr Popov be called to give evidence orally at the trial.

16 One, I think, can reasonably infer from that that

17 Ms Simonova and the alleged expertise that she has, is

18 going to be deployed in relation to Mr Popov’s expert

19 analysis and, therefore, there looks to be a clear

20 degree of crossover, or overlap, in and about what those

21 two witnesses are engaged upon in this case.

22 My Lord, these are not expert issues going only to

23 quantum, since the defendants rely on the asset values

24 to infer fraud and conspiracy, so, in other words,

25 Mr Popov’s evidence —

1 business loss case, the ownership loss, but also

2 necessarily to assess Ms Simonova’s analysis of

3 the business model itself. It’s all very well saying:

4 the business model is one thing with Mr Arkhangelsky and

5 one thing with another owner. There are factors that

6 will be different, but quite a few of the core liability

7 questions: throughput, capacity, access to the water,

8 those are going to be common on either of those two

9 approaches.

10 So, therefore, if Mr Popov has dealt with those

11 inputs and those assumptions and parts of the analyses

12 by Ms Simonova, his evidence goes to Simonova’s

13 evidence, and her evidence then goes to asset value, and

14 that then goes right back, it circles right back to

15 the defendants’ liability case on their counterclaim,

16 because the central, if not only, plank in their case on

17 liability is that the assets were worth so much more

18 than BSP gave credit for that there must be

19 a conspiracy.

20 The validity of this central tenet, and whether it

21 can conceivably take the weight that the defendants

22 require it to bear in support of their conspiracy case

23 will obviously be a matter for closing submissions.

24 However, my Lord, this is the case — quote

25 unquote — that my clients must meet in defence of

29 31

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The asset values?

2 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord? Yes, because Ms Simonova deals

3 with asset values. She arrives at it through a DCF

4 calculation. Mr Popov —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see what you mean.

6 MR LORD: I am not putting it very clearly —

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, you are, but you say there is

8 crossover because her DCF approach relies on a business

9 or economic assessment which Mr Popov says is not only

10 wrong but inconsistent with Mr Steadman’s report.

11 MR LORD: Exactly, my Lord. Mr Stroilov makes the point

12 that there is a difference between the actual business

13 losses of the owner, which is the business case

14 simpliciter, as it were, and, if you like, the putative,

15 or notional business modelling which a potential

16 purchaser or investor would shell out to acquire the

17 said business prospectively. He makes that point in his

18 skeleton, and that’s a fair point as far as it goes.

19 But, of course, those two exercises, those two

20 modelling exercises are likely to consider a lot of

21 the same material as is, in fact, the case here.

22 Ms Simonova who is looking at asset value, obviously

23 looks at what can be done at the various sites and what

24 she says would be viable, and that’s what Mr Popov has

25 done, true enough part to arrive at his opinion on the

1 a $500 million counterclaim.

2 So the defendants are therefore seeking to adduce

3 expert evidence — sorry, the claimants are seeking to

4 adduce expert evidence that is relevant to the court’s

5 assessment of Ms Simonova’s valuations, and that goes

6 not just to quantification of the business loss claim,

7 but it goes to liability as well, pursuant to

8 the defendants’ case that you can infer conspiracy, this

9 grand conspiracy, from an analysis by Ms Simonova of

10 certain asset values.

11 We would respectfully submit that it would be a very

12 serious matter for the court to exclude from its

13 consideration expert evidence that the claimants seek to

14 adduce in this light.

15 The fourth aspect of Mr Popov’s expert evidence goes

16 to various matters of the OMG businesses, and they

17 include City Centre — and I will give the references,

18 but your Lordship doesn’t need to turn them up

19 {E5/16/14}, {E5/16/29}, {E5/16/37}, and {E5/16/53}.

20 It is right that your Lordship should see that

21 Mr Steadman also deals with this. If we could have

22 {E6/19/61} up, please, your Lordship will see how this

23 point first, I think, arose. Mr Steadman identified

24 certain issues to do with Scandinavia Insurance’s

25 balance sheets. If we could go to the next page

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 {E6/19/62}, your Lordship can see what Mr Steadman set

2 out in paragraph 4.6.8. He identified the considerable

3 value of liquid assets, apparently at one stage on

4 Scandinavia Insurance’s balance sheet, that appeared to

5 have gone via a transaction involving discount notes

6 with an entity called City Centre LLC, and your Lordship

7 knows that Dr Arkhangelsky’s position remains that he

8 has no recollection of this entity, notwithstanding the

9 size of those transactions, somewhere in the region of

10 RUB 725 million. Mr Popov identifies it as higher

11 because there are certain other notes I think that

12 haven’t been taken into account. Your Lordship can see

13 straightaway that that is a very substantial amount of

14 money.

15 At {E5/16/40}, where your Lordship can see Mr Popov

16 deals with the question of guarantees.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: On that last point, the experts can

18 tell me, or I can deduce, possibly, from the experts,

19 what the effect on the balance sheets would be, but the

20 question of fact as to what became and as to the reasons

21 for the discount notes is not a matter for the experts.

22 MR LORD: I accept that, my Lord, entirely, yes, but to

23 the extent that your Lordship’s analysis is going to

24 involve some acquaintance with and orientation with the

25 accountancy context and the way in which these entries

1 experts?

2 MR LORD: No. Then at {E5/17/5} we see some further

3 evidence of Mr Popov on Scandinavia Insurance, the same

4 company, and he identifies, or he expands upon his view

5 on some of these companies. Paragraph 2.1 is

6 potentially important, because he is giving expert

7 evidence on, if you like, the overall set up of this

8 business, and the hallmarks, as far as he is concerned,

9 of it, in particular the last bullet point. He says in

10 2.2:

11 «Scandinavia is a classic example of such an SPV.

12 The financial information that I have reviewed indicates

13 that it had no stand-alone prospects in the sense that

14 it could not have survived outside of the OMG Group.»

15 Now, Mr Popov from Deloittes, one would think is

16 here really assessing the important business elements

17 that go to this counterclaim. He has obviously analysed

18 the OMG accounts. Your Lordship will recollect that

19 Dr Arkhangelsky was, I think, adamant when

20 cross-examined in France —

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I remember, the IFRS discussions.

22 MR LORD: I was put in my place in no uncertain terms on

23 more occasions than I wish to recall, my alleged lack of

24 expertise in this certain area and how one could only

25 really analyse IFRS accounts if you were an expert, so a

33 35
1 appear, then it might be assisted by evidence from 1 forensic accountancy expert seems to be an appropriate
2 forensic accountants, but I accept your Lordship’s basic 2 choice. Obviously there are issues as to how
3 point. 3 Dr Arkhangelsky «built» OMG’s alleged «business empire».
4 Fifthly, Mr Popov deals with the use of 4 There are issues as to «negative goodwill», «fair value
5 Scandinavia Insurance as the OMG treasury. If we could 5 of development property» — those are both quotes —
6 have {E5/16/38}, please. 6 which your Lordship may feel could helpfully be
7 I made a point on the Scan guarantee, sorry, and 7 explained by an expert forensic accountant versed in
8 I moved on too quickly. {E5/16/40}. 8 the IFRS standards.
9 Your Lordship knows that Mr Popov has analysed the 9 So, my Lord, in summary, Mr Popov’s evidence goes to
10 extent to which Scandinavia Insurance had guaranteed 10 wide-ranging issues on liability as well as
11 other OMG group companies, the extent of those 11 quantification of this enormous counterclaim.
12 guarantees, and the effect upon the viability or even 12 In our respectful submission there is, therefore,
13 solvency of Scandinavia Insurance in those 13 a clear overlap here between liability and quantum, and
14 circumstances. 14 your Lordship will recollect considering the question of
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Scandinavia is here Scan Insurance. 15 overlap in a case which Mr Stroilov helpfully identified
16 MR LORD: It is, my Lord, yes, Scan is 16 in his note.
17 Scandinavia Insurance. If we could have {E5/16/38}, 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The EWRG case.
18 again, from one of Mr Popov’s reports, your Lordship can 18 MR LORD: It is, my Lord, and I won’t take your Lordship to
19 see what he opines about — effectively 19 it, because your Lordship, I am sure, is familiar with
20 Scandinavia Insurance was an OMG treasury, it wasn’t 20 this, so I don’t need to take up too much time, so if
21 really a standalone company, and it did what he said it 21 I just give your Lordship the reference in the case, in
22 did in paragraph 6.34, 6.35 and 6.36. 22 paragraph 10 your Lordship looked at the question of
23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: These guarantees too are disputed? 23 splitting a trial. I don’t know if your Lordship has
24 MR LORD: Yes, that’s right. That’s right. 24 a copy of the case there?
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Again, that’s nothing to do with the 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, it was somewhere.
34 36
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 MR LORD: Yes.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I thought it was in your file that you

3 gave me. Read it out to me.

4 MR LORD: Yes, in paragraph 10 your Lordship said this, in

5 the second sentence:

6 «Thus, for example, the determining factors in The

7 Leaflet Company case were that (a) the boundaries

8 between liability, causation and quantum were tolerably

9 clear, (b) there were no significant issues of causation

10 that could not safely be left to be dealt with at the

11 second stage of trial…»

12 I am helpfully told by my learned junior that it is

13 at {I27/43/39}. It’s on screen now, my Lord. I won’t

14 read out paragraph 10. Paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 are

15 relevant.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

17 MR LORD: Your Lordship, in our respectful submission, if

18 one looks at those criteria which your Lordship

19 identifies there and applies them to this case, one can

20 see this is clearly not a case where you could start

21 safely to scoop out various issues on Mr Popov’s watch.

22 So Mr Popov’s evidence, in my submission, goes not

23 only to quantum but to the issues of liability and

24 credit more generally.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: This is a development of your thinking

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I remember it very well, just before

2 Christmas, that the submission in effect was that

3 because there were no funds, no trial at all would be

4 possible, unless you paid for it.

5 MR LORD: Completely. So we were debating a very extreme

6 situation, which I don’t accept was correctly premised,

7 and I don’t accept applies now, we were seeing how one

8 might go about dealing with that, if you like, extreme

9 obstacle to a fair trial.

10 So the context is important, the premise is

11 important, and the current relevant factors, which

12 I will adumbrate, are also important to today’s

13 decision.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I tell you — I am slightly bothered

15 about the time — but the flip side of this is that the

16 more central the evidence, the more unfair it is not to

17 have a full fight on it.

18 MR LORD: My Lord, I think I need to make these submissions,

19 because I am concerned about it. If I could make them

20 as briskly as I can, your Lordship will have them, and

21 then I will obviously, as I always try to do, answer any

22 of your Lordship’s questions and see what can be done,

23 but I do think I need to, if you don’t mind, just make

24 these submissions.

25 In my submission, the fact that this evidence goes

37

1 from your position in December, if I could put it very

2 neutrally?

3 MR LORD: My Lord, I don’t think that is a completely fair

4 point in a number of respects. First, we were debating

5 in December the situation where there was — two things.

6 First, I made it clear at that hearing that it wasn’t

7 just quantification, it went to issues of causation and

8 credibility and so on. I haven’t got the references,

9 but I am as sure as I can be that that was what

10 I submitted.

11 Can we have — I don’t know what the Magnum

12 reference is. It’s 14 December 2015. {L8/43/131}, line

13 24 running over the page all the way down {L8/43/132}.

14 Then down to {L8/43/133}, down to line 5.

15 My Lord, I don’t think it is right to say that

16 I didn’t identify potential difficulties with this

17 carve-out, but it is right to note that, trying to help

18 the court on the premises that were then underlying

19 Mr Stroilov’s application, to which I am going to return

20 soon, I identified this as being an area where

21 potentially the court might look more carefully to see

22 whether that could be done.

23 Your Lordship will recollect that we were facing

24 an application where what was said was there were no

25 funds available to pay for —

39

1 to the question of liability and credit should dispose

2 of Mr Stroilov’s first and second options.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: First and second?

4 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord. Yes.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I understand that they go to no split

6 trial; you say they also control whether I should allow

7 in both experts but on a written basis only?

8 MR LORD: Well, what I am going to submit, my Lord, what

9 I will try to develop as briefly as I can, is that if

10 one takes a step back, in a normal case —

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What does that have to do with this

12 case?

13 MR LORD: My Lord, I thought I might be taxed with that.

14 One could make, I think, a very decent case for saying

15 the more exceptional and difficult a case, the more one

16 might apply orthodox and conventional approaches where

17 those are available, where those are the right

18 approaches. Unless that is too cryptic, in

19 circumstances where the finance is available, for

20 example…

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know you don’t like me interrupting,

22 but equally I have to hurry you along, and now you have

23 given me written submissions.

24 I agree with you, as is implicit in your

25 submissions, that the two vital points in this part of

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 the application, apart from the overall amorphous

2 question of fairness, are whether their failure to call

3 Mr Steadman is really their own choice or fault. That’s

4 question one. If the answer to that was: it is, then

5 none of the rest of it is relevant because — you are

6 quite right — the purpose of the rules is not just to

7 be a pain in the proverbial, but in order to guide you

8 in difficult scenes. I agree with you the more

9 difficult a case, the more, in a way, you have to cling

10 to the rules.

11 MR LORD: Exactly, that was exactly the submission I was

12 going to make.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I understand that. If you win on that

14 point and persuade me that it is choice, really all the

15 rest is a waste of breath because it is much better, in

16 my view, to avoid the difficulties of a split trial,

17 especially at a time such as this.

18 MR LORD: I see, yes.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Then the question is, can the trial be

20 split, and I don’t mean in any sense to devalue what you

21 have said, you have said it very well, if I may say so,

22 and you have given me particularity, which is important.

23 It is not easy to split this trial. It never seemed to

24 me to be altogether easy, and there are real

25 difficulties in it.

1 determine how this expert evidence and when it is to be

2 given. That also goes for Mr Steadman, and I can —

3 though he is not to be called, then unless that is

4 a matter of choice, which goes back to your first point,

5 I can admit that, look at it, and see what my combined

6 reading reveals.

7 MR LORD: My Lord, the potential dangers with that —

8 potential dangers —

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

10 MR LORD: — are that where those experts, Popov

11 and Steadman, disagree, and disagree quite

12 significantly, it is obviously more difficult for

13 a court to decide that.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is much more difficult and it is

15 not at all what I would prefer, but my provisional

16 least-bad solution, if I can put it that way, is that

17 I should read both, I should then determine whether

18 I can make head or fair tail of them without

19 cross-examination of both, and in that context, I will

20 also — query having read all the other submissions of

21 the case in writing — I will also be able to determine

22 whether ultimately this business evidence is really

23 vital in terms of the actual values, because, as I have

24 said repeatedly, Mr Bromley-Martin’s evidence was that,

25 amongst other things, he saw no practical realistic

41 43
1 However, we then have to move, in the context of 1 possibility of raising funds if people knew of
2 the amorphous fairness, to a solution, because fairness 2 the payments that are being made to the officials, full
3 is the predominant principle. 3 stop. That’s what he said, and that —
4 MR LORD: To both parties. 4 MR LORD: That must be right, my Lord.
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: To both parties, yes. But 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That may be a very difficult point to
6 unfortunately, it is one strike and out. If it is 6 surmount.
7 unfair to either party it is very difficult to know what 7 MR LORD: It must be right, yes. Your Lordship will
8 to do. Now — 8 recollect that Mr Bromley-Martin — can we have Day 21,
9 MR LORD: My Lord — sorry. 9 page 3, please. Your Lordship is right, but I was
10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am just trying to assess where 10 reminded today — no. {Day21/2:1}. I think this was
11 I have got to on the basis of the written submissions. 11 the re-examination of Mr Bromley-Martin by Mr Stroilov.
12 MR LORD: Yes, I see that, my Lord. My submission would be 12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Don’t worry, Mr Stroilov. Everyone
13 it is not at all apparent how one would fairly, 13 always relies on re-examination.
14 certainly to the claimants as defendants to this huge 14 MR LORD: Sorry, {Day21/1:1}. You see, Mr Stroilov asked
15 counterclaim, keep out the sort of evidence that I have 15 Mr Bromley-Martin some questions about the significance
16 discussed. 16 to be attached to the assets of Western Terminal, and he
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, that’s why I’m testing you on 17 was asked at line 19 by Mr Stroilov:
18 whether it goes to your second — Mr Stroilov’s second 18 «Question: And I think the burden of your evidence,
19 one. 19 it is fair to summarise it as that it would be relevant
20 As it seems to me, and I will show you where I am 20 because it would indicate the market value of
21 thinking, because we have to move on — as it seems to 21 the asset…»
22 me, I cannot exclude your evidence. You have adduced 22 If you scroll on, please, to the next page, and
23 it, I said it was necessary. 23 Mr Bromley-Martin confirms that at {Day21/2:2}.
24 MR LORD: Yes. 24 My Lord, to go back your Lordship’s point to me
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But I do have full jurisdiction to 25 about deciding it on paper, can I raise at least the
42 44
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 following two points that spring to my mind. First,

2 that Ms Simonova has given oral evidence and, therefore,

3 if you like, the defendants have the benefit or

4 otherwise of that, in the sense that if there are issues

5 about the DCF analysis, one party has been able to

6 adduce live, oral evidence, as it were.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You will have adduced evidence and

8 I think it would have to rely on me, as it were, if

9 I don’t think that I can fairly — I am by no means

10 saying that I’m not going to require cross-examination

11 in the end, I just feel that I must proceed

12 incrementally.

13 MR LORD: The second point, my Lord, is whether it is the

14 right approach in this case for your Lordship to, if you

15 like, come to some sort of decisions without having had

16 that evidence in in a different way as part of

17 your Lordship’s thought process.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Either I would think that I could make

19 the decision in which case I would make the decision, or

20 I would determine in due course that I couldn’t make

21 the decision, in which case, I am afraid, one aspect of

22 the trial would have to be revived.

23 MR LORD: Yes.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I feel that, you know, with all

25 respect, I cannot see a way out of this. It’s not what

1 there is a fairness, I am not backing off fairness, but

2 fairness is a two-way street and justice is to both

3 parties, and I want to just ask your Lordship to

4 question, as the trial judge, is there a reason to

5 supplant or displace, dis-apply the ordinary rules in

6 this regard. In this regard.

7 The relevant consideration is first: permission was

8 already given for oral evidence, your Lordship has the

9 reference. That permission was given for potentially

10 two valuers without a restriction of a valuer —

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m complying with those.

12 MR LORD: Sorry?

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am letting them in. I’m letting

14 both in.

15 MR LORD: Yes.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right?

17 MR LORD: Yes.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They were necessary, and I’m going to

19 read them.

20 MR LORD: I understand that, my Lord, but the question is

21 whether the normal rules should be displaced, because

22 your Lordship is really predicating or postulating to me

23 that we go to a different paradigm for testing it.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, the normal process is being

25 changed. I am going to read both experts. I am going

45 47
1 I would like. It is — and I accept this entirely, not 1 to have very careful submissions from each of you, and
2 the way business should proceed in the High Court. It’s 2 I am going to determine whether I can make any
3 one of the differences, in effect. 3 conclusions on the existing state of things with my own
4 MR LORD: My Lord, I do think I must — your Lordship has 4 reading alone. I think this is going to be difficult.
5 the points, but this proceeds on the premise that this 5 MR LORD: I’m sorry, my Lord, there is a premise here which
6 is a situation that your Lordship should be grappling 6 I am afraid I am not going to accept. I am happy to
7 with in the way we are now debating, and I don’t in any 7 move on, but I must put a reservation down, which is
8 way give up the submission that there is the money here. 8 that this sort of truncated — this sort of bifurcated
9 There is the money. It is proportionate in a half 9 or staged process is happening because of certain things
10 a billion dollar counterclaim of this seriousness to 10 that the defendants pray in aid. So your Lordship has,
11 expect the defendants to have paid and still to pay for 11 effectively, to accept that before —
12 Mr Steadman; that that is the starting point for this, 12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Lord, I don’t know how to put this
13 and that we shouldn’t just jump because the defendants 13 more clearly: I have said if you persuade me that this
14 don’t want to pay — 14 is a matter of choice, as far as I’m concerned, that’s
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Please understand, I haven’t jumped. 15 the end of the road for the defendants.
16 The fact that we are on one topic doesn’t mean I have 16 MR LORD: I understand. I misunderstood. So if
17 overridden another. 17 your Lordship is of that view, we will not go to this
18 MR LORD: My Lord, I was going to submit that the question 18 kind of process —
19 is, really, are there any countervailing factors, 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, all this is on the alternative
20 because in an orthodox case, or on orthodox principles, 20 view that they have —
21 one would say: right, well let’s have whatever expert 21 MR LORD: Oh, sorry.
22 evidence from Popov or Steadman the parties want to 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — crossed the hurdle of not showing
23 adduce. Just call them and they can be cross-examined. 23 that it was because they don’t want to or because they
24 That’s what normally happens. The question is, is there 24 would prefer to go on holiday than call Mr Steadman. As
25 anything here sufficient to displace that, and I accept 25 far as I can see, if that was the question, it would be
46 48
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 inappropriate and unfair of me to say: okay, well 1 change in circumstance. In fact, the circumstances, if
2 I support your holiday and I am going to visit the 2 anything, have changed adverse to Mr Stroilov’s clients
3 consequences on the claimants. I can’t see that I would 3 because in fact it is plain that there are funds. The
4 fairly do that. 4 premise of the application and the appeal to the Court
5 MR LORD: I understand. And in that context your Lordship 5 of Appeal was actually false.
6 will obviously recollect the letter at {I22/29/26} on 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I can’t remember what the resulting
7 finances. Could we have that on the screen, please? 7 balance after the withdrawal of funds was.
8 This was a letter that set out various submissions that 8 MR LORD: It’s over about €200,000, my Lord.
9 had been made by Mr Stroilov as to finances, and I ask 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: €200,000.
10 your Lordship to take that into account, please. 10 MR LORD: I think it is about 290,000, but there may be some
11 I don’t need to go through it all, I think. {I22/29/28} 11 tax to come off, but I don’t think it is in issue that
12 lists certain hearings where submissions were made about 12 there are well over €200,000 left in that life policy.
13 the alleged lack of finance of the defendants, they’ve 13 So your Lordship has the point about the finances,
14 been highlighted, and I think most significantly is at 14 and we ask your Lordship to look at that.
15 item {I22/29/29} at paragraph 5. At the hearing on 15 In our submission, points are made about other
16 26 November 2015, Mr Stroilov says: 16 claims upon the Arkhangelskys’ resources. That’s always
17 «Valuation, we can’t afford to pay the valuation 17 the case for litigants, they always have other claims,
18 experts.» 18 they always want to keep money back for future events.
19 Then your Lordship says, I think at page 34, line 6: 19 It doesn’t mean that there aren’t funds available at the
20 «Are there any funds presently subject to a freezing 20 moment, and there is a question of allocation of funds.
21 order of any kind in any jurisdiction which, but for 21 They found money for Mr Milner, £22,000 was found for
22 those orders, would be available to the Arkhangelskys 22 Mr Milner, but seemingly own £10,000 has been offered to
23 for funding this claim?» 23 Mr Steadman. That really tells its own tale. That
24 Mr Stroilov’s answer was: 24 really should be the end of it.
25 «No, I am afraid not. That’s the problem. There 25 There is no evidence before your Lordship that the

49

1 was one asset which was realised and utilised, and it

2 was — that’s the Bulgarian — »

3 And your Lordship said:

4 «… But that’s it, that’s the only thing?»

5 Mr Stroilov responded.

6 «That’s it, I am afraid now. Apart — there is,

7 theoretically, there is a family home —«.

8 My Lord, with the greatest of respect, that was

9 untrue.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Inaccurate.

11 MR LORD: It was inaccurate, it was incorrect.

12 Paragraph 7 on {I22/29/30} — and that submission

13 has still, to my knowledge, not been withdrawn or

14 corrected — {I22/29/30} identifies the submission made

15 to the Court of Appeal, and I don’t need to repeat my

16 submissions on that. That was also incorrect.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: This was before Lord Justice Elias,

18 was it?

19 MR LORD: It is, my Lord, it was the appeal from

20 your Lordship’s ruling on what appears to be

21 a re-presented application for some sort of payment on

22 account in relation to Mr Steadman and the point I am

23 making on that is your Lordship has decided that point,

24 it has been to the Court of Appeal where they refused

25 permission to appeal, and there has been no material

51

1 defendants have constructively engaged this expert to

2 see whether there could be some sort of middle ground

3 reached.

4 Telling an expert he can have £10,000 —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think it would be rash of me to

6 assume that that was the only dialogue.

7 MR LORD: My Lord, it would also not be right to note

8 that — and I think I must say this. I would just sound

9 one note of caution against findings in relation to

10 Mr Steadman. I don’t carry any brief for Mr Steadman,

11 but I must say I have a slight professional concern that

12 he is entitled — that various things are said about him

13 and his approach and what has or hasn’t passed, if you

14 like, outside of court between him and Dr Arkhangelsky

15 and Mr Stroilov without necessarily his —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that is a very, very fair

17 point, and that’s why I asked whether the letter was to

18 me or to Dr Arkhangelsky, and I must say for my own part

19 I think that I would — if the matter proceeds as

20 I envisage it might, I would probably want, in any

21 event, to give him the opportunity to come and explain

22 more clearly for himself what the position was.

23 MR LORD: Yes. I just don’t want — if, at a subsequent

24 event, Mr Steadman arrives, all guns blazing, as it

25 were, I don’t want it to be said, that I have, if you

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 like, I have —

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Professional men are entitled to

3 payment and it is very, very rare for the court to

4 override that entitlement. In fact, as a matter of fact

5 I know of no example when that has occurred.

6 MR LORD: My Lord, just to test it in this way: I don’t

7 know whether Mr Steadman, for example, has been told

8 about the life policy. I don’t know if he has been told

9 about the payment for the cross-examination of

10 Mr Millard. I don’t know if he is going to come to

11 court and be surprised and say: what’s going on, what’s

12 happening here? Why wasn’t I told about all this?

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: These points are well made and

14 I accept them. When I said that his letter was

15 dismissive, it was in the context of being to

16 Dr Arkhangelsky, allowing for the possibility that he

17 would have been more forthcoming had the letter been to

18 me. In case it was of assistance, I think if the matter

19 proceeds needing Mr Steadman, I would, rather than

20 immediately issue a witness summons, I would prefer it

21 if he came and told me for himself what the problems

22 were and the context in which he was operating, and

23 I would rather hope that he would wish to cooperate in

24 that because I just think that we are going to be faced

25 with a difficult situation, but he may be in even more

1 matters couldn’t have been set out in evidence, really,

2 or certainly in a way that really brooked no real query.

3 So they are very important, if there’s going to be

4 a material imposition on your Lordship’s case management

5 rulings, as it were, going to be an attempt to wrestle

6 with this, on certain bases, those should really have

7 been set out, and no lack of funding explains why they

8 haven’t been set out. They could have been set out.

9 One is left with — particularly in the light of

10 Mr Bromley-Martin’s evidence, one is left with the

11 distinct impression that the defendants do find resource

12 when they want to to cross-examine Mr Millard, but are

13 not so enthusiastic to dip into their resources to call

14 an expert where perhaps they see the writing on the

15 wall, or maybe don’t want questions to be put in and

16 about those areas to a witness. He would see the

17 transcripts, he would see what had been said by

18 Dr Arkhangelsky about his businesses, and Mr Steadman

19 may have a view, or his view may be affected by those.

20 So one can well see why, potentially, the defendants

21 might not really be as enthusiastic on getting

22 Mr Steadman into play —

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think you are spreading yourself

24 rather on that. I’m not sure I could possibly conclude

25 that.

53 55
1 difficulties, for all I know. 1 MR LORD: No, I just put that point in, my Lord, to
2 MR LORD: I suppose in terms of fairness I feel 2 the extent that your Lordship feels happy there is
3 a professional obligation — 3 sufficient evidence as to why Mr Steadman can’t take
4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you are right. 4 part in the case and efforts to bring him, then that
5 MR LORD: — to sound a note of caution in the sense that he 5 obviously will be a matter that your Lordship will
6 has not been able, really, to put his side of the case. 6 obviously take into account.
7 The burden of Mr Stroilov’s submissions is that the 7 The point I think I have made is the defendants have
8 witness is asking for too much and he is not really 8 already adduced live evidence from Ms Simonova, so
9 engaging, and he has a lot of work to do, and we haven’t 9 your Lordship will have to consider whether or not —
10 heard from his side of things, and he may come along and 10 and I know we will come to that — how much weight to
11 say: that is absolute nonsense, they haven’t tried to 11 put, for example, on the evidence of witnesses who have
12 get me along at all. There have been some token 12 been cross-examined as opposed to those whose evidence
13 efforts… 13 is only going to be received on paper, and obviously it
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I would be very surprised if that were 14 is a matter for your Lordship ultimately whether
15 the case, but I dare say that a full explanation of all 15 your Lordship feels that your Lordship can safely decide
16 the circumstances may not have been given. 16 questions concerning Mr Popov’s opinion, and in effect
17 MR LORD: Well, it will be a matter for your Lordship to 17 finding against the defendants on a material part of
18 decide whether or not — because obviously some of these 18 the case, where Mr Popov would have — his evidence
19 matters are being covered through submissions by 19 would have gone to that issue, that’s the case.
20 Mr Stroilov today. Something as important as this 20 That, in my submission, deals with options one and
21 really should have lend itself to — 21 two.
22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And it’s a bad traffic jam in Nice. 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Against the claimants?
23 MR LORD: Yes, so some of these points really, in my 23 MR LORD: Yes, against the claimants. Sorry, did I say
24 respectful submission, there’s no justification, 24 defendants.
25 whatever the position of the parties, that these sort of 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You did, but it was alligator instead
54 56
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 of an allegation.

2 MR LORD: Sorry, there were no alligators.

3 In our submission that deals with options one and

4 two, and our submission that really it ought to come in

5 the normal way.

6 Option three, the point of the witness summons,

7 that’s really a matter for the defendants, whether they

8 witness summons an expert, and we do say whose fees they

9 could afford but they are electing not to pay, and I say

10 nothing about the appropriateness of that as a course on

11 that premise, and therefore I won’t say anything about

12 any application that there might be by the said witness.

13 My Lord, that’s one of the other unsatisfactory bits

14 of the case: that there really had been — given that

15 there is obviously some funding available, Mr Steadman

16 has obviously played a part in this case, monies have

17 been spent on litigation last year. It is

18 unsatisfactory that it has suddenly gone into a siding,

19 hit the buffers like this, and the question is should

20 that really have happened? I accept that may not be the

21 end of it, because your Lordship may say: that’s

22 happened, but how do we sort it out? We can’t get out

23 of how we have arrived at this point because that must

24 bear upon the fairness point.

25 So really, my Lord, those really, I think, are my

1 having to prepare for an entire cross-examination and

2 the cross-examination of the other side’s witness, and

3 answering discrete points such as might arise in

4 a hot-tubbing situation where you are focused by the

5 court on particular issues where it has stuck.

6 MR LORD: My Lord, I suppose there are issues that arise

7 there as to the parties, if you like, making closing

8 submissions without having necessarily all the evidence

9 having been tested.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is not satisfactory.

11 MR LORD: Whether that is quite the right way around,

12 really, because it is — obviously the normal approach

13 would be all the evidence in, tested or not, and then

14 the parties would make their submissions on that, on the

15 evidence, and I am just —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can you identify any real prejudice,

17 given that the only thing outstanding would be this

18 aspect of expert evidence? I mean, I know your points,

19 which is that there is a crossover, and I know what

20 Mr Popov says in terms of the viability of the approach

21 espoused by Mr Steadman, its inconsistency with

22 Ms Simonova, and the unreliability of both. That’s

23 what his evidence is. I can read all that.

24 MR LORD: You can, my Lord, but obviously evidence tends to

25 come to life when a witness comes to gives it. That is

57

1 submissions. The only other issue is in terms of

2 the timing. Your Lordship I think is anticipating or

3 contemplating deciding following closing submissions

4 whether or not paper is enough for the reception of this

5 evidence. Sorry, having had written closings, or oral

6 closings as well … am I jumping ahead too far?

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think the whole lot is the prima

8 facie position, but if I felt, after looking at your

9 written submissions, that really, it couldn’t fairly be

10 adjudicated without cross-examination, or at least

11 a sort of rather poor relation of hot-tubbing with

12 respect to particular questions which I had identified

13 and therefore requiring the experts to attend on a very

14 much more limited basis, and therefore on a much less

15 expensive basis, that I might, myself, issue or cause to

16 be issued a witness summons whereupon, having identified

17 the particular issues for Mr Steadman, there would be

18 less reason for him to go back into all the entrails, he

19 would only have to answer a very discrete point, or

20 series of points, and I would, on that footing, rather

21 expect him, subject to him setting aside the witness

22 summons, to have done the necessary work; do you see

23 what I mean?

24 As it seems to me, I may be wrong about this, but as

25 it seems to me presently, there is a world of difference

59

1 one of the complaints by Mr Stroilov that it is unfair

2 that Mr Popov comes to life, Mr Steadman doesn’t come to

3 life, so I would turn it the other way around.

4 Ms Simonova has come to life, more than come to life.

5 So you are going to read some paper reports of Mr Popov

6 and not see the cut and thrust and see well, actually,

7 is he really right? He’s really right about that.

8 So, your Lordship, Ms Simonova has come and gone.

9 Huge, huge weight is placed on that by Mr Stroilov.

10 In effect, in our submission, the defendants have

11 collapsed land value and business value into one of

12 the two valuers, Ms Simonova, that’s entirely their

13 prerogative. I don’t think they would agree with that,

14 but that is my submission what they have done. Our

15 evidence straddles Millard and Popov, and in that

16 situation, there is a fairness issue as to whether

17 Mr Popov is going to —

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Stroilov has given me a squash

19 ladder of preferences. What is your squash ladder?

20 MR LORD: My Lord, the preference is that we are able to

21 call Mr Popov and tender him for cross-examination, and

22 that happens before the conclusion of the evidence in

23 this case. Then that would raise the question of: well,

24 should steps be taken to seek the attendance of

25 Mr Steadman? I’m not prepared to give that up, I’m not

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 prepared to let that go because I don’t accept the old

2 saying: where there is a will, there’s a way. I just

3 don’t accept, I’m not accepting that we should move to

4 your Lordship’s potential solution, because that is

5 going to build in enormous delay and problems. One can

6 see time for written closings, judicial consideration,

7 then having to reconvene, regroup, get witnesses a long

8 time after the other evidence, having to drag up the

9 evidence, possibly — well, many, many months after the

10 rest of the evidence has been received, which would

11 build in its own disadvantages to the process.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

13 MR LORD: I accept if your Lordship feels that is the only

14 fair solution, your Lordship will go down that route,

15 but I am not accepting, really, that we are in quite

16 such an exceptional, quite such a difficult position as

17 that, and I would favour attempt to try to get the

18 business experts into play as part of the evidence in

19 the foreseeable future before we —

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How long is foreseeable on that

21 footing? Play it out the other way: take it that

22 Mr Steadman is going to be in difficulties over the next

23 few weeks, so that’s what he’s said, and that there must

24 be a risk, whether or not he said it, that any witness

25 summons would be opposed, right. That all has to be

1 get them over the first hurdle, if I were to conclude

2 that, what I would have in mind in those circumstances

3 is, as I say, an incremental approach. I would complete

4 the trial in all other respects.

5 MR LORD: In the first week of May.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In the first week of May. I would

7 then consult with you as to when the proper time for

8 exchange of witness statements were. I would in the

9 meantime have some time to really grapple with the

10 competing business expertise, but also grapple with my

11 conclusions as to whether any of it is truly, in point

12 of detail, going to be relevant.

13 MR LORD: I understand.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I would then let you know whether

15 I felt that oral submissions could safely take place, or

16 whether it was really requisite to grasp, at last, the

17 nettle, and determine how we were going to deal. In

18 that context I think that I would, in any event, favour,

19 although it is a rod for my own back, formulating

20 questions, if necessary with your combined assistance,

21 to put to Mr Steadman as the basis on which he would be

22 summonsed to the court, and I would require a detail in

23 that context as to his estimate of costs in that

24 respect, and if he were, I would facilitate him coming

25 to the court for any issue of a witness statement so

61 63
1 thought out. It is a novel point. It could well go on 1 that he could more fully understand all the context and
2 appeal. 2 confide in me what his position truly is.
3 We then decide that he has to turn up and he has 3 I appreciate that that would be expenditure of
4 said: fine, in order to do myself justice I have to go 4 chargeable time, but I think it could be done within,
5 through the whole lot. It’s going to take me six weeks. 5 say, an hour, and I think it wouldn’t be mandatory: it
6 I can’t do that for another six weeks, so three months 6 would just be a facility offered to him.
7 away. 7 Either I would have decided that I can deal with
8 On any footing, when you get down to practical brass 8 this without cross-examination at the end, or that I can
9 tacks, this will occasion tremendous delay unless 9 deal with it but only after limited cross-examination;
10 an incremental approach is adopted. 10 or that I need full cross-examination and that the other
11 MR LORD: I’m not sure if your Lordship is positing the 11 side have established their assets valuation to overtop
12 timescale on your Lordship’s solution. In other words, 12 your claim. There are very, very many permutations
13 I don’t know the timing when we would return to 13 which is why I say it is incremental. I think this is
14 the question of Popov/Steadman. Because it would be one 14 a pretty near intractable situation.
15 thing if it was shortly after the matter closed, it 15 MR LORD: Well, if your Lordship takes that course then we
16 would be another, in my submission, if it was a long 16 will obviously endeavour to help it along.
17 time after the matter closed. To come back to this 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And at each stage I would seek to
18 evidence a long, long time after, then those would be 18 consult, if I can put it that way, with you, as to
19 very different. I’m not saying either would be the 19 the stage to which I have got and as to the viability of
20 better. 20 what I propose.
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think what I have in mind, but 21 MR LORD: Yes.
22 I want to know the prejudice, if I conclude — and I am 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But I think for all the reasons you
23 just going to make some sort of provisional directions 23 give, it is pretty important, this evidence. It’s one
24 today, but if I were to conclude that impecuniosity 24 of those terrible things: if it is relevant at all, it’s
25 is — well, the difficulty of funding is sufficient to 25 pretty relevant. That’s the problem.
62 64
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 MR LORD: I understand that, my Lord, and I’ve made my

2 submissions. We will obviously engage as constructively

3 as we can.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

5 MR LORD: I’m not going to repeat the submissions. Whether

6 we should have arrived at this point, whether we should

7 be wrestling in this way, but if we do wrestle, we will

8 obviously help with the match.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The only directions I propose to give,

10 I don’t think it is conceivable that we are going to

11 need Mr Popov next week.

12 MR LORD: No, he has been stood down, my Lord, I am afraid.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And we must simply work out when he

14 must come, if at all. I will try and write something

15 out on this, or I will give some oral judgment.

16 MR LORD: Thank you.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I find the question of

18 the Arkhangelskys’ financial position not an easy one,

19 Mr Stroilov. I think that their exaggeration in

20 the past as to having to sleep on the floor and that

21 kind of thing, which is now dismissed as simply being

22 illustrative of a difficulty, was unfortunate. I do not

23 begrudge people holidays, particularly when they are

24 under severe stress. It’s not really the 10,000 that

25 concerns me, which was the cost of Guadeloupe, or

1 especially on the submissions that have been made in

2 relation to financial position, well most illustratively

3 as your Lordship has said, this rhetoric about having to

4 sleep on the floor.

5 Throughout that time, rightly or wrongly, there has

6 been the freezing order and the financial position,

7 including all the life insurance policies, has been

8 completely transparent. So, really, it wasn’t

9 a question of misrepresenting the position in any way.

10 Really it’s the facts were known to all parties. They

11 were all on the table.

12 Perhaps, I agree, really it wasn’t —

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know, but the trouble is that it’s

14 not always easy for the court to distinguish between

15 careless rhetoric and careful submission.

16 MR STROILOV: Well, yes, my Lord, and that’s one of

17 the downsides of being a litigant in person, I am

18 afraid.

19 But the point I am making, and it may be understood

20 as submissions that have been made, is that really well,

21 the court has been misled, and by now we have caught

22 them lying, and that’s not true. The claimants were in

23 a position to stand up there and then and to say: well

24 no, hold on, there is a life insurance policy. They

25 knew all that at the time. So it’s not the case.

65 67
1 Martinique, I can’t remember which, it’s the attitude or 1 Secondly, I think the point that has been made about
2 safety net which that seems to indicates, because people 2 money being spent on cross-examination of Mr Millard,
3 who only have £10,000 simply do not spend it on 3 well, it’s not a luxury: it is pretty important in
4 a holiday in Martinique, just full stop, they just don’t 4 itself, and I think it would be very — it is tempting
5 do it, or if they do do it, they cannot really ask for 5 in a way, it would be very unfair to assume that because
6 sympathy. 6 we are trying to do our best as litigants in person, we
7 So all these things trouble me. Equally, 7 don’t really need lawyers, and it’s just a luxury to
8 I appreciate the threats to this family in terms of 8 have Mr Milner here. We could have just as well done it
9 possible future proceedings. There are young children 9 ourselves, we’ve been too lazy and asked Mr Milner, it
10 involved. They are not living in a style which appears 10 is not quite how it is.
11 to be generally luxurious. There are very many 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t think that is suggested.
12 competing factors, and I will try and iron them out. 12 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I take issue with that. That was
13 I do not wish to prejudge what I think, having read 13 not suggested. I am not having my submissions
14 all these submissions and re-read. I think it is not 14 mischaracterised. They are being mischaracterised.
15 unlikely that I would decide that I simply have to adopt 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no, don’t worry, Mr Lord. To be
16 the incremental position, but I shall be more than wary 16 honest I can quite understand why one might put first
17 if it is subsequently said that a more limited 17 the building brick of the assets as against the rather
18 engagement which I propose and think is pretty near 18 more uncertain claim of the business value. I can quite
19 inevitable cannot be afforded. 19 understand that.
20 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful, my Lord. I think I have only 20 MR STROILOV: My Lord, very briefly on the crossover,
21 a few points to make in — 21 obviously seeing in what direction you are going, and
22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You can, yes. 22 really that you want to consider the reports carefully
23 Submissions in reply by MR STROILOV 23 yourself, but very briefly, I think insofar as it is
24 MR STROILOV: In terms of the financial position, I think 24 suggested that Mr Popov is going to undermine
25 something that has not been stressed quite enough, is 25 Ms Simonova, well that’s exactly — if that is so, that
66 68
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 is exactly where inequality of arms comes in. It was

2 Mr Millard’s job to undermine Ms Simonova, he has done

3 his best to do that. Having two experts on one, that is

4 unfair. So that is, insofar as he is capable of doing

5 that, that should not be allowed. Rather, I would say

6 it’s a point in my favour.

7 As far as the other points are concerned on the

8 crossover, such as Scan guarantees or City Centre, it is

9 rather putting the cart before the horse, because what

10 the expert is capable of telling your Lordship is how

11 these various factual assumptions would affect the value

12 of the business but not the other way around, and what

13 is relevant at this stage is whether these factual

14 matters are true.

15 Then finally concerning your Lordship’s point on

16 Mr Bromley-Martin’s evidence, probably it’s not

17 something you will rule on today and there will be

18 closing submissions on that, but obviously what he did

19 say is that, yes, if these payments had come to light,

20 then refinancing wouldn’t be realistic. But that,

21 I submit, is a big if, and he gave evidence as well that

22 it would be his job and he would see this to do his best

23 to keep it in the undergrowth, I think, as he said it.

24 Obviously this process of raising that loan wouldn’t

25 include cross-examination on oath, and so as likely as

1 a trial as I can secure for the parties. I would much

2 rather, if I can put it this way, set out a certain

3 course and adhere to it. I would much rather rule now

4 and forever hold my peace, but I don’t feel able to do

5 so. I wish to proceed incrementally, and for these

6 purposes I will do the following: Mr Popov has already

7 been stood out. That was on the guesstimate of whether

8 that would be necessary. That guesstimate has been

9 proved correct. We will proceed with the Russian

10 experts in accordance with the timetable you have

11 agreed.

12 We will need to discuss what impact that has on the

13 written submissions. I have explained that there will

14 then be a reading time for me, at which I will determine

15 whether oral submissions are fair or unfair, or whether

16 we have to find some slot for whatever process of

17 examination or cross-examination of the Popov/Steadman

18 evidence is required. I will read that evidence.

19 I will do my best with it. I do not feel confident that

20 I will be able to do without some limited

21 cross-examination.

22 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful, my Lord.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think Dr Arkhangelsky and

24 Mrs Arkhangelskaya need to search in their priorities as

25 to whether a more limited budget could be made available

69

1 not, Mr Arkhangelsky wouldn’t have said what he told

2 your Lordship.

3 But there will be more detailed submissions on that,

4 but I would caution against rushing to say if that is

5 really a business claim, it fails. It is slightly more

6 complex.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, if that was so, the business

8 claim probably would fail, but what you say is, it may

9 not have emerged. I mean, I am not making any findings,

10 it would be grotesquely inappropriate for me to do so,

11 although we have reached the point of the trial when

12 I can indicate various provisional thoughts.

13 Mr Bromley-Martin said what he said. You are quite

14 right that that was on the assumption that the lenders

15 came to hear of it. The other side will say: yes, but a

16 100 million funding gap is difficult to explain with

17 people like EBRD who have a great big look at it and

18 say: right, you have spent this on infrastructure, you

19 have spent this overall, what’s the explanation for the

20 difference? There will be all sorts of enquiries I will

21 await written submissions on.

22 I don’t intend — in fact, my whole approach, I hope

23 you will understand — is not to leap to conclusions but

24 to proceed incrementally and try and see what the

25 minimum which is necessary to be done to ensure as fair

71

1 for these purposes, and whether some accommodation can

2 be reached with Mr Steadman on the strict understanding

3 that I wouldn’t expect him to answer every point, but

4 simply the points which I have identified as essential.

5 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful, my Lord.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that’s the best I can do.

7 I am by no means saying this is what I would like to

8 happen in every case; it isn’t.

9 MR LORD: Your Lordship is, I think, suggesting we can rely

10 upon Mr Popov’s written evidence in our closings?

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, you can, but just as in

12 the judgment I may say I don’t think much of Mr Popov,

13 or I do think a lot of him, there may have to be

14 an intermediate stage for me to test what I think about

15 it. I think you must face the fact that presently

16 I think that inevitable. I am thinking that I am

17 unlikely to have the skills and experience to be able,

18 without some further limited process, having identified

19 the points on which I am genuinely stuck.

20 MR STROILOV: I am grateful, my Lord. I am concerned that

21 this traffic jam seems to be a very much —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Maybe he is there and we have a fixed

23 picture. Who knows. But in any event, I am comforted

24 by the fact that he has the transcript and he will be

25 comforted by the fact that I have made nothing more than

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 limited directions and I will really consider carefully

2 this issue of affordability and choice.

3 MR STROILOV: I am grateful, my Lord.

4 I think it is about time for a 10-minute break

5 anyway. I will try to investigate what happened in

6 Nice, in the meantime.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.

8 MR STROILOV: Then should we address you very briefly on the

9 timing for closing submissions, or —

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know through the judicial grapevine

11 that Mr Lord has various moving parts to deal with.

12 What I would propose is that you should, at a convenient

13 moment, consult and then send me a note as to your

14 preferences so that I can consider it.

15 MR LORD: Thank you, my Lord, I’m grateful for that.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know that there have been various

17 moves in your other matter, and I don’t wish to pry into

18 that, but I just know that there are possibilities which

19 may impact on your position here.

20 MR LORD: I am grateful we can do that in the way

21 your Lordship suggests. I am grateful for that.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 10 minutes.

23 (11.36 am)

24 (A short break)

25 (11.47 am)

1 identify that, please, is that your witness statement

2 for these proceedings?

3 A. Yes, this is my witness statement in these proceedings.

4 Q. And if you could turn forward, please, to {B2/18/22},

5 page 10 of the statement, page 22 in the bottom

6 right-hand corner; is that your signature there, please?

7 A. It is, indeed.

8 Q. And can you confirm that the contents of that statement

9 are true?

10 A. I can confirm that my witness statement is true.

11 MR BIRT: Thank you. Mr Stroilov will have some questions

12 for you now.

13 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV

14 MR STROILOV: Good morning, Mrs Yatvetsky. Obviously you

15 are a rather late newcomer as a witness in this case, so

16 may I ask you this: I understand that you have read the

17 witness statement of Mr Smirnov in the time you made

18 your statement, isn’t that so?

19 A. I have read it, yes.

20 Q. Have you also read the witness statement of

21 Mr Sklyarevsky?

22 A. I have read Mr Sklyarevsky’s witness statement.

23 Q. And have you read the witness statement of

24 Mrs Malysheva, prepared for the BVI proceedings?

25 A. No, I have not.

73 75

1 MR STROILOV: My Lord, if I may just tell you, we have all

2 been deceived. Dr Arkhangelsky has been there for some

3 time and —

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s a good disguise.

5 MR STROILOV: — he thought we could see him. I believe it

6 is being sorted out so that we see him properly, but in

7 reality he has been there for almost all the morning.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That is helpful.

9 MR STROILOV: Indeed. My Lord, should I give way so the

10 witness can be called.

11 MR BIRT: My Lord, we are going to call Mrs Yatvetsky.

12 MS ELENA VLADIMIROVNA YATVETSKY (Affirmed)

13 (All questions and answers interpreted except where

14 otherwise indicated)

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you, do please sit down, and

16 I hope you have some water.

17 Examination-in-chief by MR BIRT

18 MR BIRT: Mrs Yatvetsky, could you please give your full

19 name to the court?

20 A. Elena Vladimirovna Yatvetsky.

21 Q. And I hope in front of you you will have your witness

22 statement. The reference is {B2/18/13}, and the English

23 translation of the statement is at {B2/18/1}, and,

24 Mrs Yatvetsky, if you could have in front of you your

25 witness statement at {B2/18/13}, and if you could

1 Q. Have you read any of the other witness statements

2 prepared in these proceedings?

3 A. No, I only read the witness statement prepared by

4 Mr Sklyarevsky and Mr Smirnov.

5 Q. Have you read the transcript of the cross-examination of

6 Mr Sklyarevsky?

7 A. I have not.

8 Q. Have you read any other transcripts of what has — of

9 the live evidence given in these proceedings?

10 A. No, I have not.

11 Q. Right. May I now ask you this: I appreciate you have

12 made your original witness statement in Russian; does

13 that mean that you have no English at all, or is it just

14 that it is not quite fluent, or how would you describe

15 your level of English?

16 A. I would say that I do not speak English at all and

17 I hardly understand any English.

18 Q. So even if I show you a very simple document without

19 a lot in it, I will have to think of how to arrange for

20 it to be interpreted; is that so?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Can we please look at paragraph 30 of your witness

23 statement, which is at {B2/18/7}, and the Russian

24 version will be at {B2/18/18} and {B2/18/19}. When you

25 reach the bottom of the page, scroll down.

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 Paragraph 30. Then if you could read through

2 paragraphs 30 and 31, and then say when you have

3 finished. (Pause).

4 A. I am done, thank you.

5 Q. Thank you. And if you could now please scroll down to

6 paragraph 43 on each screen, {B2/18/21}, and in

7 the English version as well, please {B2/18/9}. Once

8 again, read through paragraph 43 and tell me when you

9 have finished. (Pause).

10 A. I am done.

11 Q. Right. So it looks, from the points you make in these

12 paragraphs, that, generally speaking, you expect to know

13 personally about each transaction involving Renord and

14 OMG assets which actually happened; is that so?

15 A. I’m not sure I understand your question.

16 Q. You seem to suggest that where a particular transaction

17 is mentioned in documents, however you don’t know about

18 it, you seem to suggest to the court that this means it

19 didn’t happen. So are you in a position to say that you

20 know personally about every transaction which Renord has

21 entered into which involved OMG assets?

22 A. I am aware of the transactions only to the extent

23 I discussed them with Mr Smirnov and Mr Sklyarevsky, and

24 to the extent that any documents were handed over to me

25 for processing.

1 not so?

2 A. By and large, yes, there may have been some details that

3 I was not involved in.

4 Q. But generally it was, in a way, within Renord it was

5 your responsibility to deal with this matter overall; is

6 that so?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Right. Now, your statement is obviously organised in

9 a large part by making references to the witness

10 statement of Mr Smirnov, and then confirming that you

11 agree with that and making additions which you can make.

12 I think that is a fair description, is it not?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Now, if you could, please, have a look at some parts of

15 the witness statement of Mr Smirnov. What I am looking

16 at is {B2/12/2}, and then the Russian version — no,

17 actually, if we could go to {B2/12/3}, and starting at

18 paragraph 14, and then scroll down in the Russian

19 version as well {B2/12/18}. Now, here Mr Smirnov is

20 discussing the structure of Renord-Invest. Unless I am

21 mistaken and have overlooked something, I don’t think

22 you, in your witness statement you endorse this

23 particular element of his evidence; is that correct?

24 The matters he is discussing in this section, starting

25 at paragraph 14 and then through to paragraph 18.

77

1 Q. Well, just take your paragraph 43. You say in the end:

2 «I have no knowledge of this transaction and can

3 confirm it did not take place.»

4 Now, which is it? Is it that you don’t know, or do

5 you know that it didn’t take place?

6 A. I know that this transaction did not take place.

7 Q. And I am just trying to establish how do you know things

8 like that. Are you suggesting that if there actually

9 was any transaction with OMG assets’ involvement with

10 Renord, you are sure you would have known about that; is

11 that fair to say?

12 A. Yes, at that point in time, had there been a transaction

13 involving Western Terminal assets, I would have been

14 aware of that.

15 Q. And does the same go to Scandinavia Insurance assets?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And what about the other part of Onega Terminal, LPK

18 Scandinavia assets?

19 A. With respect to Onega and LPK, I know how the sale in

20 the course of the enforcement proceedings via the court

21 bailiffs service was conducted.

22 Q. What I am trying to understand, was your involvement in

23 these matters close enough that you would expect to know

24 about any transaction with OMG assets? Whenever Renord

25 was involved, this means you were involved, or is that

79

1 Generally you have obviously read it, so is this

2 something you are not in a position to tell the court

3 about? {B2/12/19}, {B2/12/3}. (Pause).

4 A. On the whole I can confirm that I am aware of this

5 information. It is simply that when I was referring to

6 specific paragraphs in Mr Smirnov’s WS I was referring

7 to some specific things, whereas this chapter is of

8 a more general nature.

9 Now, with respect to the shareholdings in

10 Renord-Invest, I can also confirm that this is the case.

11 Q. So what is the source of your knowledge on that?

12 A. I was dealing with the constituent documents of

13 Renord-Invest.

14 Q. Well, look, for instance, at paragraph 15. I suppose

15 you can confirm, on the basis of your previous answer,

16 that, starting from March 2008, 75 per cent shareholding

17 in Renord was transferred to corporate vehicles called

18 Trak and Barrister. You can confirm that personally

19 from your personal knowledge; is that so?

20 A. Yes, I can confirm that.

21 Q. And can you personally confirm that Mr Maleev was the

22 direct 100 per cent shareholder of Barrister LLC?

23 A. Yes, so far as I can recall he held 100 per cent of

24 shares in Barrister.

25 Q. And is that something you also know from looking at the

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 documents, at the corporate documents of Renord?

2 A. Yes, I know this based on the corporate documentation of

3 Renord.

4 Q. Now, and then Mr Smirnov says that Mr Maleev held those

5 shares on his — on Mr Smirnov’s — behalf. That is not

6 something you are in a position to confirm, is it?

7 A. I can confirm that because I was requested by Mr Smirnov

8 to get in touch with Mr Maleev to ask him that he make

9 Barrister available to us. This company used to be

10 owned by Mr Maleev and he used to hold 75 per cent in

11 Renord in the interest and on behalf and acting upon

12 instructions of Mr Smirnov.

13 Q. Was there any written arrangement to reflect that?

14 A. No. That mechanism is often used in business and

15 usually this is never committed to paper. This is not

16 recorded in any documentary form.

17 Q. Now, then in paragraph 17, you can see, and we will

18 have, I think, to scroll down the English version,

19 Mr Smirnov explains that at present he beneficially owns

20 100 per cent of Renord-Invest through his brother,

21 acting as nominee, Mr Andrea Smirnov; is that something

22 you are in a position to confirm? {B2/12/3}, {B2/12/4}.

23 A. I know that as of today the shares in Renord are held by

24 Mr Smirnov’s brother, but whether or not there is

25 an arrangement or an agreement between them, this is not

1 for and servicing the main companies within the group,

2 because very often a company within the group might have

3 its own legal department.

4 Q. Was that the same legal team as was led by Mr Ved,

5 Alexander Ved, as this court has been told before,

6 I believe? I am just trying to understand.

7 Alexander Ved, is that a name familiar to you?

8 A. I do not know him personally. I’ve heard the name. It

9 so happens that in the year 2000, I moved from

10 investment company AVK to a promotional agency, and then

11 I was dealing with legal matters in that promotional

12 marketing arm. That was before Mr Ved joined the

13 company, so I do not know him personally.

14 Q. So about what time did you stop working for the legal

15 team and started working for the promotional arm of

16 the company?

17 A. I think it was in the early 2000, or in the late 1999.

18 Q. Right. I understand that in the same period

19 Mr Smirnov — and I am talking about Mikhail Smirnov —

20 was also one of the top managers of AVK; isn’t that so?

21 A. Yes. He was the general director of the rep office of

22 AVK Tsennyje Bumaghi, in other words, AVK Securities.

23 Q. And did you know him at that time?

24 A. Well, we only met a couple of times to have some

25 documents, some protocols, signed. We knew each other.

81 83

1 something I can confirm or deny. I’m just not aware of

2 this.

3 Q. So are you aware whether Mr Andrea Smirnov is holding

4 these shares as a nominee, or for his own benefit, or is

5 it, as far as you are concerned, you simply have to go

6 by what Mr Smirnov says?

7 A. I have to go by what Mr Smirnov is saying.

8 Q. And so if Mr Andrea Smirnov is holding these shares as

9 a nominee, you have no independent knowledge as to whose

10 nominee he is; is that fair to say?

11 A. Mr Smirnov told me that he was holding those shares in

12 the interests of Mr Mikhail Smirnov.

13 Q. You know that from Mr Andrea Smirnov, or from Mr Mikhail

14 Smirnov?

15 A. I know this from Mr Mikhail Smirnov. (Pause).

16 Q. Now, I think you mention in your witness statement that

17 you used to work, prior to 2004, in the company called

18 AVK; is that correct?

19 A. Yes, that is correct, I was employed by AVK at that

20 time.

21 Q. And so I think you say you worked as part of the legal

22 team within AVK Group. Was that the legal team, so to

23 speak, common to the entire group; is that fair to say,

24 or did you work for any specific companies within AVK?

25 A. Well, in principle, it was a department that was working

1 Q. And Mr Sklyarevsky was Mr Smirnov’s deputy at that time,

2 was he not?

3 A. I cannot tell you. I’m not certain about that. He was

4 in the corporate finance department and I am not aware

5 of the structure or the hierarchy of the various

6 departments there.

7 Q. Did you know Mr Sklyarevsky at the time you worked at

8 AVK?

9 A. Yes, I did, but not more than I knew Mr Smirnov.

10 Q. And I understand that Mrs Malysheva at that time was the

11 CEO of the parent company, AVK Closed Joint-Stock

12 Company; is that correct?

13 A. So far as I can recall, she was the CEO, or the general

14 director, for a certain period of time, and it was a

15 short time, and I think after that she became chairman

16 of the board of directors.

17 Q. And did you know Mrs Malysheva at the time of your work

18 in AVK?

19 A. I did.

20 Q. Now, isn’t it right that the AVK Group also included

21 a bank called St Petersburg Bank of Reconstruction and

22 Development?

23 A. So far as I can recall, AVK Group did purchase that

24 bank, or at least it joined the group, but that happened

25 at the time where I had left the main group and I moved

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

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 on to the promotional and marketing arm.

2 Q. And I think — well, you may or may not be in a position

3 to confirm that Mrs Malysheva chaired the board of

4 directors of St Petersburg Bank of Reconstruction and

5 Development, didn’t she?

6 A. I do not know. I am afraid I cannot confirm or deny

7 that.

8 Q. Can you confirm that Mr Smirnov was vice president of

9 St Petersburg Bank of Reconstruction and Development?

10 A. I cannot confirm that. I have no knowledge of this.

11 Q. And I believe a lot of your colleagues at Renord have

12 also worked with you in AVK, quite a number of top

13 managers of Renord; would that be fair?

14 A. Well, hard to say. Define «many». Vladimir Sklyarevsky

15 was with us at AVK, Mr Smirnov, and I think that’s about

16 it.

17 Q. Well, isn’t it the case that Mr Dmitry Gubko —

18 A. Yes, he also worked in AVK, Gubko, yes.

19 Q. And I believe some other witnesses have mentioned

20 Mrs Brodetskaya as one of AVK veterans at the top of

21 Renord?

22 A. I know nothing about Mrs Brodetskaya, whether she worked

23 in AVK or not. At least I never came across her there.

24 Q. And I think I hope I am not mistaken, but then I think

25 Mr Sklyarevsky has told the court that Mr Lestovkin, who

1 Q. So he was, effectively, number one official responsible

2 for regulation of financial markets in Russia; would

3 that be a fair description?

4 A. I cannot comment on his competence or on his office.

5 Q. But isn’t it the case that in that position, Mr Kostikov

6 introduced a new and rather strict code of corporate

7 governance, were you aware of that?

8 A. I haven’t analysed Mr Kostikov’s activity at that time

9 or now.

10 Q. No, but obviously you were working in that sector of

11 the economy, in the business dealing with investment.

12 That’s why I would like to — I am asking you about some

13 major events in the history of that part of the economy

14 in that period. I believe as a result of Mr Kostikov’s

15 reforms, a lot of investment companies had their

16 licences revoked in that period; isn’t that so?

17 A. I have no knowledge of that. I can’t tell you anything

18 about it.

19 Q. Isn’t it the case that Mr Kostikov’s new code of

20 corporate governance was enforced selectively against

21 major competitors of AVK?

22 A. What do you mean by Kostikov’s code of corporate

23 governance?

24 Q. What I am suggesting to you is that one of the reasons

25 why AVK was extremely successful in that period was that

85 87

1 now works as the director general of Nevskaya Management

2 Company, is another AVK veteran, isn’t he?

3 A. Yes, Mr Lestovkin worked in AVK Investment Company, but

4 he has nothing to do with Renord.

5 Q. We will come to that.

6 Now, would you agree that AVK was extremely

7 successful approximately between the year 2000 and the

8 year 2004? That’s just the time when you worked there.

9 That was an extremely successful company, was it not?

10 A. Yes, at that period of time, AVK had a huge professional

11 upsurge. As far as I remember, we were the only large

12 investment company and we were placing government bonds

13 in the market.

14 Q. Yes, and AVK is a business founded in the 1990s by

15 a gentleman called Igor Kostikov; is that correct?

16 A. Yes, that’s correct.

17 Q. Then in the year 2000, Mr Kostikov was appointed

18 the chairman of the Federal Commission on Financial

19 Markets; isn’t that right?

20 A. Yes, indeed. He was appointed as chair of that federal

21 commission.

22 Q. And that is effectively a ministerial position within

23 the Russian Government, that’s a cabinet minister

24 position, is it not?

25 A. Well, I suppose one could say so.

1 the regulator was targeting its major competitors to

2 revoke reasons in the investment market; what do you say

3 to that?

4 A. You know what, I have to say that AVK became quite well

5 known and became a major business prior to Kostikov’s

6 appointment as chair of the financial regulating

7 authority.

8 Q. Now, if we could, please, go to {D13/269/0.4}, and on

9 the other screen just {D13/269/4}, and that’s

10 an article — I think it’s — I just need to tell you

11 the date of publication. Just to avoid going around

12 this, it is an article in a publication called «Finans»

13 dated 9 April 2006, and about what is described here as

14 the collapse, or the crumbling of AVK business.

15 Now, if we go down to page 4 and 0.4 respectively,

16 I think what is suggested there in that large paragraph

17 nearer the bottom is this: that one of the reforms

18 introduced by Mr Kostikov in his governmental role was

19 the institution of so-called financial consultants; are

20 you aware of that?

21 A. No, I am not aware of it.

22 Q. Isn’t it the case that — so essentially what is

23 suggested here is that any issue of securities by any

24 market participant could only be done under — following

25 those reforms is a participation of a licensed financial

86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 consultant; do you follow?

2 A. Well, in this case we are discussing an article, as far

3 as I understand. Now, I can’t tell you whether the

4 article tells the truth or doesn’t. In general, I don’t

5 trust the press very much.

6 Q. That’s why I’m asking you, who were inside AVK at the

7 time. Isn’t it the case that AVK was one of the major

8 providers of the services of financial consultants at

9 that time?

10 A. If I remember correctly you said that the article was

11 published in 2009?

12 Q. 2006. I’m sorry, I may have misspoken.

13 A. Right, indeed. Maybe I misspoke. So you said it was

14 published in 2006. I left AVK head office at the end of

15 1999. Further on, I was not at all concerned with or

16 interested in the market of financial services.

17 Q. No, but what this article is discussing, in fairness

18 I am simply showing you my thoughts, but I am asking you

19 questions because I expect you to know about this,

20 having been within the AVK.

21 It is going into history and what it is suggesting

22 is that in the earlier period, prior to 2003/2004, it

23 was a major source of income for AVK to provide the

24 services of financial consultants. I think it was — so

25 are you saying you are not aware of that?

1 for the Financial Services Commission, the company

2 became an independent company and continued operating.

3 MR STROILOV: Could we please scroll up to pages

4 {D13/269/0.2}, {D13/169/2} respectively. If you could,

5 please — and I am sorry to exploit you like that, but

6 I see that the translation is not brilliant, so may

7 I ask you, Mrs Yatvetsky, to read in Russian the

8 paragraph starting with the words in bold

9 «Centralisation willy-nilly …», if you could read out

10 the paragraph.

11 A. On request of Mr Stroilov I am reading a quote from

12 a publication called Finans, called «AVK business of

13 Igor Kostikov is collapsing», one paragraph:

14 «Centralisation against the will. Such global staff

15 movements brought about a version of a change of

16 the actual owner of AVK. However, this version is being

17 overturned not just in the group itself. Following the

18 words of one of the former managers and also from two

19 sources in the business circles of St Petersburg, there

20 are no changes in the beneficiaries. Participants of

21 the market continue to believe that Igor Kostikov

22 continues to maintain factual control over AVK although

23 he is now vice president of the Russian Union of

24 Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, although formally he

25 is not an owner since 1998, which has, once again, been

89 91

1 A. Absolutely. I worked in AVK in its legal department and

2 dealt exclusively with corporate matters. I was not

3 concerned with or interested in global matters

4 pertaining to the firm.

5 Q. Well, it has been alleged more than once, I believe, in

6 Russia, that this institute of financial consultants

7 was, in fact, a corrupt scheme; aren’t you aware of

8 that?

9 A. No, I’m not aware of that.

10 Q. So that hiring a financial consultant from AVK was

11 effectively a way for market participants of bribing

12 Mr Kostikov, to put it crudely?

13 A. I know nothing about it.

14 Q. Well, isn’t it the case that after Mr Kostikov’s

15 dismissal from his government position in 2004, AVK

16 promptly declined and collapsed; wouldn’t that be a fair

17 description?

18 A. It is known to me that at some point in time the company

19 has, indeed, lost its position, but whether this was

20 linked with Mr Kostikov’s departure from the Financial

21 Services Commission or not, I’m not sure.

22 To be honest, I personally don’t quite see the link.

23 Once Mr Kostikov left the Financial Services Commission,

24 the company started to exist independently.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, I misspoke. Once Mr Kostikov left

1 confirmed by him to an interview he gave to Finans.»

2 Shall I carry on reading?

3 Q. No, that’s enough. What I am just suggesting to you is

4 that it was well known at the time on the Russian

5 markets that in reality, the beneficial owner of AVK is

6 still Mr Kostikov. Do you accept that?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Well, I don’t propose to argue a lot about it. What

9 I am suggesting to you is that whether these allegations

10 of corruption are true or not, the fact is that there

11 have been a lot of major controversies in Russia

12 involving AVK. Rightly or wrongly, there have been all

13 sorts of allegations of corruption made against AVK; do

14 you accept that?

15 A. No, I don’t accept it.

16 Q. Now, would you agree that, really, since a lot of people

17 involved in this case have worked together in AVK, that

18 that history of working together in AVK really creates

19 some basis for mutual trust between people like you and

20 Mrs Malysheva and Mr Smirnov, and Mr Sklyarevsky and all

21 other AVK veterans? Would you agree with that

22 description?

23 A. Yes. Our work together, that we have done together, the

24 large work that we have done together, that does bring

25 about a great degree of trust.

90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 Q. And that obviously helps the business relations between

2 various businesses you are now involved in; do you agree

3 with that?

4 A. To some extent, yes, I do agree. It is easier to do

5 business with the people you once worked with together

6 than to start anything with new partners.

7 Q. You are a bit of a mafia, aren’t you?

8 A. I don’t think that this is a correct, logical conclusion

9 that you are making.

10 Q. May I now ask you about how Renord Group is organised.

11 Firstly, Renord — I think Mr Smirnov describes Renord

12 as an investment business. It is primarily

13 an investment business; is that what you are in

14 a position to say?

15 A. Yes, indeed, it’s an investment business.

16 Q. And now if we go back to the witness statement of

17 Mr Smirnov, which will be at {B2/12/4}. I am looking at

18 paragraph 18, and I will be grateful if paragraph 18 can

19 be found in the Russian version without me departing

20 {B2/12/19}. I’m very grateful.

21 So he explains that effectively the group is

22 operating through a large number of companies and

23 special purpose vehicles. Can you see that?

24 A. Yes, I can see that.

25 Q. Now, to your knowledge — well, can you confirm that:

1 a Renord Company. You will instead see the name of

2 someone like Mrs Yatvetsky, who is actually holding it

3 as a nominee; would that be fair to say, that this is

4 a general rule for the Renord Company? That is how the

5 Renord Group is structured?

6 A. A holder or an owner of each specific company is

7 determined in connection with these following factors:

8 what is the kind of project the company is managing,

9 what is the taxation regime applicable. It depends on

10 many factors.

11 But on the whole I can admit that there is no link

12 in the register between Renord and its subsidiaries.

13 Once again, I repeat, the choice of an owner depends on

14 many factors. It is totally unnecessary for

15 Renord-Invest to be shown everywhere as the parent

16 company because, as a matter of principle, that does not

17 have any influence on anything.

18 Q. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with

19 that, necessarily. I am just trying to understand the

20 structure.

21 As I understand the position, there is a team of

22 some, about 35 people working for Renord, and between

23 yourselves, you hold the nominal shareholding in all

24 Renord companies, either directly or through offshore

25 vehicles; would that be correct?

93

1 that this description of the group’s modus operandi is

2 correct?

3 A. Yes, I fully confirm what is said in this paragraph.

4 Q. Now, and when he is saying a large number, about how

5 many would that be?

6 A. I never counted all the companies of the group and,

7 moreover, I don’t have knowledge of all the companies.

8 Q. Well, roughly: dozens, hundreds, thousands of companies?

9 How many?

10 A. Well, maybe dozens. I can only assume, speculate.

11 I only know the companies I deal with.

12 Q. Now, and I think it’s practically all of these companies

13 are not shown in public records as subsidiaries of

14 Renord-Invest. They are all held either by nominees on

15 behalf of Renord-Invest, or through various offshore

16 vehicles; would that be fair to say?

17 A. I didn’t quite understand your statement about what is

18 shown in the register.

19 Q. What I mean is that if you look up Renord-Invest in

20 a public database like SPARK, or in the state register

21 of corporate bodies, you won’t see that it is a parent

22 company of dozens of other companies.

23 Similarly, if you search for Khortitsa or Solo or

24 whatever, Sevzapalians, whatever Renord Company, you

25 won’t find it in the public records that this is

95

1 A. I’m not one of them.

2 Q. No, but I mean generally, Renord employees, part of

3 Renord employees’ job is to act on some occasions as

4 a nominal shareholder; would that be fair?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And again, between yourselves, you — some 35 employees

7 of Renord — you also occupy various positions in these

8 subsidiary companies, such as director general or chief

9 accountant or whatever; is that correct?

10 A. No. This is not correct. Nobody acts as a chief

11 accountant. We have a special accounting department and

12 they look after the accounts.

13 Q. And that accounting department would look after the

14 accounts of all the Renord companies; is that fair?

15 A. Yes, that is correct.

16 Q. Whereas other employees of Renord would act as directors

17 of those various companies? Is that fair?

18 A. Yes. Some Renord employees are, indeed, directors and

19 are nominal shareholders of Renord companies.

20 Q. And when you or your colleagues occupies a position of

21 a director, it also doesn’t matter much because all the

22 decisions are taken by Renord rather than the company;

23 would that be fair?

24 A. In most cases, yes.

25 Q. So for instance, when you were the general director,

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 I think, of Khortitsa, you were not really running the

2 business, were you? You were simply a nominal director

3 general, whereas Renord was making certain decisions and

4 carrying out certain transactions through Khortitsa for

5 whatever reasons Renord had; would that be a fair

6 summary?

7 A. As far as Khortitsa in particular is concerned,

8 political decisions were, indeed, taken by Mr Smirnov,

9 whereas Khortitsa’s project, I did take part in

10 Khortitsa’s project. Very often directors were

11 appointed, driven by the needs of the project itself.

12 Q. But generally speaking, if we come across a company

13 where all shareholders are Renord employees or Renord

14 companies, and where all directors are Renord employees,

15 it’s overwhelmingly likely that this is in fact a Renord

16 Company; would you agree with that?

17 A. I didn’t quite get it; can you repeat the question,

18 please?

19 Q. Supposing I search across databases and come across

20 company X, and it gives me shareholders — purely by way

21 of example, it names 50 per cent Mrs Yatvetsky,

22 50 per cent Mr Kalinin, and the director general is also

23 one of you.

24 Now, would I be justified in inferring that this is

25 a Renord Company?

1 A. It was a medical business.

2 Q. And what was its name? What was the name of

3 the company?

4 A. Global Telemed(?).

5 Q. And are you saying that had nothing to do with Renord?

6 A. Absolutely, in no way at all.

7 Q. Going back to how Renord works, these nomineeship

8 arrangements where, say, for instance, you hold

9 a shareholding in Khortitsa — and I am using it purely

10 as an example and trying to understand the general

11 system — so you hold shares as a nominee on behalf of

12 Renord. Are these arrangements documented in any way?

13 A. Well, one has to enter into a contract for the sale and

14 purchase of a shareholding.

15 Q. And so what you will see in the sale contract will be

16 the name of the nominal shareholder, which would be

17 either a Renord employee or a Renord Company; isn’t that

18 right?

19 A. No, it will not appear there.

20 Q. I beg your pardon?

21 A. All the arrangements are usually done orally.

22 Q. So, for example, and again, I am only using that as

23 an example simply because you are here and then there

24 was a company called Khortitsa. So, for instance, the

25 fact that you held Khortitsa on behalf of Renord rather

97

1 A. If you see a company X and you see that Yatvetsky and

2 Kalinin are shareholders and another third party is

3 director general, you cannot conclude that the company

4 belongs to Renord.

5 Q. So, really, Renord employees have their own businesses

6 in parallel to holding various companies on behalf of

7 Renord; is that possible? Is that what you are saying?

8 A. No. You said that you would search through a database

9 or register and you would see one shareholder, another

10 shareholder, et cetera. You can’t make a conclusion

11 that this is a Renord Company.

12 Q. What I am suggesting to you is that knowing that it is

13 a general practice of Renord-Invest to hold various

14 shares in various companies through its employees as

15 nominal shareholders. I am suggesting to you that then

16 the converse is also true: that if a company is owned

17 and controlled by Renord employees, it is highly likely

18 that in fact it is beneficially owned and controlled by

19 Renord; do you disagree?

20 A. I agree with the fact that Renord does, indeed, have

21 a few companies where Renord is the beneficial owner.

22 Q. Well, did you, in parallel to your work for Renord, did

23 you ever own any business of your own?

24 A. Yes, I did own my own business.

25 Q. And what was that? What was it called?

99

1 than on your own behalf, that wouldn’t be documented

2 anywhere. It’s just a matter of an oral agreement

3 between you and Mr Smirnov; is that so?

4 A. Correct. Absolutely.

5 Q. Well is there any safeguard against the possibility of

6 one of the employees suddenly saying: well, you know

7 what, it’s my company and now that it happens to hold

8 very significant assets, I know nothing about the

9 arrangement with Renord, and it’s my company. Is there

10 any safeguard against that?

11 A. No. It’s just the good faith of the parties, the

12 gentleman’s word, and the mutual respect between the

13 parties.

14 Q. So, as I understand it, Mr Smirnov says that Renord

15 exists since 2007, and there were about 35 people

16 involved in these arrangements. So in that period of

17 time, among these 35 people, would there be any

18 occasions when this word of honour was broken, or that

19 trust was abused?

20 A. No. That has never happened. A word of honour has

21 never been broken, trust has never been abused.

22 Q. Right. Thank you. (Pause).

23 My Lord, perhaps if you don’t mind, perhaps it would

24 be better to have the lunch break 10 minutes earlier and

25 to reconvene 10 minutes earlier, according to my …

98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 otherwise I risk running over 1.00 pm. 1 A. My Lord, a decision as to the extent to which
2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. What do you suggest, that 2 Renord-Invest will or will not control a project will be
3 we reconvene at 1.50? 3 driven by any risk assessment that the company will
4 MR STROILOV: I think 1.50 is fine, my Lord. 4 conduct.
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, Ms Yatvetsky, you mustn’t speak 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.
6 about this case to anybody when you are not in 6 MR STROILOV: I wonder if I have the wrong channel. Maybe
7 the witness box. Thank you. 7 this is right.
8 (12.50 pm) 8 If we could, please, look at {D174/2906/1}, and for
9 (The Luncheon Adjournment) 9 the Russian version I think it will be … hold on.
10 (1.50 pm) 10 (Pause).
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know whether Dr Arkhangelsky 11 I don’t think there is a Russian version so I will
12 is there. 12 just read out. This is a printout from the
13 MR STROILOV: He is, but invisible, my Lord. 13 Renord-Invest website, so if you could just scroll down
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. 14 to page 3. I’m not sure if there is an analogous text
15 MR STROILOV: So we are all agreed that we will just assume, 15 on the Russian version of the website, but I don’t think
16 as a matter of legal fiction, that we see him, because 16 we have it in the bundle, so let me just read to you the
17 otherwise it is all right, he sees us and he hears us. 17 paragraph which I had in mind in my previous question.
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. Very good. 18 That’s at the top of {D174/2906/3}, and what is said
19 MR STROILOV: May I — 19 there is:
20 Mrs Yatvetsky, it is a policy of Renord-Invest to 20 «One of Renord-Invest investment company main
21 invest only where you — meaning Renord — can control 21 activities is private equity investments in dynamically
22 the investee company: you don’t invest as a minority 22 developing Russian and foreign companies to create
23 investor, your policy is to exercise control; isn’t that 23 a value on its intensive growth. As a rule, we invest
24 correct? 24 only if we will be able to control (alone or together
25 A. Not quite, sir. It really depends on the specific 25 with partners) the investee company by means of having
101 103

1 project. Number one, Renord-Invest decides whether or

2 not it will invest or make an investment only if it is

3 a profitable target. If it is profitable, then they may

4 decide to invest, and then depending on the risk — and

5 they have to do some risk assessment — a decision may

6 be made as to what extent Renord-Invest will or will not

7 control a project.

8 Q. If we could, let me just show you what I mean.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think, I’m so sorry to interrupt,

10 I think for whatever reason you were overspeaking the

11 witness’s reply.

12 MR STROILOV: I beg your pardon.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That is, I think, why the

14 stenographers have marked the [draft] reply inaudible.

15 MR STROILOV: I beg your pardon, probably — I think I think

16 I understood Russian because I didn’t —

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Would you like to go back to

18 the answer and see how it should be completed?

19 MR STROILOV: Yes, let me see what we have in

20 the transcript, my Lord. I’m sorry.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think it is line 2 or 3 of page 100:

22 «A decision may be made as to what extent

23 Renord-Invest will or will not control a …»

24 Then you were going to go on. Can you recall in any

25 event how you would wish to continue?

1 controlling stake in its shareholders capital and/or

2 participating in the Directors Board.»

3 Perhaps for completeness let me read the next

4 paragraph just so you know what is there:

5 «In most cases, we are not interested in investments

6 in uncontrollable companies since it is rather difficult

7 to influence their development and increase its value

8 for shareholders’ benefit. In cases when a partner of

9 a joint enterprise is reliable and adds such experience

10 and competencies that successfully complement ours, or

11 participants in investment commits on a parity basis, we

12 implement a mechanism of joint management of

13 the enterprise.»

14 So is that an accurate statement of how Renord

15 operates in its investment activities to your knowledge?

16 A. By and large yes.

17 Q. So there is — I appreciate there may be exceptions, but

18 the general rule is that Renord aims to control over

19 50 per cent; is that fair?

20 A. Yes. But as you rightly pointed out, there may be

21 exceptions.

22 Q. Yes. May I now ask you about some of the people who

23 I understand either work for Renord-Invest, or I want to

24 be clearer about their position vis-a-vis Renord-Invest.

25 Mr Pavel Gavrilov is an employee of Renord, is he

102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 not?

2 A. Yes, he used to be an employee of Renord.

3 Q. And at what time did he cease to be an employee of

4 Renord, if ever?

5 A. I may be wrong, but I think it was in 2013 when the

6 project that he was working on came to a completion.

7 Q. And then there is a gentleman called Andrei Sergeevich

8 Maslennikov. Is that one of your colleagues at Renord,

9 or was he one of your colleagues at Renord?

10 A. No, Mr Maslennikov has never worked with Renord.

11 Q. Because you may or may not know it, Mr Maslennikov is

12 the gentleman who was appointed by Renord as the new

13 director general of Western Terminal after that

14 management was replaced. So where does he come from?

15 A. I’m not sure where he comes from, but I know that he was

16 nominated by Renord as the CEO of Western Terminal.

17 Q. And so presumably at that point he was remunerated for

18 that work, wasn’t he?

19 A. Definitely.

20 Q. And did Renord remunerate him out of its own hands?

21 A. I’m not sure I can answer your question. I do not know

22 what the source of the funds was to pay his

23 compensation.

24 Q. And then there is a gentleman called Igor Borisovitch

25 Chernobrovkin do you know that name?

1 Renord.

2 Q. Just a second (Pause).

3 Now, if we could, please, now go to

4 {D176-D191/2918.1T/2151}.

5 Now, I am afraid we haven’t got a Russian version

6 for this, but this is a SPARK profile for Dom Na Maloy

7 Moyke, and as you can see — well, let me just —

8 obviously you know what SPARK is, don’t you?

9 A. Yes. I’m aware of that system.

10 Q. Obviously you don’t understand English, but I suppose if

11 you can read Latin script, you will see under the «Card»

12 section that the CEO of that company is stated to be

13 Mr Chernobrovkin.

14 A. Yes, I can see that it says here Chernobrovkin,Igor

15 Borisovich.

16 Q. Then if we can scroll down, I think, one page to

17 the list of shareholders, {D176-D191/2918.1T/2152}

18 I think you can see Zao Boyarin as the present

19 shareholder, and Zao Boyarin is one of Renord companies,

20 is it not?

21 A. No, Zao Boyarin is not a Renord company.

22 Q. And then previously I think you have Razvitie

23 Sankt-Peterburga as the 100 per cent shareholder as

24 of March 2008. So Razvitie Sankt-Peterburga is a Renord

25 company, is it not?

105 107

1 A. Yes, I do know Mr Chernobrovkin and his name does sound

2 familiar to me.

3 Q. Was he a Renord employee?

4 A. No, he was not a Renord employee.

5 Q. Now, if we could, please, go again to the witness

6 statement of Mr Smirnov at {B2/12/9}. If we could find

7 paragraph 49 in the Russian version, I hope it is not

8 too difficult for the Magnum operator to find paragraph

9 numbers. {B2/12/25} Thank you very much.

10 As you can see … that will be found for you.

11 (Pause).

12 THE INTERPRETER: Mr Stroilov, this is the interpreter

13 speaking. I am afraid we can only see the second half

14 of paragraph 48.

15 MR STROILOV: I am interested in paragraph 49.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Okay, thank you.

17 MR STROILOV: As you can see here, Mr Smirnov is discussing

18 the transfer of shares in Scandinavia Insurance, and he

19 lists the companies which we call «subsequent

20 purchasers», and under (b) you have a company called Dom

21 Na Maloy Moyke. Then in paragraph 50, Mr Smirnov seems

22 to confirm that all companies except SKIF in this list

23 are in the Renord-Invest group; is that your evidence as

24 well?

25 A. Yes, all the companies apart from SKIF were owned by

1 A. It has indeed: Razvitie Sankt-Peterburga is a Renord

2 company.

3 Q. And now if you can — so obviously you can see that Zao

4 Boyarin only becomes the shareholder in February 2012.

5 Well, I am not sure you can see that, but that’s what

6 this entry says.

7 A. Well, I can take your word for it. I do not know this

8 system very well. I do not trust it very much. It does

9 generate some technical mistakes. We have come across

10 some mistakes on numerous occasions, but I think I see

11 what it says here, yes.

12 Q. I can assure you, if I was suggesting something

13 inaccurate then I would have been corrected. Then if we

14 could scroll down further one page,

15 {D176-D191/2918.1T/2153}, so in the «Management Bodies»

16 section you can see that it was the — there is

17 a section called «Persons entitled to act without

18 a warrant», and you have the name of Mr Chernobrovkin as

19 director general there, and the date when that was

20 updated in EGRUL, that’s the Unified State Register of

21 Legal Entities, according to SPARK, is 20 July 2011. So

22 it appears that at the time Dom Na Maloy Moyke was owned

23 by Razvitie St Petersburg, which you admit is a Renord

24 Company, Mr Chernobrovkin was already director general.

25 Doesn’t it follow that he was working for Renord?

106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 A. No, it does not. He was not employed by Renord.

2 Q. Now, isn’t he an employee of Baltic Fuel Company?

3 A. I am not sure I can answer that question, I am afraid.

4 I simply do not know whether he is or is not an employee

5 of that company.

6 Q. Well, do you agree that Kontur LLC is one of

7 the Baltic Fuel Company entities, one of the entities in

8 Baltic Fuel Group?

9 A. Kontur LLC is part of BTC companies, yes.

10 Q. And obviously that is controlled by Renord, isn’t it?

11 A. No. Baltic Fuel Company is a personal private

12 investment within Mr Smirnov’s personal investment

13 portfolio.

14 Q. So are you saying it has nothing to do with Renord as

15 such; it’s just another company of Mr Smirnov?

16 A. Correct. Mr Smirnov owns a shareholding in the fuel

17 company and the fuel company only reports to Mr Smirnov.

18 Renord does not analyse this company, does not look at

19 this company —

20 Q. Right.

21 A. — or at this company’s business.

22 Q. Now, can we please go back to Mr Smirnov’s witness

23 statement at {B2/12/9}, and if we could find

24 paragraph 53, it must be somewhere in the region of

25 {B2/12/25}. Thank you very much. In both cases I am

1 the assets and decided to purchase them. You see, that

2 interest was something they simply had to do because

3 after Renord-Invest understood and realised that they

4 could not find a willing, independent buyer because

5 no one was interested, obviously they started looking

6 into the possibility of using those assets for their own

7 projects, in their own business.

8 Q. Yes, but what I’m trying to understand is that by the

9 time when Nefte-Oil, or rather Renord decided to bid for

10 those assets at a public auction, by that time at least,

11 the position was Renord-Invest was interested in the

12 assets for its own purposes; would you agree with that?

13 A. Well, we were always living in hope that a final buyer

14 will actually participate in various auctions for these

15 assets, but we undertook market analysis, we talked to

16 potential purchasers, and we realised that most likely

17 nobody would participate in these public auctions and we

18 had to use our companies and then we analysed whether we

19 would be able to use these assets in our further

20 business.

21 Q. Yes, but by the time Renord-Invest decided to bid in

22 that auction by means of using Nefte-Oil, by that time

23 at least Renord was already interested in the assets for

24 its own purposes; yes or no?

25 A. Yes.

109 111

1 afraid it’s at the bottom of the page, so if you can

2 perhaps tell me when you have reached the bottom, and if

3 you, my Lord, could tell me when you have reached the

4 bottom of the English version. Well, really in

5 the English version I am — all right. {B2/12/10},

6 {B2/12/26}.

7 As you can see, Mrs Yatvetsky, here Mr Smirnov is

8 endeavouring to explain why the — what was

9 Renord-Invest’s interest in this case, and so he says

10 that Renord-Invest became interested in the assets for

11 its own projects.

12 If we could scroll down to paragraph 59. I am

13 afraid that is, again, inconvenient in terms of it being

14 at the very bottom and at the very top over the page.

15 If you could scroll down the Russian version {B2/12/27}.

16 Yes {B2/12/11}. So in explaining why Renord bought

17 Western Terminal assets through Nefte-Oil, once again

18 Mr Smirnov explains that — if we could scroll down the

19 English — yes, it is fine — he once again explains it

20 by the fact that by that time, Renord-Invest was

21 interested in those assets.

22 Is that consistent with your knowledge of

23 the events?

24 A. Well, as a matter of fact, in 53, Mr Smirnov says that

25 with time, Renord developed an interest in some of

1 Q. Right. Thank you.

2 Now, I understand that the operational control over

3 Western Terminal was secured by Renord in July 2009;

4 isn’t that so?

5 A. Operational control, yes, I suppose by July 2009, yes.

6 Q. That was when Western Terminal was taken over by

7 Sevzapalians with the assistance of the riot police.

8 A. This is when Sevzapalians was forced to turn to the law

9 enforcement authority to have access to information and

10 accounts of the Western Terminal.

11 Q. Right. Then the so-called public auction where the

12 pledge was sold to Kontur took place in September 2012,

13 isn’t that so?

14 A. Yes, in 2012, in September, indeed this is when the

15 auction took place. Well, either towards the end of

16 summer or in September. I suppose in September, yes.

17 Q. Now, wasn’t the purpose of the repo arrangement, wasn’t

18 the purpose to assist the Bank in realisation of

19 the pledge?

20 A. I can’t talk about the purposes of repo schemes and

21 arrangements. They are not known to me. All I know is

22 the fact that repo arrangement existed and no more than

23 that.

24 Q. No, what I mean is that I suppose you — no, let me

25 start again.

110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 So it follows that prior to realisation of 1 other port businesses? Quite apart from
2 the pledge, Renord had Western Terminal assets under its 2 Baltic Fuel Company, there are other port businesses
3 control for over three years, didn’t it? 3 which Renord is investing in; is that what you are
4 A. Well, control was established, you are right, 4 saying?
5 in July 2009. In September the auction took place, and 5 A. Renord has many projects, but in this case, as far as
6 yes, de facto that comes up to three years. 6 I understand, Western Terminal assets can be used in
7 Q. In those three years, was there any port business 7 different sectors. Yes, of course port business is
8 operating at Western Terminal? 8 probably the priority business, but the question is
9 A. No activity was undertaken at the Western Terminal 9 whether it was possible to use it as a port business.
10 itself as far as I know. 10 As far as I remember, one of the berths was out of order
11 Q. So are you suggesting that after Renord established 11 and wasn’t functioning and significant investment was
12 operational control, the actual port operations ceased 12 required to restore it. The second one was
13 for three years; is that what you are saying? 13 semi-dilapidated, so it’s a question of investment,
14 A. I don’t know if any port operations had existed prior 14 whether these assets could be used for port business or
15 to July 2009, but in the course of three years, when 15 not. That’s why I’m saying that Mr Smirnov was
16 Renord was in fact owning the assets, as far as I know, 16 determining himself whether, if we are finally forced to
17 there were no port operations taking place. 17 acquire this asset, whether we will be using it for port
18 Q. Well, I will be corrected if I am wrong — well — 18 business or some other business or warehousing business.
19 perhaps I shouldn’t be. Well, prior to July there was 19 That’s also questionable in terms of warehousing it,
20 a timber transshipment business operating at 20 because the railway tracks that were in
21 Western Terminal; isn’t that so? 21 the Western Terminal and that were declared by
22 A. Yes, prior to 2009 I assume, yes, there was 22 Mr Arkhangelsky to start with, they were simply missing.
23 a transshipment of timber business there, yes. 23 They were covered by concrete slabs, whereas the
24 Q. And I believe it hasn’t been suggested that at any point 24 sleepers were stacked somewhere in a pile elsewhere. So
25 prior to July 2009, while it was still under OMG 25 it was absolutely not clear what to do with that asset.

113

1 control, that business ceased operating at

2 Western Terminal?

3 A. I saw Western Terminal at some point at the end

4 of July 2009, the state of affairs there, well, it’s

5 very unlikely that any business had been taking place

6 there at all.

7 Q. So to your knowledge, that remained the position for

8 years, until the sale towards the end of 2012? To

9 the best of your knowledge, it was not operating?

10 A. As far as I know, there was no business activity on

11 Western Terminal, no.

12 Q. Now, at the time Renord did become interested in

13 Western Terminal assets for its own projects, as we have

14 agreed, can you confirm that the projects which you at

15 Renord had in mind, the project was the

16 Baltic Fuel Company, was it not?

17 A. No, not necessarily at all.

18 Q. So what project did you have in mind?

19 A. I can’t tell you which of the projects was in mind

20 because Renord had several projects. Moreover, I can

21 assume that Mr Smirnov might have had his own options of

22 using these assets, in fact, before without his — he

23 was forced to be thinking of other ways of using these

24 assets because they could not be sold.

25 Q. So are you suggesting that Renord has — is involved in

115

1 Q. On the railway tracks, we keep returning to that. So

2 were they missing or were they covered by concrete …?

3 A. Well, in fact they weren’t there. They weren’t there,

4 because in the place, or supposedly where they would

5 have been, all there was were concrete slabs and certain

6 kind of sections of rails were sticking up from the

7 earth and that gave rise to a guess that they might

8 have, at some point, been there. There were just

9 sections. Sections of rails, cut off or just lying

10 around.

11 Q. Isn’t that along the same lines as tramlines operate in

12 the city so that you have the concrete or whatever, the

13 pavement, and then you see rails but they don’t stick

14 out of the ground, but they are like tramways in a town;

15 is that what it was?

16 A. Well, then, in the city when there are tramlines, then

17 the trams run along these rails, but here, a priori,

18 there was no possibility of that because in some

19 sections there were no rails at all. I am just saying

20 there were sections of rails scattered about, and only

21 looking at these scattered pieces, one could have

22 assumed that a railway track once had followed

23 a particular trajectory, only if certain points would be

24 notionally connected into one line.

25 Q. Right, and so are you saying that Renord became

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 interested in using Western Terminal for some other —

2 for some projects other than port business?

3 A. No, I am not saying that. What I said was that when

4 Renord realised that most likely these assets would not

5 be sold, it would be impossible to sell them, then of

6 course Renord had to think of how to use them, perhaps,

7 in Renord’s own activity, and one of the options would

8 have been a port business that would have been

9 considered.

10 But I’m saying that the state of those assets led to

11 many options, because whatever happened it would have

12 required investment. Whether port business was chosen

13 or warehousing business was chosen, the way the terminal

14 was at that time, and in that state of disrepair that it

15 was, it was incapable of being used for any business

16 whatsoever.

17 Q. Now, was Renord involved in any other port businesses

18 apart from Baltic Fuel Company?

19 A. As far as I know, yes, we looked at an investment

20 project. We looked at the possibility of investing in

21 Luga port construction.

22 Mr Smirnov also assisted one of his partners in

23 acquiring a fishing port in the larger St Petersburg

24 port.

25 Q. So Mr Smirnov holds an interest in the fishing port,

1 Q. Now, I think you have mentioned in your witness

2 statement, and several times today, that Renord-Invest

3 made efforts to find a third party purchaser for the OMG

4 assets, don’t you?

5 A. Yes, indeed, you are correct. Renord-Invest used quite

6 a lot of effort to try and find a third party buyer who

7 would acquire these assets.

8 Q. Now, Mr Smirnov doesn’t say a word about those alleged

9 efforts in his witness statements, does he?

10 A. I don’t remember Mr Smirnov’s witness statements in such

11 great detail, but I remembered that. In fact this is

12 exactly what was taking place. We weren’t having

13 negotiations because it never got to negotiations. It

14 all remained at the stage of preliminary discussions,

15 and once potential buyers learned about the assets that

16 were on offer, they simply lost interest.

17 Q. Now, Ms Yatvetsky, isn’t it rather odd that Mr Smirnov,

18 who allegedly carried out those negotiations, tells

19 something quite different: the burden of his evidence is

20 that Renord became interested in those assets for

21 itself, and there is no mention of third party

22 negotiations, whereas you seem to say that Renord went

23 out of its way to try and find a third party buyer and

24 failed and then was forced to make the best use of those

25 assets; don’t you see there is a discrepancy there?

117 119

1 does he not?

2 A. No, I know nothing about that. I said that he assisted

3 one of his partners to acquire an interest in the port

4 business, the fishing port of St Petersburg.

5 Q. What do you mean «assisted one of his partners»? Can

6 you expand a little? What do you mean: gifted money, or

7 what?

8 A. I can’t expand. I simply don’t know.

9 Q. What is the source of your knowledge of the fact that

10 Mr Smirnov assisted one of his partners?

11 A. Well, as far as I remember, at some point he asked me to

12 look at possible risks for the forthcoming transaction.

13 Q. And so what was that transaction?

14 A. I don’t recall the details now. He asked me to look at

15 general risks of acquiring such port assets.

16 Q. So who was the partner of Mr Smirnov whom he assisted?

17 A. He did not name the partner at that time, and my job was

18 not to have direct communication with such a partner.

19 Q. So what did you actually do to look into the risks of

20 that proposed transaction?

21 A. I think Mr Smirnov made a risk analysis of this

22 acquisition for his partner.

23 Q. And what was your own role, Mrs Yatvetsky?

24 A. I looked at possible risks. I looked at possible legal

25 risks of acquisition of port assets.

1 A. I don’t see a discrepancy there. I will look at

2 Mr Smirnov’s witness statement, because it seems to me

3 that he did mention at some point that Renord was making

4 efforts, and once again, I will repeat that Renord

5 became interested in the assets once Renord understood

6 that it was impossible to sell them off.

7 Q. Now, you have given some evidence about the proposed

8 lease of Western Terminal assets to Gunard Enterprises

9 Limited; do you recall that? That will be starting at

10 paragraph 45 of your witness statement at {B2/18/9}, and

11 if paragraph 45 can be found in the Russian version,

12 I would be most grateful {B2/18/21}. Is that right?

13 A. I beg your pardon. Could we go back to your previous

14 question. In paragraph 61, Smirnov says that Renord was

15 hoping to find a buyer. This was just one of

16 the examples. I beg your pardon. Then we can go back

17 to Gunard’s leasing arrangements.

18 Q. All right. Don’t worry, Mrs Yatvetsky, my learned

19 friend Mr Lord will make all these points very well in

20 due course.

21 If we could now look at paragraph 45. I think you

22 have given evidence that you had some involvement in

23 drafting the Gunard lease agreement. What was that

24 involvement?

25 A. As far as I remember, I simply drew up the lease

118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 agreement with Gunard, drafted it.

2 Q. Right, and then if we could scroll down the English

3 version, I think you explain the rationale for that

4 lease agreement {B2/18/10}.

5 So if we could read — just re-read paragraphs 46

6 and 47, and 48, to refresh your recollection. (Pause)

7 {B2/18/22}.

8 A. I have read it.

9 Q. Right. It appears from your evidence that in the event

10 the assets were sub leased, the effect of that agreement

11 would be that the income would go to Gunard as opposed

12 to Western Terminal LLC. So that is really the

13 difference which this agreement would have made; isn’t

14 that fair?

15 A. No, I disagree with this. What follows from these

16 paragraphs is that income from leasing would go simply

17 to cover the costs being incurred by Renord-Invest on

18 Western Terminal.

19 Q. Indeed, but it could have been — if, say,

20 hypothetically speaking, if Western Terminal LLC leased

21 the assets directly to a tenant, the effect would have

22 been the same: there would have been cash available to

23 cover expenses. But what this agreement does is diverts

24 any potential flow of income from Western Terminal LLC

25 to Gunard. Isn’t that fair?

1 take you to the transcripts if I am challenged, but let

2 me try and summarise it in my own words. Mrs Volodina

3 told the court that at that time she discussed the

4 matter with Mrs Malysheva and Mrs Malysheva indicated

5 that the purpose of that lease was to protect the asset.

6 Can you agree that this may also have been one of

7 the purposes?

8 A. I can quite admit that from the Bank’s point of view

9 they were in fact perhaps also pursuing the idea of

10 protecting the asset. I am describing the purpose

11 pursued by Renord-Invest trying to conclude this leasing

12 agreement, which finally had never been registered, and

13 therefore it does not exist. It is not in force and

14 never has been in force.

15 Q. Now, then I think Mr Guz suggested to the court that

16 there he can see two possibilities why this lease might

17 be necessary: one was to protect the asset from any

18 potential legal action from OMG’s side, and I think you

19 have accepted that from the Bank’s point of view that

20 might be the reason. Do you agree this may have been

21 one of the purposes of that lease?

22 A. For the Bank’s part, yes, I quite admit that it might

23 have been one of the purposes of the leasing agreement,

24 but it doesn’t at all contradict the other point I was

25 making.

121 123

1 A. No, this is not correct.

2 Q. And then I am looking especially at your paragraph 48,

3 where you explain that the terms didn’t matter because

4 Gunard could have terminated the lease any moment.

5 Now, wouldn’t you agree that if Renord effectively

6 could terminate the lease any moment with the effect

7 that any sub lease would be automatically terminated,

8 then it wouldn’t —

9 A. Yes, so far quite right.

10 Q. — then in that case it wasn’t a particularly attractive

11 deal for any potential sub tenant, was it?

12 A. Well, we were looking for any sub tenants. One of

13 the conditions was that a sub tenant would be forced to

14 terminate the agreement the moment Gunard would tell

15 them that. That was one of the terms of the lease. We

16 could only look for sub lessees on these conditions

17 because this lease agreement was a forced measure. We

18 needed to earn some minimal amount of cash to cover the

19 expenses of the Western Terminal. This was not

20 a commercial purpose for us to earn money using

21 Western Terminal.

22 Q. Now, Mrs Yatvetsky, I asked several witnesses on the

23 Bank’s side about the purpose of that lease, and there

24 have been — and some of the answers suggest that the

25 purpose was quite different. In particular, well, I can

1 Q. Yes.

2 MR BIRT: My Lord, I don’t want to interrupt Mr Stroilov,

3 but he is summarising Mr Guz’s evidence. I don’t want

4 it to be thought he is giving a summary of all of

5 Mr Guz’s evidence on this point. Mr Guz said some other

6 things as well. If there is a debate, I will have to go

7 to the transcripts.

8 MR STROILOV: No, I meant to go through point by point.

9 MR BIRT: I’m sorry, on what he has called «one of

10 the reasons». I can explain what the point is —

11 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful, let’s go to {Day7/72:1}.

12 Yes, I think I see what is meant by that. I think,

13 again — should I just read out the relevant bit so that

14 it is translated for Ms Yatvetsky.

15 This is an extract from the cross-examination of

16 Mr Guz, and I think relevantly, I will read — if we

17 could scroll down one page to {Day7/73:1}. I think the

18 words Mr Guz used in that limb — in identifying that as

19 one of the possible purposes, was to protect the asset

20 in line 8, and then the question is:

21 «Question: So that was for the further protection

22 of the pledge —

23 «Answer: Yes.

24 «Question: — from any possible action taken by OMG

25 or Mr Arkhangelsky in Russian courts; is that what you

122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 are saying?

2 «Answer: By them or by other creditors, because

3 Bank of St Petersburg was not the only one creditor of

4 Mr Arkhangelsky.»

5 So, really, in that sense, I think Mr Guz identified

6 these two purposes under the protection subheading, and

7 do you have anything to say to contradict these two

8 purposes? Would you say that Mr Guz is in any way wrong

9 in this suggestion?

10 A. I cannot opine upon what Mr Guz has said. I’ve no

11 comment to offer.

12 Q. Yes, then another possible purpose, as Mr Guz explained

13 a little above, again let me just quote since I have it

14 open. So he says, starting at line 2:

15 «Answer: … if Gunard, for example, was

16 a potential buyer, this lease agreement could be the

17 part of the deal …»

18 So is that possible as well? That is to say, could

19 it be intended at that stage already that Renord would,

20 or Baltic Fuel Company, or some company controlled by

21 Mr Smirnov, would eventually acquire Western Terminal

22 assets? Isn’t that possible?

23 A. At that point in time I would have known, so I would say

24 it was not possible. I think it’s just a piece of

25 speculation on the part of Mr Guz, from what you have

1 this income.

2 But apart from that, a third party sub tenant

3 wouldn’t have ever been interested.

4 A. Well, once again, I can only reiterate that I do not

5 agree with you, sir. I think that there might have been

6 people on the market out there who would have been

7 interested. This was just one of the scenarios that we

8 were looking at in order to cover the expenses. Well,

9 it did not work, and that’s why the contract, the lease,

10 was never registered.

11 But I believe that because those assets, the port

12 assets, are such special sui generis kind of assets,

13 that was perhaps yet another reason behind that.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What’s being put to you is there would

15 be so little security that no independent sub lessee

16 would really want to take on the property, because you

17 could be thrown out at any moment by the collapse of

18 the top lease; that’s what you are putting?

19 MR STROILOV: Quite, my Lord, yes.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But you think people would still be

21 interested even though they could be summarily kicked

22 out?

23 A. What I’m saying, my Lord, is that we entered into

24 a lease between Western Terminal and Gunard. The Bank

25 would have authorised us to do that. We would have then

125 127
1 just read out, sir. 1 entered into leases with sub tenants on the
2 Q. I think he didn’t say it was anything other than that. 2 understanding that, if need be, we could terminate the
3 You see, Mrs Yatvetsky, from what you have explained 3 lease, however, this would not have happened overnight.
4 about the structure of the deal, and what would happen 4 We would have agreed on some term, some notice period,
5 to any sub lease in the event of termination, well, the 5 one, two, three months, perhaps. I believe that the
6 only way it could have possibly worked is if the assets 6 lease market is a highly compartmentalised market with
7 were sub leased to another company controlled by Renord 7 lots of different players, and that’s what we were
8 and/or Mr Smirnov to some other connected party; 8 thinking about. There may be people who might have been
9 wouldn’t you agree with that? 9 interested in finding some warehouse space, for
10 A. I’m not sure I am following your logic. Why did the 10 instance, to keep their stuff for a month, maybe half
11 last company you mentioned have to be a Renord Company? 11 a month, and that would have been sufficient for them,
12 Could you, perhaps, be more specific, or could you 12 so that’s what we were banking on.
13 perhaps split your question up into smaller, manageable 13 We needed to generate some cash flow to cover our
14 parts? 14 expenses. We were not looking to identify a large
15 Q. I’m suggesting that commercially, any outside company 15 tenant who would be sitting on that piece of property
16 would not consider becoming a sub tenant if the effect 16 for a long period of time.
17 is that at any moment Renord can unilaterally terminate 17 Also, speaking from memory, I think our thinking was
18 that sub lease; wouldn’t you agree with that? 18 that — and that was the reason why we wanted to have
19 A. No, I do not agree with that. These are totally 19 several sub leases, it’s very easy — I mean, it’s much
20 different markets and potential lessees or tenants all 20 easier to find smaller sub tenants. They are more
21 pursued different objectives. 21 amenable to compromises. They would have been fully
22 Q. So the only way the arrangements could have worked is if 22 aware that this situation might arise going forward, and
23 Renord was effectively using the terminal itself as part 23 that they would actually have to pack up and go away.
24 of its own projects, and then, as you say, derive some 24 MR STROILOV: May I?
25 income from this and potentially cover its expenses from 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
126 128
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 MR STROILOV: Now, I think another aspect of your evidence

2 is that you say the terms of the lease agreement between

3 Western Terminal and Gunard did not matter at all: it

4 could have been anything, because it’s a lease between

5 Renord and Renord; is that a fair summary?

6 A. Correct, yes.

7 Q. So it was your choice, really, to make it 49 years and

8 20,000 per month, and that was pretty arbitrary; is that

9 what you are saying?

10 A. No. With regard to the term and the amounts and the

11 arrangements for payments, this was not something that

12 I was deciding upon. At that point of time, it was

13 really not material because had we been able to find sub

14 tenants, and had we been able to assess the amount of

15 cash flow that we would be able to generate, then the

16 terms and conditions would then be varied because we, by

17 that time, would already have received an approval on

18 the part of the Bank to enter into that lease.

19 Q. Well, you mean you would have had the Bank’s approval

20 for the sub lease, or do you mean approval for the main

21 Gunard lease? Just in your last answer, what did you

22 mean?

23 A. The head lease would have been then approved by the

24 Bank. It was actually approved. So the decision on the

25 part of the Bank had already been made, and then had we

1 received payments. We simply used the maximum possible

2 term, ie 49 years, and the minimum amount. Those terms

3 and conditions would have been varied had this contract

4 actually become viable, which it did not.

5 Q. Yes. So what seems to follow from what you are saying

6 is that the terms didn’t matter at all. You could have,

7 equally, made it a contract for 10 years or 70 years,

8 whatever, and you could have made the monthly payments

9 to be made, really, monthly, and so on. It doesn’t

10 matter, we should simply ignore that. It’s simply

11 a device to make your scheme work as opposed to a real

12 contract; is that a fair summary?

13 A. It was a tool box that we needed to have available to us

14 in order to be able to register this. So the terms and

15 conditions had to be set out in the contract because,

16 once again, we did not know how much money we were going

17 to be able to generate, or how long the potential leases

18 were going to be.

19 Q. So obviously you agree that the terms are uncommercial?

20 Would you agree that the fact that the assets were

21 encumbered by such uncommercial lease would reduce the

22 potential — the value of the pledge quite dramatically;

23 would you agree with that?

24 A. No, I disagree with you. You may recall we recently

25 discussed that in the event that we were able to find

129

1 then been able to generate some cash flow, once we were

2 sure as to how much money we were going to generate,

3 then that amount would then be set out in the contract

4 between Gunard and Western Terminal, minus cost:

5 Gunard’s costs and Renord’s costs.

6 So the already agreed contract is something that can

7 be easily varied once the agreement in principle has

8 already been received from the Bank.

9 Q. I’m just trying to understand: was it envisaged that

10 there would be some additional contract between Gunard

11 and Western Terminal for the distribution of income? Is

12 that what you are saying?

13 A. No. What I’m saying is that at the time when those

14 terms and conditions were being decided, well, I mean

15 the amount and the term, they were not important because

16 at that time we were not yet certain whether or not we

17 were able, we were going to be able to rent it out and,

18 if so, then how much money we were going to be able to

19 generate or how long the tenants were going to sit on

20 that.

21 So we took the maximum term and the minimum amount.

22 Had the sub lease payments started, Western Terminal

23 would then be receiving payment against invoices raised.

24 I mean, not at the end of the term, but earlier than

25 that they would have raised invoices and they would have

131

1 the purchaser, the lease was going to be terminated and,

2 under Russian law, the termination of the head lease

3 results in the automatic termination of any sub leases,

4 therefore there would be no encumbrance at all.

5 Having said that, had we been able to identify

6 a long term lessee or tenant then, that would only work

7 for the benefit of any potential purchaser, because any

8 investor or purchaser would know how long that was going

9 to last because he needed to have some time to raise

10 investment and do other things like that. He would at

11 least be guaranteed a positive and long term cash flow.

12 Therefore, once again, this would work to his benefit,

13 if anything.

14 Q. I think it’s a slightly different point. I appreciate

15 you make the point that it was within Renord’s power to

16 remove that encumbrance at any time. Putting that on

17 one side, while the encumbrance was in place, the market

18 value of the assets was reduced most dramatically; do

19 you accept that?

20 A. There was no encumbrance.

21 Q. That’s because that was a sham contract, is it?

22 A. Because the lease was never registered.

23 Q. So do you accept that had it been registered, that

24 encumbrance would reduce the market value of the assets

25 dramatically?

130 132
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 A. No. 1 Q. So it follows, does it not, that, really, Renord had no
2 Q. And isn’t it the case, Mrs Yatvetsky, that you could 2 right of veto over Western Terminal’s commercial
3 have drafted whatever terms you liked, but you have 3 activities?
4 chosen to put into these contracts such uncommercial 4 A. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by «veto», or
5 terms, which would result in a dramatic reduction of 5 where commercial activities of Western Terminal LLC come
6 the market value of the pledge? Isn’t that so? 6 into the picture.
7 A. No, it is not so. 7 Q. What I’m suggesting to you is that there was nothing
8 Q. And at that time, that artificial reduction of value was 8 wrong in Western Terminal taking out a loan from
9 at least one of your intentions in this plan of entering 9 Morskoy Bank without asking for Sevzapalians’
10 this lease; isn’t that right? 10 permission, because Sevzapalians was not a genuine
11 A. No. 11 shareholder.
12 Q. And the idea was that should there be a public auction 12 A. No, this is not the case. Renord, acting through
13 to realise the pledge, you could be sure that no 13 Sevzapalians, was a guarantor, as it were. It was
14 outsiders, no genuine third party, would ever bid for 14 holding the shares on the understanding that the parties
15 those assets? 15 had to comply with the terms and conditions of the repo
16 A. No, this is not the case. 16 transaction, and that does not at all mean that
17 Q. And then you also, as it was intended that, say, the 17 Mr Arkhangelsky could portray the situation in a way
18 «public sale», quote unquote, would at some time take 18 that he is the sole shareholder and the sole owner of
19 place, so what you wanted to ensure was that you don’t 19 Western Terminal, because according to the articles of
20 have to give too much credit for those assets to reduce 20 association — and he was fully aware of that — he was
21 OMG indebtedness to the Bank, do you accept that? 21 a shareholder in Western Terminal only to the extent of
22 A. By the time of the auction, there would be no 22 1 per cent.
23 lease-related encumbrance at all at this property. 23 Q. Now, we will have to disagree about that. Now isn’t it
24 Q. What I mean is that it was at that stage, at the time 24 the case that the Morskoy Bank loan was secured by
25 the lease was drafted, your intention already was to 25 a pledge of a plot of land which had nothing to do with
133 135

1 sell the assets from one Renord Company to another

2 Renord Company at gross undervalue; isn’t that so?

3 A. No. This is not the case.

4 Q. Now, may I ask you about the Morskoy Bank loan.

5 (Pause).

6 Now, I understand that the Morskoy Bank loan was

7 taken by Western Terminal from Morskoy Bank at the very

8 end of March 2009, 30 March; is that right?

9 A. Yes, that is true.

10 Q. Now, at that time, obviously Sevzapalians held shares in

11 Western Terminal pursuant to the repo arrangement; isn’t

12 that so?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. And Renord held those shares on behalf of the Bank,

15 isn’t that right?

16 A. At that point in time, de facto Renord was holding the

17 shares on behalf of Oslo Marine Group as per the repo

18 transaction.

19 Q. Right. So, in fact, Sevzapalians was not a genuine

20 shareholder of Western Terminal LLC: it was only holding

21 the shares on trust; do you agree with that?

22 A. Correct. It was an independent owner or holder, and as

23 per the repo transaction, until such time as the loan

24 took place, it was holding the shares on behalf of

25 Oslo Marine Group.

1 Western Terminal?

2 A. The Morskoy Bank loan was secured by two pledges

3 originally. The first pledge was a pledge given by

4 Vyborg Port, and it was a gantry crane, and the value of

5 the pledge was, I think, speaking from memory, about

6 RUB 20 million, but as a result of some judicial

7 proceedings, it turned out that the CEO of Vyborg Port,

8 Mrs Lukina, had actually not executed the security

9 agreement with respect to that gantry crane and,

10 therefore, Mr Arkhangelsky had forged some pledge

11 documents to the Bank, and the second pledge was a piece

12 of land, according to the Land Registry it was owned by

13 Mrs Arkhangelskaya.

14 Q. That’s right, so putting Vyborg Port on one side, the

15 loan was at any rate secured by Mrs Arkhangelskaya’s

16 plot of land in Gatchinsky area, is that correct?

17 A. Correct. Amongst other things, after it transpired that

18 the crane had actually not been pledged as collateral.

19 Q. Did Sevzapalians seek to realise that pledge?

20 A. No, we did not try to realise this pledge or this

21 collateral because, first of all, the value of that

22 collateral compared with the total amount of the loan

23 was very small indeed, and also because at that point in

24 time, rumour had it that Mrs Arkhangelskaya and Mr

25 Arkhangelsky were thinking about a divorce, and so they

134 136
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 decided not to enforce the collateral because that 1 looking at paragraph 27, which will be somewhere in
2 collateral was held by Mrs Arkhangelskaya, who was the 2 I think page 19 or thereabouts {B2/18/18}, so where you
3 mother of three children. 3 say:
4 Q. So it was simply out of sympathy to Mrs Arkhangelskaya 4 «I do not now recall why Nefte-Oil was tendered as
5 that Renord decided not to enforce the mortgage; is that 5 purchaser of the assets, although one possibility is
6 your evidence? 6 that this company was put forward on the basis that
7 A. Yes. That was a decision made by Mr Smirnov, out of 7 there was a possibility that it could make use of
8 compassion. 8 the assets for its own purposes in the event a third
9 MR STROILOV: My Lord, this may be a good moment for 9 party purchaser could not be found.»
10 a 10-minute break. 10 Obviously this suggests that Nefte-Oil could have
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 10 minutes. 11 used Western Terminal assets for its own business; isn’t
12 (3.13 pm) 12 that so?
13 (A short break) 13 A. Well, as one of the options, it’s quite possible that it
14 (3.27 pm) 14 was being studied at that time.
15 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. 15 Q. And presumably the potential use was transportation of
16 I am just waiting for your Lordship to have the 16 oil products, was it not?
17 headphones. 17 A. Well, I suppose for supplies, transport was required.
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Oh, I am sorry. 18 Q. And in actual fact, Western Terminal is now used for
19 MR STROILOV: Now, Mrs Yatvetsky, I think you mentioned 19 transportation of oil products, is it not?
20 a little earlier that you were personally visiting 20 A. Amongst other purposes, yes, it is used for
21 Western Terminal in 2009, didn’t you? 21 transportation of petroleum products, yes.
22 A. Yes, indeed. At some point at the end of July. 22 Q. And both Nefte-Oil and Baltic Fuel Company are
23 Q. So just to be clear, did you come actually with that 23 controlled, at any rate, by Mr Smirnov; isn’t that so?
24 party of riot police force and Sevzapalians 24 A. Baltic Fuel Company is a business where Mr Smirnov has
25 representatives when it was physically taken over? Were 25 a holding, whereas Nefte-Oil is a Renord Company and
137 139
1 you there? 1 it’s engaged in petroleum product supplies.
2 A. No. 2 Q. Now just before the break you mentioned about the
3 Q. So did you specifically visit it yourself some days 3 decision not to realise the pledge of land under
4 later; is that what you are saying? 4 Morskoy Bank loan out of compassion to
5 A. It was — well, it’s difficult for me to recall, but it 5 Mrs Arkhangelskaya. You no doubt recall that.
6 was three or four weeks later, I came to visit 6 To your knowledge, was that decision agreed between
7 Mr Maslennikov, director general. 7 Renord-Invest and the Bank?
8 Q. I see. May I ask you this: what is the business of 8 A. You mean Morskoy Bank or St Petersburg Bank?
9 Nefte-Oil? What are its business activities? 9 Q. I beg your pardon. Of course I mean
10 A. Nefte-Oil supplies oil products. 10 Bank of St Petersburg.
11 Q. And so in — obviously, and then the business of 11 A. I can’t answer this question but I imagine that
12 Baltic Fuel Company is also transportation of oil 12 Mr Smirnov would have agreed it with the Bank, but I can
13 products; isn’t that right? 13 only speculate. All I know is his final decision. Once
14 A. Baltic Fuel Company transports oil products, it 14 again, I will repeat that the value of the land plot was
15 performing bunkering of ships, it also provides services 15 so tiny that it was irrelevant.
16 for environmental protection. 16 Q. It was over $10 million, was it not?
17 Q. And so is it fair to say that Nefte-Oil and 17 A. No, not at all. The value was established in the
18 Baltic Fuel Company actually have a lot of business 18 mortgage agreement as RUB 3 million, it was established.
19 dealings between themselves? 19 At that time, this amounted to something like $90,000.
20 A. No. There is no relationship between Nefte-Oil and 20 Q. So to your knowledge, that pledge was never realised: it
21 Baltic Fuel Company. Nefte-Oil at that time had 21 still belongs to Mrs Arkhangelskaya; is that your
22 a totally different business. It was supplying fuel 22 evidence?
23 under public contracts. 23 A. Whether today this land plot belongs to
24 Q. Right, because I am looking at your witness statement. 24 Mrs Arkhangelskaya or not I do not know, but I do know
25 If we could call on the screen {B2/18/6}, and I am 25 that we did not call in the pledge.
138 140
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 Q. Right. Now, I think some of the other witnesses have —

2 well, again, I will be challenged to be more precise if

3 necessary. I think it has been indicated to this court

4 on behalf of the Bank that in this work to realise the

5 pledges, the Bank and Renord had the strategy to unify

6 the assets so as to maximise their value. That is to

7 say you can — the Western Terminal is most valuable if

8 you have not just the pledge, but all the buildings, the

9 land, both berths in the same hands, and some steps were

10 taken to achieve that. Can you confirm that there was

11 this strategy as part of your thinking?

12 A. I can say the following: the principal asset of

13 the Western Terminal was the land plot pledged to

14 the Bank, and berth number 15, which could more or less

15 be used willy nilly. All other assets were nothing but

16 secondary assets, and in a dilapidated state.

17 On paper, for instance, there are railway lines, but

18 de facto they were not there, they were absent, so the

19 main value was the land plot and berth number 15.

20 Q. Right. If we could perhaps have a look briefly at

21 {D149/2487.1/1}, and the Russian version starts at

22 {D149/2487.1/4}. So that seems to be a letter from

23 a bailiff for the purposes of enforcement of

24 Morskoy Bank debt as against the assets of

25 Western Terminal, and you can see the assets are listed

1 the Bank and unpledged to the Bank; is that correct?

2 A. Yes, quite correct. Quite right.

3 Initially, pursuant to Russian legislation,

4 everything which is located on a land plot which had

5 been mortgaged or pledged is automatically mortgaged or

6 pledged.

7 However, de facto the mortgage was registered only

8 for the land plot and for the berth, and I think this

9 document is pursuant to a procedure whereby agreement of

10 St Petersburg Bank is being sought to agree to realise

11 a pledge which has been registered as that pledge to

12 the Bank and to that loan.

13 Q. Yes, so isn’t it the case that the purpose of buying

14 Morskoy Bank loan was to ensure a transfer of

15 Western Terminal assets pledged and, importantly,

16 unpledged, into the hands of another Renord Company?

17 A. The main objective consisted in stopping or terminating

18 bankruptcy of the Western Terminal because in case of

19 bankruptcy, the loan agreement was — because in this

20 case, the loan agreement was signed with the

21 Western Terminal itself. Given the fact that the main

22 assets of the Western Terminal were pledged to

23 Bank of St Petersburg, the remaining assets would not

24 have covered the loan for Maritime Bank, and so this

25 buyout was done so that Western Terminal would not be

141 143

1 there, and so I suppose you can see five assets are

2 listed, and I just want to be sure we are on the same

3 page. So the first two assets are the ones which you

4 have described as most valuable and these are the berths

5 SV-15 and the land plot, and then there is berth SV-16,

6 which you have described as dilapidated, and two railway

7 tracks which you say were impossible to use. So we are

8 talking about the same thing, aren’t we?

9 A. Yes, indeed.

10 Q. And if we can — yes, I think if we scroll down one page

11 on each screen, you can see at the top of the page that

12 it is indicated here that berth 15 and the land plot are

13 pledged to Bank of St Petersburg {D149/2487.1/2},

14 {D149/2487.1/5}

15 Then if we could scroll down one further page after

16 provisions of Russian law are set out {D149/2487.1/3}

17 {D149/2487.1/6} you can see what the bailiff is asking

18 here is the Bank’s consent for the realisation of all

19 assets, with the pledge of the Bank in relation to these

20 two being preserved. You can see that.

21 A. Yes, I can see it.

22 Q. So I am just trying to be clear how exactly that worked.

23 So essentially the Renord bought Morskoy Bank’s rights

24 under the loan, and then sought to enforce that loan

25 against all assets of Western Terminal, both pledged to

1 bankrupted.

2 Q. Now, I suppose Renord wouldn’t be using its own money to

3 buy that debt unless by that time, at least, it was

4 interested in the assets for its own purposes; is that

5 fair?

6 A. Renord was buying out these assets, or rather not the

7 assets. Renord was buying the debt from the Maritime

8 Bank using exclusively its own funds and taking upon

9 itself all the risk.

10 Q. Indeed. Then the position following that transaction

11 was that it became essentially a debt owed by

12 Western Terminal to its own parent company,

13 Sevzapalians; is that fair?

14 A. So this was a loan to a legal entity and it remained

15 a loan to a legal entity, notwithstanding the fact that

16 Sevzapalians was a 99 per cent shareholder of

17 the Western Terminal, the actual loan on the books

18 existed and could not have been written off for the

19 Western Terminal.

20 Q. And so it is the case that Sevzapalians proceeded to

21 pursue the enforcement proceedings against its own

22 subsidiary; in other words, despite the fact that Renord

23 controlled both Sevzapalians and Western Terminal at the

24 time, nevertheless, Sevzapalians continued to pursue the

25 enforcement proceedings in the Russian court; is that

142 144
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 a correct summary? 1 A. De facto Western Terminal and Sevzapalians were owned by
2 A. Correct, because the action had originally been brought 2 Renord-Invest, but the debt was still there. One
3 by Morskoy Bank and there was no way to avoid 3 corporate entity, irrespective of whether it is the
4 enforcement proceedings as Sevzapalians was simply 4 subsidiary of another corporate entity or not, it cannot
5 forced to buy out the debt at the end of the day to get 5 forgive, write-off the debt, because this was going to
6 the writ of execution in order to avoid bankruptcy and 6 become a taxable event and Western Terminal at that time
7 to finalise the enforcement procedures in order to 7 was not in a position to pay that liability. It would
8 remove whatever risks might still persist there for 8 have nose-dived into a bankruptcy, because if you
9 a follow-on purchaser. Had they not finalised this, the 9 forgive a debt, this is a taxable event. You become
10 risk would remain for the follow-on purchaser that this 10 liable for tax.
11 might then recur. What they did allowed them to clear 11 Q. So are you saying that the purpose of these enforcement
12 up the assets, as it were, to make them clear of 12 proceedings was really to reduce Sevzapalians’ tax bill?
13 the debt. 13 A. If these enforcement proceedings had not been brought to
14 Q. Yes. Well, I think you are a lawyer, so I suppose I can 14 a conclusion, Western Terminal would have become liable
15 ask this question which might have been unfair on a non 15 to pay profit tax and it would not have been in
16 lawyer. So effectively, as a result of these series of 16 a position to do so. This would have resulted in
17 transactions, Nefte-Oil became a bona fide purchaser 17 a bankruptcy, in a similar way as if Sevzapalians had
18 without notice, or at least could be presented as such, 18 not purchased the debt with respect to the terminal.
19 or in Russian it’s called the dobrosovestnyi 19 Q. Well, can you explain a little further, what do you mean
20 priobretatel; was that your purpose? 20 Western Terminal would become liable to the profit tax?
21 A. Nefte-Oil became a bona fide purchaser of these assets 21 Just explain a little further what you mean.
22 as the outcome of the enforcement procedures and the 22 A. If you forgive a debt, if one corporate forgives a debt
23 realisation conducted by the court bailiffs with all the 23 to another corporate, or if you make a gift — mind you,
24 notices having been properly served, the auction did 24 in the Russian law corporates cannot make gifts — but
25 take place. It was organised and it did take place. 25 if they had forgiven the debt they would become liable.
145 147

1 Q. And obviously the court — the enforcement proceedings

2 between Sevzapalians and Western Terminal had this

3 peculiarity about them: that they were not really

4 adversarial proceedings. The both parties were

5 controlled by the same people; is that fair to say?

6 A. No, I would disagree with that.

7 Q. Well, but obviously at that time both Sevzapalians and

8 Western Terminal were controlled by Renord; isn’t that

9 so?

10 A. Correct. But the debt was still outstanding. The debt

11 was still there.

12 Q. Yes, well, the debt may have been there, but the point

13 I am making is that the enforcement proceedings were, in

14 a way — well, they were pursued by two closely

15 connected parties, by two parties controlled by the same

16 people; isn’t that a fair statement?

17 A. The enforcement proceedings are conducted by court

18 bailiffs.

19 Q. Now, it was presented — let me try once more for the

20 last time. The picture which Sevzapalians and

21 Western Terminal presented to the world was that there

22 were adversarial proceedings between two companies which

23 disagree between each other, whereas in reality, both

24 parties were controlled by the same people; isn’t that

25 a fair statement?

1 Had the debt been forgiven, they would have become

2 liable for tax and that would have been corporate tax or

3 profit tax, and this was not something that they could

4 afford paying. End of story.

5 Q. Then, of course, pursuant to these proceedings, the

6 public sale or purported public sale was organised and

7 the assets were bought by another Renord Company.

8 Now, isn’t it fair to say that this series of

9 transactions was part of the same plan? I mean, the

10 debtor is controlled by Renord, the creditor is

11 controlled by Renord, and the buyer of the assets is

12 controlled by Renord. Well, there must have been some

13 coordination between these companies. Wouldn’t you

14 agree with that?

15 A. No, I would disagree because at that point in time there

16 was no plan. We had no plan. We were acting

17 opportunistically on the basis of the situation that

18 Mr Arkhangelsky had created. There was this outstanding

19 loan of Morskoy Bank. We had to initiate enforcement

20 proceedings, as simple as that.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So it was not envisaged when these

22 proceedings were brought by the one company against its

23 subsidiary that a Renord company, a third Renord

24 company, would enter the circle; is that what you are

25 saying? It was pure happenstance that is that’s what

146 148
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 happened; is that right?

2 A. No, this is not what I meant, my Lord. What I was

3 saying was that enforcement proceedings had to be

4 brought to a logical conclusion —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

6 A. — or completion. But that, the enforcement, was the

7 result of what had been done in terms of raising the

8 debt from Morskoy Bank, and so when we realised that

9 an auction had to be organised, we realised that this

10 was going to be auctioned off, together with the pledge

11 with respect to BSP, and there were not going to be any

12 bidders, or willing bidders, because the debt was well

13 in excess of the asset.

14 So then we decided to organise the auction and we

15 decided to have one of our companies step up to

16 the plate as one of the bidders, but this happened

17 opportunistically because it was the result of something

18 that had happened prior to that.

19 MR STROILOV: May I, my Lord?

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I am so sorry.

21 MR STROILOV: It is quite all right, my Lord, thank you.

22 Now, isn’t it the case that Nefte-Oil was the only

23 bidder in that auction?

24 A. No. I may be wrong and my memory may be failing me, but

25 I do not think — it is rather unlikely that it was the

1 scenario, let’s assume that Sevzapalians continued to

2 hold the shares of Western Terminal, and in that case,

3 the auction would have had this oddity about it: that it

4 is a debt enforced by a company against its own

5 99 per cent subsidiary. So people might have asked

6 questions about that; is that fair?

7 A. No, I would disagree with that.

8 Q. Whereas having transferred the shareholding to Altriwa

9 Limited, a Cyprus company, the way these proceedings

10 would be presented to the world is that there is one

11 company, Sevzapalians, which is totally independent of

12 Western Terminal, which is owned by some Cyprus

13 offshore — there is no connection except a historical

14 connection; isn’t that so?

15 A. Altriwa Limited was also owned by Renord and the

16 transfer of the shareholding had nothing to do with

17 enforcement proceedings.

18 Q. Well, I don’t accept that. I put it to you that the

19 purpose of transferring the shareholding at about the

20 same time as Morskoy Bank loan rights were assigned, the

21 purpose of that was precisely to make that auction look

22 honest and lawful. What do you say to that?

23 A. This was not the case. The auction would have taken

24 place even if Sevzapalians still continued to hold onto

25 those shares.

149

1 only bidder. The auction did take place consequently.

2 They were not the only bidder, by definition.

3 Q. Now, if there were any other bidders, who were they?

4 A. I think those would have been some other Renord

5 companies because Renord had to offer at least two

6 bidders for the auction to be ruled valid.

7 Q. Right. Now, the Morskoy Bank’s rights as the creditor

8 were assigned to Sevzapalians on 22 February 2011; isn’t

9 that so?

10 A. I think so. The assignment contract was entered into

11 in February 2011.

12 Q. And I think either shortly before or shortly after,

13 Sevzapalians transferred its shareholding in

14 Western Terminal to an offshore company called Altriwa

15 Limited?

16 A. Yes, some time around February, Sevzapalians transferred

17 its shareholding in Western Terminal to Altriwa Limited.

18 Q. So by the time the purported public auction took place,

19 it was not — so, again, the appearance was that it was

20 not a claim brought by Sevzapalians against its own

21 subsidiary, but it would seem to an ignorant outsider

22 that these companies were now independent of each other;

23 isn’t that fair?

24 A. I’m not sure I understood your question, sir.

25 Q. Well, supposing — let’s assume, just as a hypothetical

151

1 Q. Now, the assets, the entire assets of Western Terminal

2 were sold to Nefte-Oil for RUB 161,500; is that right?

3 A. No, 161,000 was the price of the ancillary assets,

4 speaking from memory, but the total value was, I think,

5 about RUB 6 million. The total sale price was about

6 6 million.

7 Q. Well, if we could please look at {D154/2593/1}, and the

8 Russian version starts at {D154/2593/8}. That seems to

9 be — well, what it is: the protocol setting out the

10 result of the auction, which is essentially the sale

11 contract between a company called Avrora acting on

12 behalf the federal tax service authority, and Nefte-Oil.

13 If you look at clause 1.1, you can see the list of

14 assets, and then if we can scroll down one page on both

15 {D154/2593/2}, {D154/2593/8.1} you can see in 2.1 that

16 the total price of the property is RUB 161,497.50,

17 including VAT.

18 So I think you were mistaken about the price, were

19 you not?

20 A. I think I’m not, because so far as I can recall there

21 were two protocols. There was another one because this

22 protocol lists only one railway.

23 Q. I see. So are you suggesting that the remaining — you

24 are quite right about that, and I don’t really know why.

25 There may be another one, so are you suggesting that

150 152
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 another railway was sold as a separate lot, or what are

2 you suggesting?

3 A. Yes, speaking from memory, yes, that was the case. At

4 least I remember that there were two protocols: We have

5 Roslyakovskiy track and there was another spur which

6 were outside of the perimeter of Western Terminal.

7 Q. And to the best of your recollection, that remaining

8 railway track or tracks, because I think, again, in

9 different documents we have three or two tracks, so that

10 was sold for something substantially higher, something

11 just under 6 million; is that your recollection?

12 A. Yes, the tracks were outside of the perimeter of

13 Western Terminal and they were actually there before the

14 rupture happened. There were no tracks on that plot of

15 land, then outside of it, on that plot of land there

16 were some tracks and they obviously had some value

17 attaching to them.

18 Q. And presumably it follows what you have just told the

19 court, that whereas these railway tracks were outside

20 the perimeter, they were still owned by Western Terminal

21 LLC; is that your understanding?

22 A. Yes, the tracks were owned by Zapadny Terminal,

23 Western Terminal LLC.

24 Speaking from memory, there was a lease. They were

25 leasing the land that the track was sitting on.

1 independent?

2 A. I only reported to Mr Smirnov.

3 Q. So effectively, did he have two lawyers advising him

4 independently of each other on the same matters, or how

5 did the functions of various legal work were allocated

6 between you and Ms Guz?

7 A. There was no overlapping. We each had our own roles and

8 functions and it was up to Mr Smirnov to assign the

9 tasks between the two of us.

10 Q. To your knowledge was Ms Guz in any way involved in

11 these transactions involving Western Terminal assets?

12 A. I am really not in a position to tell you. I just do

13 not know.

14 Q. Give me a minute. There is a document I would like to

15 show you. (Pause).

16 I think I will have to come back to it later.

17 Something is being slow, my Lord, I do apologise.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s all right.

19 MR STROILOV: Something is being slow in my system.

20 (Pause).

21 Would you agree, Mrs Yatvetsky, that following

22 a sale such as the sale to Nefte-Oil, it takes some time

23 to register this transaction with the authorities for

24 the purposes of Land Registry and to register the new

25 ownership of the assets; would you agree with that?

153

1 Q. I see. So were you the person within Renord who was

2 working on these enforcement proceedings? Is that the

3 correct understanding?

4 A. No, I remember that at that time I was only provided

5 with documents that were required. With respect to

6 the assets of Western Terminal we were not able to

7 obtain the originals so we had to go to the Land

8 Registry to get the originals, and so we were putting

9 together the bundles that were then going to be provided

10 to the bailiffs. That was the limit of what I was —

11 that was the extent of my involvement.

12 Q. I see. Well, let me — again, there is — so who was

13 explaining to you which documents were required? Who

14 were you working with, within Renord?

15 A. It was Mr Smirnov.

16 Q. Right. Something I want to try and understand in terms

17 of Renord hierarchy, slightly deviating from

18 Western Terminal. I understand that Svetlana Guz is or

19 was the head of the legal department at that time; is

20 that right?

21 A. At this point in time she is not head of the legal

22 department, but in 2011 I think yes, she was general

23 counsel, yes.

24 Q. So what was the hierarchical interrelationship between

25 you and her? Were you reporting to her? Were you

155

1 A. Yes. Definitely. There is a certain time lag before

2 you can actually register the transaction.

3 Q. And were you involved in the — obviously that suggests

4 that following that auction where the assets were sold

5 to Nefte-Oil, there was some further work for Renord

6 lawyers; is that fair?

7 A. I mean, once the documents have been filed for

8 registration, all you have to do is sit on your hands

9 and wait until you get the certificate back.

10 Q. And how long would you expect that to take? I don’t

11 suggest you need to remember the exact, how long it

12 actually took, but generally speaking, for such a sale,

13 presumably you file documents fairly soon. Well, how

14 soon do you think the process would be completed?

15 A. Under the law, at that point in time I think the time

16 frame was 30 days, within no more than 30 days. It had

17 to be done within 30 days.

18 Q. Do you recall when exactly were the documents filed for

19 registration in the case of Nefte-Oil?

20 A. No, I don’t.

21 Q. Because it is my understanding that, in fact, as soon as

22 the transfer to Nefte-Oil was registered, Renord then

23 caused the assets to be transferred from Nefte-Oil to

24 VECTOR Invest. I think it was in terms of the time, it

25 was longer than a month: it was something like — it was

154 156
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 in June following the auction in …

2 So can you confirm that? Did that happen

3 immediately after the registration, or was there some

4 gap of time?

5 A. I can’t tell you whether there was a delay with

6 registration. (Pause).

7 Q. I am sorry, my Lord, I am struggling with the computer

8 system. I think I am winning, but that makes it slow.

9 Sorry about that. (Pause).

10 Now, may I show you a document which I have been

11 looking for. That’s {D147/2445.1/1}, and the Russian

12 version starts at {D147/2445.1/5}. That seems to be

13 an e-mail exchange between Svetlana Guz and

14 Tatyana Kosova. I suppose it is better to look at it

15 chronologically, so if we — and obviously as e-mails go

16 you have to go bottom to top. So if you could please

17 scroll down the English version one page, and I think

18 the Russian also one page {D147/2445.1/2}

19 {D147/2445.1/6}. So in the English version it is only

20 the very top of the e-mail, you can see that it is

21 an e-mail from Svetlana Guz to Mrs Kosova on

22 2 September 2011, and if we could scroll down the

23 English screen one page {D147/2445.1/3} you can see that

24 Mrs Guz is explaining the position in relation to

25 different assets to be found in Western Terminal, and is

1 assets, yes, but that is another consequence of calling

2 in the pledge. As far as I can see from this letter,

3 the correspondence is about whether these facilities,

4 the real estate on the land plot, whether they are

5 pledged or not pledged, whether they are subject of

6 the pledge or not, this is what they are discussing.

7 From this correspondence I cannot conclude that

8 there is an objective that needs to be reached, and that

9 objective is to consolidate the facilities or the

10 items — assets.

11 This is exactly what they are trying to find out:

12 they are trying to find out whether all the assets are

13 pledged to the Bank or not. This is what I was telling

14 the court. At some point in time the Bank understood

15 that the Registry, or the person who was registering,

16 did not actually register all the real estate and all

17 the assets that were on that land plot, which was

18 violation of paragraph or article 56 of law on pledge,

19 and then the court practice had changed by that time and

20 it said that if there is no registration, no inscription

21 of that type, the mortgage can’t be registered. So this

22 is what I understand the purpose of this correspondence

23 was, this is what they were discussing.

24 MR STROILOV: I’m sorry, my Lord, something is wrong with my

25 Magnum. I can’t properly access the documents.

157 159
1 enquiring — well, as the asset is located on the plot 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, would this be a good time to
2 of land pledged to the Bank. 2 break?
3 So if you could just scan-read, you can see that she 3 MR STROILOV: Perhaps not immediately, but in five minutes
4 lists, essentially, various assets, to which if we now 4 or so it would probably be a good time.
5 could go back to pages {D147/2445.1/1} and 5 I think given the technical problem, perhaps now is
6 {D147/2445.1/5} respectively, you will see that in 6 a good time. It is not perfect logical, but
7 response, Mrs Kosova sends an opinion of some 7 probably …
8 specialist, and I think of someone called Mrs Leonteva. 8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you content with that? I don’t
9 If I am not mistaken, the evidence was that that was one 9 mind waiting while you find the electronic trail, but
10 of the Bank’s lawyers, and there is an explanation, 10 I didn’t want to cause you —
11 then, as to how a mortgage would work in relation to 11 MR STROILOV: I have found it. For some reason I can’t open
12 these assets which are not formally pledged, but are 12 it, my Lord, and I don’t think — well, really it is one
13 located on the plot of land which is pledged. If you 13 document which I can as well put tomorrow.
14 could just read through. I don’t invite a very careful 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It will keep until tomorrow?
15 reading, but so that you see what is being discussed. 15 MR STROILOV: Yes, it will still be as good as it is today.
16 (Pause). 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Very good.
17 So, Mrs Yatvetsky, really all I am suggesting to you 17 What time shall we meet tomorrow?
18 is that this discussion rather suggests that when I say 18 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, we have had some discussion
19 that the purpose of this series of transactions was 19 with my learned friends about this. Really, I think if
20 actually to unify pledged and unpledged assets in 20 we do a very long day there is a very tiny chance of
21 the same hands, that seems to be right. That seems to 21 finishing tomorrow, but otherwise I am well on course to
22 be what Ms Guz and Mrs Kosova are discussing here; don’t 22 finish on Monday and, really, well, following the
23 you agree? 23 afternoon, I think the chance is really very tiny of
24 A. Well, in principle we can say that one of 24 finishing tomorrow, so I would suggest 10.00 or 10.30 is
25 the objectives, amongst others, was to consolidate the 25 fine. If we proceed normally on Monday.
158 160
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 14, 2016 Day 38

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I would intend to rise fairly — at

2 a regular hour tomorrow, at about 4.15/4.30, not to sit

3 late if I can avoid it.

4 MR STROILOV: My choice, my Lord, I am comfortable with

5 three regular days, even though I think the housekeeping

6 took today a little longer than expected. I am

7 comfortable with finishing on Monday and we can proceed

8 on the normal basis, 10.30 to 4.30 tomorrow. Or I can

9 make a superhuman effort and try as a sport to finish

10 tomorrow only to tell you at 5.00 pm: I’m sorry, I need

11 another half an hour.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Let’s not engage in the sport and

13 let’s start at 10.30 am, envisage we are carrying on on

14 Monday.

15 It is very important over the time in which you are

16 not in the witness box that you do not discuss this

17 matter with anybody else. Think of other and more

18 pleasurable things.

19 10.30 am tomorrow then.

20 (4.26 pm)

21 (The court adjourned until 10.30 am on

22 Friday, 15 April 2016)

23

24

25

161
1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 Housekeeping …………………………………..1

4 Submissions by MR STROILOV ……………………..7

5 Submissions by MR LORD …………………………22

6 Submissions in reply by MR STROILOV ……………..66

7 MS ELENA VLADIMIROVNA YATVETSKY …………………74 (Affirmed)

8 Examination-in-chief by MR BIRT …………..74

9 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV ………….75

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

162
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

163

April 14, 2016 Day 38

A

A1/2/55 (1) 26:1 able (26) 3:2 6:14
14:20 20:20 21:3 43:21 45:5 54:6 60:20 71:4,20 72:17 103:24 111:19 129:13,14 129:15 130:1,17,17 130:18 131:14,17 131:25 132:5 154:6

absent (1) 141:18 absolute (1) 54:11 absolutely (5) 24:16 90:1 99:6 100:4

115:25

abused (2) 100:19,21 accept (26) 11:14 16:1 16:24 19:23 21:13 24:1 33:22 34:2

39:6,7 46:1,25 48:6 48:11 53:14 57:20 61:1,3,13 92:6,14 92:15 132:19,23 133:21 151:18

accepted (2) 18:9 123:19

accepting (2) 61:3,15 accepts (2) 13:5 16:22 access (3) 31:7 112:9

159:25

accommodation (1)

72:1

account (4) 33:12 49:10 50:22 56:6

accountancy (2) 33:25 36:1

accountant (3) 36:7 96:9,11

accountants (1) 34:2 accounting (2) 96:11

96:13

accounts (5) 35:18,25 96:12,14 112:10

accurate (2) 2:16 104:14

achieve (1) 141:10 acquaintance (1)

33:24 acquire (5) 30:16

115:17 118:3 119:7 125:21

acquiring (2) 117:23 118:15

acquisition (2) 118:22 118:25

act (3) 96:3,16 108:17 acting (5) 81:11,21

135:12 148:16 152:11

action (3) 123:18 124:24 145:2

activities (5) 103:21 104:15 135:3,5 138:9

activity (4) 87:8 113:9 114:10 117:7

acts (1) 96:10

actual (6) 30:12 43:23 91:16 113:12 139:18 144:17

adamant (2) 27:19 35:19

add (1) 7:17 addition (1) 9:11 additional (3) 8:17

23:13 130:10

additions (1) 79:11

address (2) 11:25 73:8 90:5 119:8 66:10 108:22 121:9 arrives (2) 30:3 52:24 31:11 69:11 B2/18/13 (2) 74:22,25
addressed (1) 16:12 allegedly (2) 23:19 appendix (1) 24:6 article (7) 88:10,12 assurance (1) 20:25 B2/18/18 (2) 76:24
addresses (1) 12:3 119:18 applicable (1) 95:9 89:2,4,10,17 assure (1) 108:12 139:2
adds (1) 104:9 alligator (1) 56:25 application (7) 8:6 159:18 attached (1) 44:16 B2/18/19 (1) 76:24
adduce (5) 32:2,4,14 alligators (1) 57:2 38:19,24 41:1 articles (1) 135:19 attaching (1) 153:17 B2/18/21 (2) 77:6
45:6 46:23 allocate (1) 12:24 50:21 51:4 57:12 artificial (1) 133:8 attempt (3) 26:9 55:5 120:12
adduced (3) 42:22 allocated (2) 14:11 applies (2) 37:19 39:7 aside (2) 14:18 58:21 61:17 B2/18/22 (2) 75:4
45:7 56:8 155:5 apply (1) 40:16 asked (9) 28:24 44:14 attend (1) 58:13 121:7
adhere (1) 71:3 allocation (1) 51:20 appointed (4) 86:17 44:17 52:17 68:9 attendance (2) 17:22 B2/18/6 (1) 138:25
adjourned (1) 161:21 allow (1) 40:6 86:20 97:11 105:12 118:11,14 122:22 60:24 B2/18/7 (1) 76:23
Adjournment (1) allowed (2) 69:5 appointment (1) 88:6 151:5 attitude (1) 66:1 B2/18/9 (2) 77:7
101:9 145:11 appreciate (6) 4:21 asking (6) 54:8 87:12 attractive (1) 122:10 120:10
adjudicated (1) 58:10 allowing (1) 53:16 64:3 66:8 76:11 89:6,18 135:9 auction (21) 26:10 back (21) 5:15 6:10
adjudication (2) 24:23 alternative (2) 21:6 104:17 132:14 142:17 111:10,22 112:11 23:22 31:14,14
26:20 48:19 apprised (1) 3:9 aspect (4) 32:15 45:21 112:15 113:5 40:10 43:4 44:24
adjustments (1) 18:13 altogether (1) 41:24 approach (15) 19:23 59:18 129:1 133:12,22 145:24 51:18 58:18 62:17
admit (5) 43:5 95:11 Altriwa (4) 150:14,17 28:10,11,15,16 aspects (1) 24:17 149:9,14,23 150:1 63:19 93:16 99:7
108:23 123:8,22 151:8,15 29:6,10 30:8 45:14 assess (3) 31:2 42:10 150:6,18 151:3,21 102:17 109:22
admitted (1) 20:12 Alvarez (2) 10:8 14:24 52:13 59:12,20 129:14 151:23 152:10 120:13,16 155:16
adopt (2) 22:16 66:15 amenable (1) 128:21 62:10 63:3 70:22 assessing (1) 35:16 156:4 157:1 156:9 158:5
adopted (2) 28:15 amorphous (2) 41:1 approaches (3) 31:9 assessment (4) 30:9 auctioned (1) 149:10 backing (1) 47:1
62:10 42:2 40:16,18 32:5 102:5 103:3 auctions (2) 111:14,17 bad (1) 54:22
adopts (1) 28:15 amount (10) 12:22 approaching (1) 1:14 asset (19) 16:14 26:9 authorised (1) 127:25 bailiff (2) 141:23
adumbrate (1) 39:12 18:20 33:13 122:18 appropriate (2) 17:20 29:23 30:1,3,22 authorities (2) 8:25 142:17
advance (1) 14:3 129:14 130:3,15,21 36:1 31:13 32:10 44:21 155:23 bailiffs (4) 78:21
advanced (1) 26:13 131:2 136:22 appropriateness (1) 50:1 115:17,25 authority (3) 88:7 145:23 146:18
adversarial (3) 15:21 amounted (1) 140:19 57:10 123:5,10,17 124:19 112:9 152:12 154:10
146:4,22 amounts (1) 129:10 approval (3) 129:17 141:12 149:13 automatic (1) 132:3 balance (5) 16:3 32:25
adverse (1) 51:2 analogous (1) 103:14 129:19,20 158:1 automatically (2) 33:4,19 51:7
advising (1) 155:3 analyse (2) 35:25 approved (2) 129:23 assets (103) 17:15 122:7 143:5 Baltic (14) 109:2,7,8
affairs (1) 114:4 109:18 129:24 18:8,10 20:18 availability (2) 8:16 109:11 114:16
affect (1) 69:11 analysed (4) 34:9 approximately (1) 24:14 25:12,15,16 20:9 115:2 117:18
Affirmed (2) 74:12 35:17 87:8 111:18 86:7 28:7,10,11 31:17 available (13) 9:18,18 125:20 138:12,14
162:7 analyses (2) 26:18 April (3) 1:1 88:13 33:3 44:16 64:11 11:18 38:25 40:17 138:18,21 139:22
afford (4) 12:24 49:17 31:11 161:22 68:17 77:14,21 40:19 49:22 51:19 139:24
57:9 148:4 analysis (10) 24:23,24 arbitrary (1) 129:8 78:13,15,18,24 57:15 71:25 81:9 bank (52) 2:1,19
affordability (1) 73:2 25:1 29:19 31:2 area (3) 35:24 38:20 100:8 110:10,17,21 121:22 131:13 27:14 28:2 84:21
affordable (1) 12:11 32:9 33:23 45:5 136:16 111:1,6,10,12,15 AVK (44) 82:18,19,22 84:21,24 85:4,9
afforded (1) 66:19 111:15 118:21 areas (1) 55:16 111:19,23 113:2,16 82:24 83:10,20,22 112:18 125:3
afraid (14) 5:19 14:9 ancillary (1) 152:3 argue (4) 15:23,23,24 114:13,22,24 115:6 83:22 84:8,11,18 127:24 129:18,24
45:21 48:6 49:25 and/or (2) 104:1 92:8 115:14 117:4,10 84:20,23 85:12,15 129:25 130:8
50:6 65:12 67:18 126:8 arguing (1) 15:15 118:15,25 119:4,7 85:18,20,23 86:2,3 133:21 134:4,6,7
85:6 106:13 107:5 Andrea (4) 81:21 82:3 arising (1) 23:25 119:15,20,25 120:5 86:6,10,14 87:21 134:14 135:9,24
109:3 110:1,13 82:8,13 Arkhangelskaya (9) 120:8 121:10,21 87:25 88:4,14 89:6 136:2,11 140:4,7,8
afternoon (1) 160:23 Andrei (1) 105:7 4:10 71:24 136:13 125:22 126:6 89:7,14,20,23 90:1 140:8,10,12 141:4
agency (1) 83:10 answer (16) 12:13 136:24 137:2,4 127:11,12,12 90:10,15 91:12,16 141:5,14,24 142:13
aggregate (1) 24:12 26:19 39:21 41:4 140:5,21,24 131:20 132:18,24 91:22 92:5,12,13 142:19 143:1,1,10
agree (31) 15:3 40:24 49:24 58:19 72:3 Arkhangelskaya’s (1) 133:15,20 134:1 92:17,18,21 143:12,14,23,24
41:8 60:13 67:12 80:15 102:18 136:15 139:5,8,11 141:6 avoid (5) 41:16 88:11 144:8 145:3 148:19
79:11 86:6 92:16 105:21 109:3 Arkhangelsky (26) 1:6 141:15,16,24,25 145:3,6 161:3 149:8 151:20 158:2
92:21 93:2,4 97:16 124:23 125:2,15 3:22 4:7,25 10:19 142:1,3,19,25 Avrora (1) 152:11 159:13,14
98:20 109:6 111:12 129:21 140:11 11:24 23:12 27:5 143:15,22,23 144:4 await (1) 70:21 Bank’s (10) 27:16
122:5 123:6,20 answering (1) 59:3 31:4 35:19 36:3 144:6,7 145:12,21 aware (16) 9:25 77:22 122:23 123:8,19,22
126:9,18,19 127:5 answers (2) 74:13 52:14,18 53:16 148:7,11 152:1,1,3 78:14 80:4 82:1,3 129:19 142:18,23
131:19,20,23 122:24 55:18 70:1 71:23 152:14 154:6 84:4 87:7 88:20,21 150:7 158:10
134:21 143:10 anticipates (1) 10:7 74:2 101:11 115:22 155:11,25 156:4,23 89:25 90:7,9 107:9 banking (1) 128:12
148:14 155:21,25 anticipating (1) 58:2 124:25 125:4 157:25 158:4,12,20 128:22 135:20 bankruptcy (5) 143:18
158:23 anxieties (1) 21:9 135:17 136:10,25 159:1,10,12,17 143:19 145:6 147:8
agreed (9) 2:24 4:22 anybody (2) 101:6 148:18 assets’ (1) 78:9 B 147:17
71:11 101:15 161:17 Arkhangelsky’s (3) assign (1) 155:8 b (2) 37:9 106:20 bankrupted (1) 144:1
114:14 128:4 130:6 anyway (3) 16:4 28:3 9:14 27:18 33:7 assigned (2) 150:8 Barrister (4) 80:18,22
B2/12/10 (1) 110:5
140:6,12 73:5 Arkhangelskys (1) 151:20 80:24 81:9
B2/12/11 (1) 110:16
agreement (20) 81:25 apart (7) 9:23 41:1 49:22 assignment (1) 150:10 based (2) 12:15 81:2
B2/12/18 (1) 79:19
100:2 120:23 121:1 50:6 106:25 115:1 Arkhangelskys’ (2) assist (3) 14:23 29:14 bases (1) 55:6
B2/12/19 (2) 80:3
121:4,10,13,23 117:18 127:2 51:16 65:18 112:18 basic (1) 34:2
93:20
122:14,17 123:12 apologies (1) 17:16 arm (3) 83:12,15 85:1 assistance (5) 14:5,21 basis (14) 10:12 12:4
B2/12/2 (1) 79:16
123:23 125:16 apologise (2) 1:8 arms (3) 7:25 8:9 69:1 53:18 63:20 112:7 20:24 40:7 42:11
B2/12/25 (2) 106:9
129:2 130:7 136:9 155:17 arose (1) 32:23 assisted (6) 34:1 58:14,15 63:21
109:25
140:18 143:9,19,20 apparent (1) 42:13 arrange (3) 4:16 6:7 117:22 118:2,5,10 80:15 92:19 104:11
B2/12/26 (1) 110:6
ahead (1) 58:6 apparently (2) 29:13 76:19 118:16 139:6 148:17 161:8
B2/12/27 (1) 110:15
aid (1) 48:10 33:3 arrangement (6) association (1) 135:20 battle (1) 8:18
B2/12/3 (3) 79:17
aims (1) 104:18 appeal (10) 2:5 8:7 81:13,25 100:9 assume (8) 52:6 68:5 bear (3) 8:17 31:22
80:3 81:22
Alexander (2) 83:5,7 9:6 50:15,19,24,25 112:17,22 134:11 94:10 101:15 57:24
B2/12/4 (2) 81:22
allegation (1) 57:1 51:4,5 62:2 arrangements (8) 99:8 113:22 114:21 becoming (1) 126:16
93:17
allegations (3) 27:6 appear (2) 34:1 99:19 99:12,21 100:16 150:25 151:1 beg (6) 99:20 102:12
B2/12/9 (2) 106:6
92:9,13 appearance (1) 112:21 120:17 assumed (1) 116:22 102:15 120:13,16
109:23
alleged (9) 24:18 150:19 126:22 129:11 assuming (1) 18:8 140:9
B2/18/1 (1) 74:23
25:12 28:4 29:17 appeared (1) 33:4 arrive (1) 30:25 assumption (1) 70:14 begrudge (1) 65:23
B2/18/10 (1) 121:4
35:23 36:3 49:13 appears (4) 50:20 arrived (2) 57:23 65:6 assumptions (3) 29:6 behalf (12) 81:5,11

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

164

April 14, 2016 Day 38

94:15 98:6 99:11 99:25 100:1 134:14 134:17,24 141:4 152:12

believe (13) 10:3 12:16 20:14 74:5 83:6 85:11,19 87:14 90:5 91:21 113:24 127:11 128:5

belongs (3) 98:4 140:21,23 beneficial (2) 92:5

98:21 beneficially (2) 81:19

98:18 beneficiaries (1) 91:20 benefit (6) 22:3 45:3

82:4 104:8 132:7 132:12

berth (5) 141:14,19 142:5,12 143:8 berths (3) 115:10 141:9 142:4

best (10) 3:6 14:9 68:6 69:3,22 71:19 72:6 114:9 119:24 153:7

better (7) 5:3 11:24 15:10 41:15 62:20 100:24 157:14

beyond (2) 2:8 13:22 bid (3) 111:9,21

133:14 bidder (3) 149:23

150:1,2

bidders (5) 149:12,12 149:16 150:3,6

bifurcated (1) 48:8 bifurcation (1) 25:2 big (3) 22:4 69:21

70:17

bill (1) 147:12 billion (2) 25:4 46:10

Birt (21) 2:17 3:1,15 3:18 4:1,3,16,21,24 5:20 6:1,4,10,21 74:11,17,18 75:11 124:2,9 162:8

bit (6) 4:14 5:15 6:16 15:19 93:7 124:13

bits (1) 57:13 blazing (1) 52:24 board (3) 84:16 85:3

104:2 bodies (2) 94:21

108:15 bold (1) 91:8

bona (2) 145:17,21 bonds (1) 86:12 book (1) 14:7 books (1) 144:17 Borisovich (1) 107:15 Borisovitch (1) 105:24 bothered (1) 39:14 bottom (9) 21:22 75:5

76:25 88:17 110:1 110:2,4,14 157:16

bought (3) 110:16 142:23 148:7 boundaries (1) 37:7 box (3) 101:7 131:13

161:16 boxes (1) 6:19

Boyarin (4) 107:18,19 107:21 108:4

branches (1) 24:13 brass (1) 62:8 break (7) 73:4,24

100:24 137:10,13 140:2 160:2

breakdown (1) 10:7 breath (1) 41:15 bribing (1) 90:11 brick (1) 68:17 brief (1) 52:10 briefly (5) 40:9 68:20

68:23 73:8 141:20 brilliant (1) 91:6 bring (3) 28:4 56:4

92:24 briskly (1) 39:20

Brodetskaya (2) 85:20 85:22

broken (2) 100:18,21

Bromley-Martin (5)

44:8,11,15,23

70:13

Bromley-Martin’s (3)

43:24 55:10 69:16 brooked (1) 55:2 brother (2) 81:20,24 brought (6) 91:15

145:2 147:13 148:22 149:4 150:20

BSP (2) 31:18 149:11

BTC (1) 109:9 budget (1) 71:25 buffers (1) 57:19 build (2) 61:5,11 building (1) 68:17 buildings (1) 141:8 built (3) 25:14 27:23

36:3

Bulgarian (1) 50:2 bullet (1) 35:9 Bumaghi (1) 83:22 bundle (1) 103:16 bundles (1) 154:9 bunkering (1) 138:15 burden (3) 44:18 54:7

119:19 business (76) 12:25

13:20 14:11 17:13 17:14 24:1,4,10 28:13 29:10 30:8 30:12,13,15,17 31:1,3,4 32:6 35:8 35:16 36:3 43:22 46:2 60:11 61:18 63:10 68:18 69:12 70:5,7 81:14 86:14 87:11 88:5,14 91:12,19 93:1,5,12 93:13,15 97:2 98:23,24 99:1 109:21 111:7,20 113:7,20,23 114:1 114:5,10 115:7,8,9 115:14,18,18,18 117:2,8,12,13,15 118:4 138:8,9,11 138:18,22 139:11 139:24

businesses (24) 23:14 23:20 24:14,19,25 25:4,6,22 26:3,15 26:19,24 27:6,7,12 27:17,20 32:16 55:18 93:2 98:5 115:1,2 117:17

busy (1) 11:2

buy (2) 144:3 145:5 buyer (7) 111:4,13 119:6,23 120:15

125:16 148:11 buyers (1) 119:15

buying (3) 143:13 144:6,7
buyout (1) 143:25

BVI (3) 9:4,8 75:24

C

cabinet (1) 86:23 calculated (1) 19:20 calculation (2) 19:12

30:4

call (10) 8:11 41:2 46:23 48:24 55:13 60:21 74:11 106:19 138:25 140:25

called (23) 28:3 29:15 33:6 43:3 74:10 80:17 82:17 84:21 86:15 88:12 91:12 91:12 98:25 99:24 105:7,24 106:20 108:17 124:9 145:19 150:14 152:11 158:8

calling (1) 159:1 capable (3) 13:6 69:4

69:10 capacity (1) 31:7 capital (1) 104:1 Card (1) 107:11

careful (3) 48:1 67:15 158:14

carefully (4) 26:17 38:21 68:22 73:1

careless (1) 67:15 carried (1) 119:18 carry (4) 12:25 14:21

52:10 92:2 carrying (2) 97:4
161:13 cart (1) 69:9

carve-out (1) 38:17 case (83) 5:18 8:5,8

9:13 10:3 13:16,19 13:23,25 15:24 23:9 24:20 25:12 25:13,22 26:6 29:21 30:13,21 31:1,15,16,22,24 32:8 36:15,17,21 36:24 37:7,19,20 40:10,12,14,15 41:9 43:21 45:14 45:19,21 46:20 51:17 53:18 54:6 54:15 55:4 56:4,18 56:19 57:14,16 60:23 67:25 72:8 75:15 80:10 85:17 87:5,19 88:22 89:2 89:7 90:14 92:17 101:6 110:9 115:5 122:10 133:2,16 134:3 135:12,24 143:13,18,20 144:20 149:22 151:2,23 153:3 156:19

cases (4) 96:24 104:5 104:8 109:25

cash (6) 121:22 122:18 128:13 129:15 130:1 132:11

caught (1) 67:21 causation (4) 28:2 37:8,9 38:7

cause (2) 58:15 160:10

caused (2) 28:4 claim (17) 16:25 17:14 commercially (1) 149:6
156:23 17:14 19:8,11 25:3 126:15 complex (1) 70:6
caution (3) 52:9 54:5 25:5 26:2,3,11 32:6 commission (5) 86:18 complicated (1) 19:17
70:4 49:23 64:12 68:18 86:21 90:21,23 comply (1) 135:15
cease (1) 105:3 70:5,8 150:20 91:1 complying (1) 47:11
ceased (2) 113:12 claimant (1) 17:13 commits (1) 104:11 compromises (1)
114:1 claimants (12) 8:19 committed (1) 81:15 128:21
cent (13) 13:5 80:16 9:2 17:23 19:1 27:3 common (3) 22:8 31:8 computer (2) 5:22
80:22,23 81:10,20 32:3,13 42:14 49:3 82:23 157:7
97:21,22 104:19 56:22,23 67:22 communication (1) conceivable (1) 65:10
107:23 135:22 claimants’ (2) 8:22 118:18 conceivably (1) 31:21
144:16 151:5 19:8 companies (39) 17:12 concern (1) 52:11
central (4) 24:19 claimed (2) 23:21 24:4 26:25 27:1,15 28:5 concerned (11) 2:11
31:16,20 39:16 claims (3) 23:25 51:16 34:11 35:5 82:24 8:17 35:8 39:19
Centralisation (2) 91:9 51:17 83:1 87:15 93:22 48:14 69:7 72:20
91:14 clarification (1) 5:13 94:6,7,8,11,12,22 82:5 89:15 90:3
Centre (3) 32:17 33:6 classic (1) 35:11 95:24 96:8,14,17 97:7
69:8 clause (1) 152:13 96:19 97:14 98:6 concerning (2) 56:16
CEO (5) 84:11,13 clear (14) 3:9 5:22 98:14,21 103:22 69:15
105:16 107:12 15:2 18:3 28:18 104:6 106:19,22,25 concerns (2) 23:11
136:7 29:19 36:13 37:9 107:19 109:9 65:25
certain (18) 18:18 38:6 115:25 137:23 111:18 146:22 conclude (7) 55:24
25:12 32:10,24 142:22 145:11,12 148:13 149:15 62:22,24 63:1 98:3
33:11 35:24 48:9 clearer (1) 104:24 150:5,22 123:11 159:7
49:12 55:6 71:2 clearing (1) 6:7 company (89) 34:21 conclusion (5) 60:22
84:3,14 97:3,4 clearly (5) 28:14 30:6 35:4 37:7 81:9 93:8 98:10 147:14
116:5,23 130:16 37:20 48:13 52:22 82:17 83:2,10,13 149:4
156:1 clerk (3) 5:10,21 6:5 83:16 84:11,12 conclusions (3) 48:3
certainly (4) 10:3 23:2 client (1) 10:14 86:2,3,9,12 90:18 63:11 70:23
42:14 55:2 clients (4) 4:19,21 90:24 91:1,2 94:22 concrete (4) 115:23
certificate (1) 156:9 31:25 51:2 94:24 95:1,4,6,8,16 116:2,5,12
cetera (1) 98:10 cling (1) 41:9 96:22 97:12,16,20 conditions (7) 122:13
chair (2) 86:20 88:6 close (1) 78:23 97:25 98:1,3,11,16 122:16 129:16
chaired (1) 85:3 closed (3) 62:15,17 99:3,17,24 100:7,9 130:14 131:3,15
chairman (2) 84:15 84:11 101:22 103:3,20,25 135:15
86:18 closely (1) 146:14 106:20 107:12,21 conduct (1) 103:4
challenged (2) 123:1 closing (7) 7:10 26:6 107:25 108:2,24 conducted (4) 26:7
141:2 31:23 58:3 59:7 109:2,5,7,11,15,17 78:21 145:23
chance (2) 160:20,23 69:18 73:9 109:17,18,19 146:17
Chancellor (1) 5:8 closings (4) 58:5,6 114:16 115:2 confess (1) 5:2
Chancellor’s (1) 5:23 61:6 72:10 117:18 125:20,20 confide (1) 64:2
change (2) 51:1 91:15 code (3) 87:6,19,22 126:7,11,11,15 confident (1) 71:19
changed (3) 47:25 collapse (2) 88:14 134:1,2 138:12,14 confidential (3) 10:5,6
51:2 159:19 127:17 138:18,21 139:6,22 10:10
changes (1) 91:20 collapsed (2) 60:11 139:24,25 143:16 confirm (23) 75:8,10
channel (1) 103:6 90:16 144:12 148:7,22,23 78:3 80:4,10,15,18
chapter (2) 14:6 80:7 collapsing (1) 91:13 148:24 150:14 80:20,21 81:6,7,22
chargeable (1) 64:4 collateral (6) 26:10 151:4,9,11 152:11 82:1 85:3,6,8,10
charged (1) 11:4 136:18,21,22 137:1 company’s (1) 109:21 93:25 94:3 106:22
check (1) 3:15 137:2 compared (2) 9:21 114:14 141:10
checked (1) 5:2 colleagues (4) 85:11 136:22 157:2
Chernobrovkin (5) 96:20 105:8,9 compartmentalised … confirmed (1) 92:1
105:25 106:1 combined (2) 43:5 128:6 confirming (1) 79:10
107:13 108:18,24 63:20 compassion (2) 137:8 confirms (1) 44:23
Chernobrovkin,Igor … come (25) 6:10 7:9 140:4 confused (1) 18:16
107:14 45:15 51:11 52:21 compensation (1) connected (3) 116:24
chief (2) 96:8,10 53:10 54:10 56:10 105:23 126:8 146:15
children (3) 9:12 66:9 57:4 59:25 60:2,4,4 competence (1) 87:4 connection (4) 28:21
137:3 60:8 62:17 65:14 competencies (1) 95:7 151:13,14
choice (10) 15:6 36:2 69:19 86:5 97:12 104:10 consent (1) 142:18
41:3,14 43:4 48:14 97:19 105:14 108:9 competing (2) 63:10 consequence (1)
73:2 95:13 129:7 135:5 137:23 66:12 159:1
161:4 155:16 competitors (2) 87:21 consequences (1)
choose (2) 18:11 comes (6) 8:5 59:25 88:1 49:3
20:14 60:2 69:1 105:15 complain (3) 20:20,23 consequently (1)
chosen (3) 117:12,13 113:6 21:3 150:1
133:4 comfortable (2) 161:4 complaint (1) 21:11 consider (9) 18:12
Christmas (1) 39:2 161:7 complaints (1) 60:1 20:19 28:25 30:20
chronologically (1) comforted (2) 72:23 complement (1) 56:9 68:22 73:1,14
157:15 72:25 104:10 126:16
circle (1) 148:24 coming (4) 1:7 25:8,9 complete (2) 13:7 considerable (2) 11:5
circles (2) 31:14 91:19 63:24 63:3 33:2
circumstance (1) 51:1 commenced (1) 8:24 completed (2) 102:18 considerably (1) 24:12
circumstances (8) commences (1) 2:1 156:14 consideration (3)
9:16 17:21 18:24 commencing (1) 1:25 completely (3) 38:3 32:13 47:7 61:6
34:14 40:19 51:1 comment (2) 87:4 39:5 67:8 considered (1) 117:9
54:16 63:2 125:11 completeness (1) considering (1) 36:14
city (5) 32:17 33:6 commercial (3) 104:3 considers (2) 10:8
69:8 116:12,16 122:20 135:2,5 completion (2) 105:6 29:8

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

165

April 14, 2016 Day 38

consisted (1) 143:17 consistent (3) 6:18
8:8 110:22

consolidate (2)

158:25 159:9 conspiracy (15) 23:11

23:19 24:19,23 25:3,13,18,22 26:2 28:4 29:24 31:19 31:22 32:8,9

conspire (1) 27:3 constituent (1) 80:12 construction (1)

117:21 constructively (2)
52:1 65:2

consult (3) 63:7 64:18 73:13

consultant (2) 89:1 90:10

consultants (4) 88:19 89:8,24 90:6

consultation (1) 20:2 contemplating (1)

58:3

content (3) 4:9 20:24 160:8

contents (1) 75:8 context (11) 23:17

33:25 39:10 42:1 43:19 49:5 53:15 53:22 63:18,23 64:1

continue (2) 91:21

102:25

continued (4) 91:2

144:24 151:1,24 continues (1) 91:22 contract (13) 99:13,15

127:9 130:3,6,10 131:3,7,12,15 132:21 150:10 152:11

contracts (2) 133:4 138:23

contradict (2) 123:24

125:7

contradictions (1)

29:9

control (15) 40:6 91:22 101:21,23 102:7,23 103:2,24 104:18 112:2,5 113:3,4,12 114:1

controlled (14) 98:17 98:18 109:10 125:20 126:7 139:23 144:23 146:5,8,15,24 148:10,11,12

controlling (1) 104:1 controversies (1)

92:11 convenient (1) 73:12 conventional (1)

40:16 converse (1) 98:16 cooperate (1) 53:23 coordination (1)

148:13 copy (1) 36:24

cordoned (1) 21:10 core (1) 31:6 corner (1) 75:6 corners (1) 6:15 corporate (17) 26:8

26:14 27:2 80:17 81:1,2 84:4 87:6,20 87:22 90:2 94:21

147:3,4,22,23

148:2

corporates (1) 147:24 correct (31) 4:7 71:9 79:13,23 82:18,19 84:12 86:15,16

93:8 94:2 95:25 96:9,10,15 100:4 101:24 109:16 119:5 122:1 129:6 134:13,22 136:16 136:17 143:1,2 145:1,2 146:10 154:3

corrected (3) 50:14

108:13 113:18

correctly (2) 39:6

89:10

correspondence (3)

159:3,7,22 corrupt (1) 90:7 corruption (2) 92:10

92:13

cost (2) 65:25 130:4 costs (7) 9:4,8 22:2

63:23 121:17 130:5 130:5

counsel (1) 154:23 count (1) 17:3 counted (1) 94:6 counterclaim (18)

18:17 22:19 23:3,6 23:11,18 24:7,9,11 24:24 26:13 28:1 31:15 32:1 35:17 36:11 42:15 46:10

Counterclaimant (1)

23:13 counterclaimants (3)
18:15 27:5,9

countervailing (1)

46:19 couple (1) 83:24

course (20) 6:5,24 13:8 17:9 18:4 21:18,21 30:19 45:20 57:10 64:15 71:3 78:20 113:15 115:7 117:6 120:20 140:9 148:5 160:21

court (54) 1:23 3:20 3:21 5:6,9,22 6:22 10:1,2,17 11:1,7 12:8 13:18 14:6,21 14:23 15:18 20:2 26:17,17 32:12 38:18,21 43:13 46:2 50:15,24 51:4 52:14 53:3,11 59:5 63:22,25 67:14,21 74:19 77:18 78:20 80:2 83:5 85:25 123:3,15 141:3 144:25 145:23 146:1,17 153:19 159:14,19 161:21

court’s (1) 32:4 courts (1) 124:25 cover (7) 25:21

121:17,23 122:18 126:25 127:8 128:13

covered (4) 54:19 115:23 116:2 143:24

crane (3) 136:4,9,18 create (1) 103:22 created (1) 148:18 creates (1) 92:18

credibility (5) 27:4,9 27:18,24 38:8
credit (6) 14:15 19:18 31:18 37:24 40:1 133:20

creditor (3) 125:3 148:10 150:7 creditors (1) 125:2 criteria (1) 37:18 criticise (1) 11:13

cross-examination (…

29:14 43:19 45:10 53:9 58:10 59:1,2 60:21 64:8,9,10 68:2 69:25 71:17 71:21 75:13 76:5 124:15 162:9

cross-examine (2)

20:21 55:12 cross-examined (4)
20:12 35:20 46:23 56:12

cross-examining (1)

3:12

crossed (2) 22:24 48:22

crossover (5) 29:20

30:8 59:19 68:20 69:8

crosspatch (1) 15:7 crudely (1) 90:12 crumbling (1) 88:14 cryptic (1) 40:18 crystallise (2) 12:12

12:14 cures (1) 22:5

current (1) 39:11 currently (1) 26:13 cut (2) 60:6 116:9

Cyprus (2) 151:9,12

D

D13/169/2 (1) 91:4 D13/269/0.2 (1) 91:4 D13/269/0.4 (1) 88:8 D13/269/4 (1) 88:9

D147/2445.1/1 (2)

157:11 158:5

D147/2445.1/2 (1)

157:18

D147/2445.1/3 (1)

157:23

D147/2445.1/5 (2)

157:12 158:6

D147/2445.1/6 (1)

157:19

D149/2487.1/1 (1)

141:21

D149/2487.1/2 (1)

142:13

D149/2487.1/3 (1)

142:16

D149/2487.1/4 (1)

141:22

D149/2487.1/5 (1)

142:14

D149/2487.1/6 (1)

142:17

D154/2593/1 (1)

152:7

D154/2593/2 (1)

152:15

D154/2593/8 (1)

152:8

D154/2593/8.1 (1)

152:15

D174/2906/1 (1)

103:8

D174/2906/3 (1) declared (1) 115:21 30:12 58:25 70:20 53:15
103:18 declined (1) 90:16 121:13 displace (2) 46:25
D176-D191/2918.1T… deduce (1) 33:18 differences (1) 46:3 47:5
107:4 deeply (1) 27:8 different (20) 1:23 displaced (1) 47:21
D176-D191/2918.1T… default (3) 27:16 28:3 11:9,10 14:25 disposal (2) 9:22
107:17 28:6 17:12 24:9 31:6 26:10
D176-D191/2918.1T… defence (1) 31:25 45:16 47:23 62:19 dispose (1) 40:1
108:15 defendants (25) 8:14 115:7 119:19 disposed (1) 25:16
damage (1) 23:25 8:19 9:22 15:4 16:3 122:25 126:20,21 dispute (2) 1:11 21:20
damages (1) 18:15 22:22 25:11 29:23 128:7 132:14 disputed (2) 18:21
danger (1) 25:9 31:21 32:2 42:14 138:22 153:9 34:23
dangers (2) 43:7,8 45:3 46:11,13 157:25 disrepair (1) 117:14
dare (1) 54:15 48:10,15 49:13 difficult (18) 1:16 distinct (1) 55:11
database (2) 94:20 52:1 55:11,20 56:7 12:17 14:10 17:21 distinguish (1) 67:14
98:8 56:17,24 57:7 40:15 41:8,9 42:7 distribution (1)
databases (1) 97:19 60:10 43:12,14 44:5 48:4 130:11
date (2) 88:11 108:19 defendants’ (5) 9:9,11 53:25 61:16 70:16 diverts (1) 121:23
dated (1) 88:13 23:9 31:15 32:8 104:6 106:8 138:5 divorce (1) 136:25
day (9) 2:4,15,16,17 Define (1) 85:14 difficulties (6) 21:17 Dmitry (1) 85:17
15:4 22:4 44:8 Definitely (2) 105:19 38:16 41:16,25 dobrosovestnyi (1)
145:5 160:20 156:1 54:1 61:22 145:19
Day21/1:1 (1) 44:14 definition (1) 150:2 difficulty (3) 20:15 document (8) 23:1,23
Day21/2:1 (1) 44:10 defraud (1) 23:12 62:25 65:22 24:5 76:18 143:9
Day21/2:2 (1) 44:23 degree (2) 29:20 dilapidated (2) 141:16 155:14 157:10
Day7/72:1 (1) 124:11 92:25 142:6 160:13
Day7/73:1 (1) 124:17 delay (3) 61:5 62:9 dip (1) 55:13 documentary (1)
days (10) 2:13,25 3:2 157:5 direct (2) 80:22 81:16
3:6 19:14 138:3 delayed (1) 21:19 118:18 documentation (1)
156:16,16,17 161:5 delightfully (1) 1:25 direction (1) 68:21 81:2
DCF (4) 28:16 30:3,8 Deloittes (1) 35:15 directions (3) 62:23 documented (2)
45:5 demise (1) 27:15 65:9 73:1 99:12 100:1
de (5) 113:6 134:16 deny (2) 82:1 85:6 directly (2) 95:24 documents (14) 77:17
141:18 143:7 147:1 departing (1) 93:19 121:21 77:24 80:12 81:1,1
deal (11) 2:5 25:25 department (8) 82:25 director (13) 83:21 83:25 136:11 153:9
63:17 64:7,9 73:11 83:3 84:4 90:1 84:14 86:1 96:8,21 154:5,13 156:7,13
79:5 94:11 122:11 96:11,13 154:19,22 96:25 97:2,22 98:3 156:18 159:25
125:17 126:4 departments (1) 84:6 105:13 108:19,24 doing (1) 69:4
dealing (4) 39:8 80:12 departure (1) 90:20 138:7 dollar (2) 25:4 46:10
83:11 87:11 depending (1) 102:4 directors (7) 84:16 Dom (3) 106:20 107:6
dealings (1) 138:19 depends (3) 95:9,13 85:4 96:16,18 108:22
deals (7) 6:23 30:2 101:25 97:10,14 104:2 doubt (4) 5:15 8:13
32:21 33:16 34:4 deployed (1) 29:18 dis-apply (1) 47:5 11:4 140:5
56:20 57:3 deprived (2) 21:1,24 disadvantage (2) 8:14 downside (1) 13:22
dealt (4) 8:5 31:10 deputy (1) 84:1 16:1 downsides (1) 67:17
37:10 90:2 derive (1) 126:24 disadvantages (1) dozens (3) 94:8,10,22
debate (2) 23:17 describe (1) 76:14 61:11 Dr (17) 1:19 3:10 4:4,6
124:6 described (3) 88:13 disagree (10) 43:11,11 4:7 27:5,18 33:7
debating (3) 38:4 39:5 142:4,6 98:19 121:15 35:19 36:3 52:14
46:7 describes (1) 93:11 131:24 135:23 52:18 53:16 55:18
debt (21) 18:21 describing (1) 123:10 146:6,23 148:15 71:23 74:2 101:11
141:24 144:3,7,11 description (5) 79:12 151:7 draft (1) 102:14
145:5,13 146:10,10 87:3 90:17 92:22 disappointed (1) drafted (3) 121:1
146:12 147:2,5,9 94:1 10:24 133:3,25
147:18,22,22,25 deserve (1) 14:15 disappointment (1) drafting (1) 120:23
148:1 149:8,12 despite (1) 144:22 14:5 drag (1) 61:8
151:4 detail (5) 10:6 11:17 discount (4) 12:10 dramatic (1) 133:5
debtor (1) 148:10 63:12,22 119:11 13:5 33:5,21 dramatically (4) 19:7
debts (1) 19:17 detailed (1) 70:3 discrepancy (2) 131:22 132:18,25
deceived (1) 74:2 details (2) 79:2 119:25 120:1 drew (1) 120:25
December (4) 28:3 118:14 discrete (2) 58:19 driven (2) 97:11 103:3
38:1,5,12 determine (8) 17:20 59:3 due (3) 6:24 45:20
decent (1) 40:14 43:1,17,21 45:20 discuss (2) 71:12 120:20
decide (7) 6:25 43:13 48:2 63:17 71:14 161:16 dynamically (1)
54:18 56:15 62:3 determined (1) 95:7 discussed (7) 8:2 12:7 103:21
66:15 102:4 determining (2) 37:6 42:16 77:23 123:3
decided (10) 50:23 115:16 131:25 158:15 E
64:7 111:1,9,21 devalue (1) 41:20 discussing (8) 79:20 e-mail (3) 157:13,20
130:14 137:1,5 develop (2) 25:20 79:24 89:2,17
157:21
149:14,15 40:9 106:17 158:22
e-mails (1) 157:15
decides (1) 102:1 developed (1) 110:25 159:6,23
E5/16/14 (1) 32:19
deciding (3) 44:25 developing (1) 103:22 discussion (5) 11:23
E5/16/29 (1) 32:19
58:3 129:12 development (6) 36:5 12:4,5 158:18
E5/16/37 (1) 32:19
decision (12) 39:13 37:25 84:22 85:5,9 160:18
E5/16/38 (2) 34:6,17
45:19,19,21 102:5 104:7 discussions (2) 35:21
E5/16/40 (2) 33:15
102:22 103:1 deviating (1) 154:17 119:14
34:8
129:24 137:7 140:3 device (1) 131:11 disguise (1) 74:4
E5/16/53 (1) 32:19
140:6,13 dialogue (1) 52:6 dismissal (1) 90:15
E5/17/5 (1) 35:2
decisions (4) 45:15 diaries (2) 1:16 20:3 dismissed (1) 65:21
E5/18/16 (1) 29:5
96:22 97:3,8 difference (5) 19:20 dismissive (2) 10:21

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

166
April 14, 2016 Day 38

E5/18/22 (1) 29:7 151:4 158:4 exercise (1) 101:23 110:20,24 112:22 fight (1) 39:17 follows (6) 23:10

E6/19/61 (1) 32:22 enforcement (19) 9:4 establish (4) 1:17 exercises (2) 30:19,20 113:16 114:22 figure (1) 12:14 26:22 113:1 121:15
E6/19/62 (1) 33:1 78:20 112:9 141:23 18:17,18 78:7 exist (2) 90:24 123:13 116:3 118:9 119:11 figures (2) 18:13 135:1 153:18
E8/26.1/4 (1) 28:23 144:21,25 145:4,7 established (5) 64:11 existed (3) 112:22 123:9 131:20 19:23 foot (1) 23:5
E8/26.1/9 (1) 28:24 145:22 146:1,13,17 113:4,11 140:17,18 113:14 144:18 134:19 139:18 file (2) 37:2 156:13 footing (3) 58:20
E8/27.2/3 (1) 28:24 147:11,13 148:19 estate (3) 24:10 159:4 existing (1) 48:3 143:21 144:15,22 filed (2) 156:7,18 61:21 62:8
earlier (5) 89:22 149:3,6 151:17 159:16 exists (1) 100:15 156:21 files (2) 5:14 6:15 footnote (1) 29:2
100:24,25 130:24 154:2 estimate (2) 3:6 63:23 expand (2) 118:6,8 facto (5) 113:6 134:16 fill (1) 1:16 force (3) 123:13,14
137:20 engage (2) 65:2 estimates (2) 2:12,15 expands (1) 35:4 141:18 143:7 147:1 final (4) 1:14 26:5 137:24
early (1) 83:17 161:12 et (1) 98:10 expect (7) 46:11 factors (8) 31:5 37:6 111:13 140:13 forced (7) 112:8
earn (2) 122:18,20 engaged (3) 29:21 event (14) 5:8,23 6:18 58:21 72:3 77:12 39:11 46:19 66:12 finalise (1) 145:7 114:23 115:16
earth (1) 116:7 52:1 140:1 52:21,24 63:18 78:23 89:19 156:10 95:7,10,14 finalised (1) 145:9 119:24 122:13,17
easier (2) 93:4 128:20 engagement (1) 66:18 72:23 102:25 121:9 expected (1) 161:6 facts (1) 67:10 finally (3) 69:15 145:5
easiest (1) 5:12 engaging (1) 54:9 126:5 131:25 139:8 expenditure (1) 64:3 factual (5) 1:14 15:10 115:16 123:12 foreign (1) 103:22
easily (2) 19:8 130:7 engineering (1) 27:14 147:6,9 expense (2) 4:20 5:15 69:11,13 91:22 finance (3) 40:19 forensic (4) 25:1 34:2
easy (6) 7:23 41:23,24 English (18) 4:5,8,9 events (3) 51:18 expenses (5) 121:23 fail (2) 28:7 70:8 49:13 84:4 36:1,7
65:18 67:14 128:19 74:22 76:13,15,16 87:13 110:23 122:19 126:25 failed (2) 13:13 finances (3) 49:7,9 foreseeable (2) 61:19
EBRD (1) 70:17 76:17 77:7 81:18 eventually (1) 125:21 127:8 128:14 119:24 51:13 61:20
economic (1) 30:9 107:10 110:4,5,19 everyone’s (1) 1:15 expensive (1) 58:15 failing (1) 149:24 financial (18) 35:12 forever (2) 16:7 71:4
economy (2) 87:11,13 121:2 157:17,19,23 evidence (87) 2:14,25 experience (2) 72:17 fails (1) 70:5 65:18 66:24 67:2,6 forged (1) 136:10
effect (13) 17:22 enormous (2) 36:11 3:16 7:15 8:9,22,25 104:9 failure (1) 41:2 86:18 87:2 88:6,19 forgive (3) 147:5,9,22
20:11 27:20 33:19 61:5 11:4 16:6,15 20:17 expert (32) 3:12 12:25 fair (43) 11:22,22 88:25 89:8,16,24 forgiven (2) 147:25
34:12 39:2 46:3 enquiries (3) 3:19 20:18 26:18,22 13:2,4 14:11,19 20:19 22:10 30:18 90:6,10,20,23 91:1 148:1
56:16 60:10 121:10 5:11 70:20 28:9,13,19,25 15:8,8,12,15,23 36:4 38:3 39:9 financially (1) 19:3 forgives (1) 147:22
121:21 122:6 enquiring (1) 158:1 29:15,25 31:12,13 20:12 21:24 26:18 43:18 44:19 52:16 Finans (3) 88:12 91:12 form (1) 81:16
126:16 ensure (5) 7:24 8:8 31:13 32:3,4,13,15 29:18,22 32:3,4,13 61:14 70:25 71:15 92:1 formally (2) 91:24
effectively (12) 20:15 70:25 133:19 34:1 35:3,7 36:9 32:15 35:6,25 36:1 78:11 79:12 82:10 find (21) 4:14 5:21 158:12
22:1 34:19 48:11 143:14 37:22 39:16,25 36:7 43:1 46:21 82:23 85:13 87:3 12:9 55:11 65:17 former (1) 91:18
86:22 87:1 90:11 enter (3) 99:13 42:15,22 43:1,22 52:1,4 55:14 57:8 90:16 94:16 95:3 71:16 94:25 106:6 formulating (1) 63:19
93:21 122:5 126:23 129:18 148:24 43:24 44:18 45:2,6 59:18 69:10 96:4,14,17,23 97:5 106:8 109:23 111:4 forthcoming (2) 53:17
145:16 155:3 entered (4) 77:21 45:7,16 46:22 47:8 expertise (3) 29:17 104:19 121:14,25 119:3,6,23 120:15 118:12
efficient (1) 13:11 127:23 128:1 51:25 55:1,10 56:3 35:24 63:10 129:5 131:12 128:20 129:13 forward (4) 1:17 75:4
effort (2) 119:6 161:9 150:10 56:8,11,12,18 58:5 experts (15) 3:8 13:9 138:17 144:5,13 131:25 159:11,12 128:22 139:6
efforts (5) 54:13 56:4 entering (1) 133:9 59:8,13,15,18,23 18:11 33:17,18,21 146:5,16,25 148:8 160:9 found (8) 51:21,21
119:3,9 120:4 enterprise (2) 104:9 59:24 60:15,22 35:1 40:7 43:10 150:23 151:6 156:6 finding (2) 56:17 93:19 106:10
EGRUL (1) 108:20 104:13 61:8,9,10,18 62:18 47:25 49:18 58:13 fairer (1) 18:25 128:9 120:11 139:9
either (14) 2:9 7:6,8 enterprises (2) 27:8 64:23 69:16,21 61:18 69:3 71:10 fairly (6) 42:13 45:9 findings (2) 52:9 70:9 157:25 160:11
31:8 42:7 45:18 120:8 71:18,18 72:10 explain (8) 52:21 49:4 58:9 156:13 fine (7) 1:19,20 2:18 founded (1) 86:14
62:19 64:7 94:14 enthusiasm (2) 15:22 76:9 79:23 106:23 70:16 110:8 121:3 161:1 62:4 101:4 110:19 four (1) 138:6
95:24 99:17 104:23 21:16 119:19 120:7,22 122:3 124:10 fairness (15) 7:24 8:6 160:25 four-chapter (1) 14:6
112:15 150:12 enthusiastic (2) 55:13 121:9 124:3,5 147:19,21 8:15 16:3 21:9 41:2 finish (3) 6:6 160:22 fourth (1) 32:15
electing (1) 57:9 55:21 129:1 137:6 140:22 explained (4) 36:7 42:2,2 47:1,1,2 161:9 fraction (1) 25:17
electronic (2) 6:17 entire (4) 13:6 59:1 158:9 71:13 125:12 126:3 54:2 57:24 60:16 finished (2) 77:3,9 frame (1) 156:16
160:9 82:23 152:1 evident (1) 21:17 explaining (3) 110:16 89:17 finishing (3) 160:21 France (2) 9:5 35:20
element (4) 8:1 15:20 entirely (3) 33:22 46:1 EWRG (1) 36:17 154:13 157:24 faith (1) 100:11 160:24 161:7 frankly (1) 15:20
16:6 79:23 60:12 exact (1) 156:11 explains (5) 55:7 false (1) 51:5 finite (1) 12:22 fraud (2) 25:13 29:24
elements (2) 18:9 entities (3) 108:21 exactly (10) 11:17 81:19 93:21 110:18 familiar (3) 36:19 83:7 firm (1) 90:4 free (1) 15:25
35:16 109:7,7 30:11 41:11,11 110:19 106:2 first (23) 1:5 7:5 9:5 freezing (2) 49:20
Elena (3) 74:12,20 entitled (3) 52:12 68:25 69:1 119:12 explanation (3) 54:15 family (4) 9:3,15 50:7 10:4 14:6 25:5 67:6
162:7 53:2 108:17 142:22 156:18 70:19 158:10 66:8 26:25 27:4 32:23 Friday (3) 2:5 3:3
Elias (1) 50:17 entitlement (1) 53:4 159:11 exploit (1) 91:5 far (29) 2:10 6:21 8:16 38:4,6 40:2,3 43:4 161:22
elicited (1) 9:1 entity (6) 33:6,8 exaggeration (1) exposure (1) 27:16 16:3 20:3 30:18 45:1 47:7 63:1,5,6 friend (1) 120:19
embarking (1) 21:25 144:14,15 147:3,4 65:19 extent (13) 13:3 33:23 35:8 48:14,25 58:6 68:16 136:3,21 friends (1) 160:19
emerged (1) 70:9 entrails (1) 58:18 examination (1) 71:17 34:10,11 56:2 69:7 80:23 82:5 142:3 front (2) 74:21,24
emergency (1) 9:13 Entrepreneurs (1) Examination-in-chie… 77:22,24 93:4 84:13,23 86:11 Firstly (2) 7:23 93:11 fuel (17) 109:2,7,8,11
emphasises (1) 14:1 91:24 74:17 162:8 102:6,22 103:1 89:2 97:7 113:10 fishing (3) 117:23,25 109:16,17 114:16
empire (1) 36:3 entries (1) 33:25 example (13) 12:21 135:21 154:11 113:16 114:10 118:4 115:2 117:18
employed (2) 82:19 entry (1) 108:6 29:5 35:11 37:6 extract (1) 124:15 115:5,10 117:19 fitted (1) 2:7 125:20 138:12,14
109:1 environmental (1) 40:20 53:5,7 56:11 extradition (2) 8:21 118:11 120:25 five (3) 1:7 142:1 138:18,21,22
employee (8) 99:17 138:16 97:21 99:10,22,23 8:23 122:9 152:20 159:2 160:3 139:22,24
104:25 105:2,3 envisage (3) 17:19 125:15 extreme (2) 39:5,8 fault (1) 41:3 fixed (1) 72:22 full (7) 39:17 42:25
106:3,4 109:2,4 52:20 161:13 examples (1) 120:16 extremely (3) 86:6,9 favour (3) 61:17 63:18 flip (1) 39:15 44:2 54:15 64:10
employees (10) 96:2 envisaged (4) 12:8 exceed (1) 18:20 87:25 69:6 floor (2) 65:20 67:4 66:4 74:18
96:6,16,18 97:13 16:9 130:9 148:21 exceptional (3) 21:21 favoured (1) 21:16 flow (5) 121:24 fully (4) 64:1 94:3
97:14 98:5,14,17 equal (3) 20:22 21:13 40:15 61:16 F February (4) 108:4 128:13 129:15 128:21 135:20
100:6 21:13 exceptions (2) 104:17 face (1) 72:15 150:8,11,16 130:1 132:11 functioning (1) 115:11
employees’ (1) 96:3 equality (2) 7:25 8:8 104:21 federal (3) 86:18,20 fluent (3) 4:5,6 76:14 functions (2) 155:5,8
faced (1) 53:24
encumbered (1) equally (4) 9:7 40:22 excess (3) 16:19,20 152:12 focus (1) 7:24 fund (1) 9:13
facie (1) 58:8
131:21 66:7 131:7 149:13 feel (7) 24:6 36:6 focused (1) 59:4 funded (3) 9:20 13:17
facilitate (1) 63:24
encumbrance (6) equipment (2) 5:22 exchange (2) 63:8 45:11,24 54:2 71:4 follow (3) 89:1 108:25 17:22
facilities (2) 159:3,9
132:4,16,17,20,24 6:17 157:13 71:19 131:5 funding (7) 13:12 14:3
facility (1) 64:6
133:23 equity (1) 103:21 exciting (1) 4:14 feeling (1) 5:24 follow-on (2) 145:9,10 49:23 55:7 57:15
facing (1) 38:23
endeavour (1) 64:16 especially (3) 41:17 exclude (2) 32:12 feels (3) 56:2,15 61:13 followed (1) 116:22 62:25 70:16
fact (38) 27:6,7,22,22
endeavouring (1) 67:1 122:2 42:22 fees (1) 57:8 following (14) 28:20 funds (10) 38:25 39:3
30:21 33:20 39:25
110:8 espoused (1) 59:21 exclusively (2) 90:2 felt (3) 1:13 58:8 45:1 58:3 71:6 44:1 49:20 51:3,7
46:16 51:1,3 53:4,4
endorse (1) 79:22 essential (1) 72:4 144:8 63:15 88:24 91:17 95:7 51:19,20 105:22
70:22 72:15,24,25
enforce (4) 9:8 137:1 essentially (7) 12:7,13 excuse (1) 14:19 fiction (1) 101:16 126:10 141:12 144:8
90:7 92:10 97:15
137:5 142:24 88:22 142:23 executed (1) 136:8 fide (2) 145:17,21 144:10 155:21 further (13) 8:23 9:14
98:18,20 99:25
enforced (2) 87:20 144:11 152:10 execution (1) 145:6 Fifthly (1) 34:4 156:4 157:1 160:22 11:20 35:2 72:18

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

167

April 14, 2016 Day 38

89:15 108:14 111:19 124:21 142:15 147:19,21 156:5

future (4) 22:9 51:18 61:19 66:9

G

gambling (2) 15:19,20 gantry (2) 136:4,9 gap (2) 70:16 157:4

Gatchinsky (1) 136:16 gather (1) 1:9

gauge (1) 12:17 Gavrilov (1) 104:25 general (21) 7:20 80:8

83:21 84:13 86:1 89:4 95:4 96:8,25 97:3,22 98:3,13 99:10 104:18 105:13 108:19,24 118:15 138:7 154:22

generally (9) 27:24 37:24 66:11 77:12 79:4 80:1 96:2 97:12 156:12

generate (7) 108:9 128:13 129:15 130:1,2,19 131:17

generating (1) 25:4 generis (1) 127:12 gentleman (4) 86:15

105:7,12,24

gentleman’s (1)

100:12 genuine (3) 133:14

134:19 135:10 genuinely (1) 72:19

getting (2) 17:18 55:21

gift (1) 147:23 gifted (1) 118:6 gifts (1) 147:24

give (17) 12:10 14:21 20:8 28:23 29:15 32:17 36:21 46:8 52:21 60:25 64:23 65:9,15 74:9,18 133:20 155:14

given (24) 11:4 12:14 18:13 19:18 20:8 20:17 27:5 28:19 40:23 41:22 43:2 45:2 47:8,9 54:16 57:14 59:17 60:18 76:9 120:7,22 136:3 143:21 160:5

gives (3) 11:19 59:25 97:20

giving (2) 35:6 124:4 Gladyshev (4) 1:19

3:10 4:4,6

global (3) 90:3 91:14 99:4

globe (1) 26:8

go (44) 23:4,8,22,22 24:5 28:6 32:25 35:17 39:8 40:5 44:24 47:23 48:17 48:24 49:11 58:18 61:1,14 62:1,4 78:15 79:17 82:5,7 88:8,15 93:16 102:17,24 106:5 107:3 109:22 120:13,16 121:11 121:16 124:6,8,11

128:23 154:7 157:15,16 158:5

goes (21) 27:2,4,8,11 27:13,17 28:2,9 30:18 31:12,13,14 32:5,7,15 36:9 37:22 39:25 42:18 43:2,4

going (58) 21:1 25:20 25:25 28:6,6,7 29:18,22 31:8 33:23 38:19 40:8 41:12 45:10 46:18 47:18,25,25 48:2,4 48:6 49:2 53:10,11 53:24 55:3,5 56:13 60:5,17 61:5,22 62:5,23 63:12,17 65:5,10 68:21,24 74:11 88:11 89:21 99:7 102:24 128:22 130:2,17,18,19 131:16,18 132:1,8 147:5 149:10,11 154:9

good (13) 1:4 3:25 6:21 74:4 75:14 100:11 101:18 137:9 160:1,4,6,15 160:16

goodwill (1) 36:4 governance (3) 87:7

87:20,23 government (3) 86:12

86:23 90:15

governmental (1)

88:18 grab (1) 26:9 grand (1) 32:9

grapevine (1) 73:10 grapple (2) 63:9,10 grappling (1) 46:6 grasp (1) 63:16 grateful (13) 6:9 66:20

71:22 72:5,20 73:3 73:15,20,21 93:18 93:20 120:12 124:11

great (4) 25:11 70:17 92:25 119:11

greatest (2) 25:9 50:8 grip (1) 1:23

groping (1) 19:15 gross (1) 134:2 grotesquely (1) 70:10 ground (3) 12:10 52:2

116:14 group (21) 23:12

25:17 34:11 35:14 82:22,23 83:1,2 84:20,23,24,25 91:17 93:10,21 94:6 95:5 106:23 109:8 134:17,25

group’s (1) 94:1 growth (1) 103:23 Guadeloupe (1) 65:25 guarantee (2) 18:21

34:7

guaranteed (2) 34:10 132:11

guarantees (4) 33:16 34:12,23 69:8 guarantor (1) 135:13 Gubko (2) 85:17,18

guess (1) 116:7 guesstimate (2) 71:7

71:8

guide (1) 41:7

Gunard (13) 120:8,23 121:1,11,25 122:4 122:14 125:15 127:24 129:3,21 130:4,10

Gunard’s (2) 120:17

130:5 guns (1) 52:24

Guz (16) 123:15 124:5 124:16,18 125:5,8 125:10,12,25 154:18 155:6,10 157:13,21,24 158:22

Guz’s (2) 124:3,5

H

half (5) 25:4 46:9 106:13 128:10 161:11

hallmarks (1) 35:8 hand (1) 5:17 handed (1) 77:24 hands (5) 105:20

141:9 143:16 156:8 158:21

haphazard (1) 1:24 happen (4) 72:8 77:19

126:4 157:2 happened (12) 57:20

57:22 73:5 77:14 84:24 100:20 117:11 128:3 149:1 149:16,18 153:14

happening (2) 48:9 53:12

happens (4) 46:24 60:22 83:9 100:7

happenstance (1)

148:25

happy (2) 48:6 56:2 hard (1) 85:14

head (6) 43:18 89:14 129:23 132:2 154:19,21

headed (1) 23:5 headings (1) 24:9 headphones (1)

137:17 hear (1) 70:15

heard (3) 8:21 54:10 83:8

hearing (4) 7:1 8:6 38:6 49:15 hearings (1) 49:12 hears (1) 101:17

heart (1) 27:9

held (8) 80:23 81:4,23 94:14 99:25 134:10 134:14 137:2

help (3) 38:17 64:16 65:8

helpful (5) 3:8,14,25 13:18 74:8

helpfully (3) 36:6,15

37:12 helps (1) 93:1

hierarchical (1) 154:24 hierarchy (2) 84:5

154:17

High (1) 46:2 higher (2) 33:10

153:10 highlighted (1) 49:14 highly (2) 98:17 128:6

HILDYARD (171) 1:4 1:13,22 2:19,24 3:8 3:11,14,17,25 4:9

4:15,18,22 5:1,5,24 6:2,9,13,23 7:11,19 9:25 10:13,20,25 11:16 12:1,15,17 14:1,17 15:1,7,17 16:4,18,23 17:6,16 17:25 18:16,24 19:10,15,22,25 20:10,19,25 21:8 21:15 22:7,12,14 23:7 24:13 25:15 25:24 30:1,5,7 33:17 34:15,23,25 35:21 36:17,25 37:2,16,25 39:1,14 40:3,5,11,21 41:13 41:19 42:5,10,17 42:25 43:9,14 44:5 44:12 45:7,18,24 46:15 47:11,13,16 47:18,24 48:12,19 48:22 50:10,17 51:6,9 52:5,16 53:2 53:13 54:4,14,22 55:23 56:22,25 58:7 59:10,16 60:18 61:12,20 62:21 63:6,14 64:17,22 65:4,9,13 65:17 66:22 67:13 68:11,15 70:7 71:23 72:6,11,22 73:7,10,16,22 74:4 74:8,15 101:2,5,11 101:14,18 102:9,13 102:17,21 103:5 127:14,20 128:25 137:11,18 148:21 149:5,20 155:18 160:1,8,14,16 161:1,12

hiring (1) 90:10 historical (1) 151:13 history (3) 87:13

89:21 92:18 hit (1) 57:19

hold (11) 67:24 71:4 81:10 95:23 98:13 99:8,11 100:7 103:9 151:2,24

holder (2) 95:6 134:22 holding (10) 82:3,8,11 95:2 98:6 134:16 134:20,24 135:14

139:25 holds (1) 117:25 holiday (5) 2:1,19

48:24 49:2 66:4 holidays (1) 65:23 home (3) 9:3,15 50:7 honest (3) 68:16

90:22 151:22 honour (2) 100:18,20 hope (9) 3:13 25:21

53:23 70:22 74:16 74:21 85:24 106:7 111:13

hoped (1) 19:13 hoping (1) 120:15 horse (1) 69:9 hostile (1) 15:11 hot-tubbing (2) 58:11

59:4

hour (4) 2:6 64:5

161:2,11 housekeeping (4) 1:3

1:10 161:5 162:3 huge (5) 24:23 42:14

60:9,9 86:10

hundreds (1) 94:8 hurdle (2) 48:22 63:1 hurry (1) 40:22 hypothetical (1)

150:25 hypothetically (1)

121:20

I

I22/29/26 (1) 49:6 I22/29/28 (1) 49:11 I22/29/29 (1) 49:15 I22/29/30 (2) 50:12

50:14

I25/39/31 (1) 23:4 I25/39/32 (2) 22:20

23:8

I25/39/74 (1) 23:23 I25/39/75 (1) 23:24 I25/39/92 (1) 24:7 I27/43/39 (1) 37:13 idea (3) 26:16 123:9

133:12 identified (11) 25:19

27:13 32:23 33:2 36:15 38:20 58:12 58:16 72:4,18 125:5

identifies (4) 33:10 35:4 37:19 50:14

identify (5) 38:16 59:16 75:1 128:14 132:5

identifying (1) 124:18

IFRS (3) 35:21,25 36:8 ignorant (1) 150:21 ignore (1) 131:10

Igor (4) 86:15 91:13 91:21 105:24 illustrative (1) 65:22 illustratively (1) 67:2

imagine (3) 15:12 20:5 140:11 immediate (1) 22:9 immediately (5) 5:6,9

53:20 157:3 160:3 impact (2) 71:12

73:19 impacted (1) 7:2 impecuniosity (1)

62:24

implement (1) 104:12 implication (2) 14:22

27:24

implicit (2) 14:18 40:24

important (17) 8:4

14:2 17:14 26:4,12 35:6,16 39:10,11 39:12 41:22 54:20 55:3 64:23 68:3 130:15 161:15

importantly (1)

143:15 imposition (2) 19:4

55:4

impossible (4) 12:18 117:5 120:6 142:7 impression (2) 11:19

55:11 improved (1) 19:2 inaccurate (3) 50:10

50:11 108:13

inadvisable (1) 7:23 inappropriate (3) 10:9

49:1 70:10

inaudible (2) 17:17

102:14

incapable (1) 117:15 incestuous (1) 25:16 include (2) 32:17

69:25 included (1) 84:20 includes (1) 7:25 including (5) 13:1

27:12,25 67:7 152:17

income (9) 28:10,15 89:23 121:11,16,24 126:25 127:1 130:11

inconsistency (1)

59:21 inconsistent (1) 30:10 inconvenient (1)

110:13 incorporate (1) 9:23 incorrect (3) 9:17

50:11,16 increase (1) 104:7 incremental (4) 62:10

63:3 64:13 66:16 incrementally (3)

45:12 70:24 71:5 incurred (1) 121:17 indebtedness (2)

18:22 133:21 independent (8) 82:9

91:2 111:4 127:15 134:22 150:22 151:11 155:1

independently (2)

90:24 155:4

INDEX (1) 162:1 indicate (2) 44:20

70:12

indicated (7) 1:8 2:17 10:16 74:14 123:4 141:3 142:12

indicates (2) 35:12 66:2

indications (2) 8:24 9:6

indicatively (1) 6:25

Industrialists (1)

91:24 inequality (2) 22:5

69:1

inevitable (2) 66:19 72:16

infer (4) 25:12 29:16 29:24 32:8

inferring (1) 97:24 influence (2) 95:17

104:7 information (3) 35:12

80:5 112:9

infrastructure (2) 6:17

70:18

Initially (1) 143:3 initiate (1) 148:19 injured (1) 10:20 inputs (1) 31:11 inscription (1) 159:20 inside (1) 89:6 insofar (2) 68:23 69:4 insolvent (1) 27:16 instance (7) 9:5 80:14

96:25 99:8,24 128:10 141:17 institute (1) 90:6

institution (1) 88:19 instructed (1) 13:10 instructions (2) 28:21

81:12

insurance (13) 23:16 26:23 34:5,10,13

34:15,17,20 35:3 67:7,24 78:15 106:18

Insurance’s (2) 32:24 33:4

intend (2) 70:22 161:1 intended (4) 11:1

23:11 125:19 133:17

intensive (1) 103:23 intention (1) 133:25 intentions (1) 133:9 interest (7) 81:11

110:9,25 111:2 117:25 118:3 119:16

interested (18) 89:16 90:3 104:5 106:15 110:10,21 111:5,11 111:23 114:12 117:1 119:20 120:5 127:3,7,21 128:9 144:4

interests (1) 82:12 interim (3) 18:5,14

20:6 intermediate (1)

72:14 interpreted (2) 74:13

76:20 interpreter (4) 90:25

106:12,12,16

interpreters (5) 3:24

4:1,2,4,17

interrelationship (1)

154:24 interrupt (2) 102:9

124:2 interrupted (1) 2:4 interrupting (1) 40:21 intertwining (1) 25:21 interview (1) 92:1 intractable (1) 64:14 introduced (2) 87:6

88:18

invest (6) 101:21,22 102:2,4 103:23 156:24

investee (2) 101:22 103:25

investigate (1) 73:5 investing (2) 115:3

117:20 investment (20) 83:10

86:3,12 87:11,15 88:2 93:12,13,15 102:2 103:20 104:11,15 109:12 109:12 115:11,13 117:12,19 132:10

investments (2)

103:21 104:5

investor (3) 30:16

101:23 132:8 invisible (1) 101:13 invite (3) 7:7,14

158:14

invoices (2) 130:23,25 involve (1) 33:24 involved (12) 66:10

77:21 78:25,25 79:3 92:17 93:2 100:16 114:25 117:17 155:10 156:3

involvement (5) 78:9 78:22 120:22,24 154:11

involving (6) 25:17

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

168

April 14, 2016 Day 38

33:5 77:13 78:13 92:12 155:11

iron (1) 66:12 irreducible (2) 18:7,14 irrelevant (1) 140:15 irrespective (1) 147:3 issue (13) 8:16 16:12

21:19 51:11 53:20 56:19 58:1,15 60:16 63:25 68:12 73:2 88:23

issued (1) 58:16 issues (16) 16:11

25:21 28:17 29:22 32:24 36:2,4,10 37:9,21,23 38:7 45:4 58:17 59:5,6

item (1) 49:15 items (1) 159:10

J

jam (3) 1:7 54:22 72:21
job (5) 11:12 69:2,22 96:3 118:17

joined (2) 83:12 84:24 joint (2) 104:9,12 Joint-Stock (1) 84:11 judge (1) 47:4 judgment (2) 65:15

72:12

judicial (3) 61:6 73:10 136:6

July (9) 108:21 112:3 112:5 113:5,15,19 113:25 114:4 137:22

jump (1) 46:13 jumped (1) 46:15 jumping (1) 58:6 June (1) 157:1 junior (1) 37:12 jurisdiction (2) 42:25

49:21

justice (174) 1:4,13,22 2:19,24 3:8,11,14 3:17,25 4:9,15,18 4:22 5:1,5,24 6:2,9 6:13,23 7:11,19 9:25 10:13,20,25 11:16 12:1,15,17 14:1,17 15:1,7,17 16:4,18,23 17:6,16 17:25 18:16,24 19:10,15,22,25 20:10,19,25 21:8 21:15 22:7,12,14 23:7 24:13 25:15 25:24 30:1,5,7 33:17 34:15,23,25 35:21 36:17,25 37:2,16,25 39:1,14 40:3,5,11,21 41:13 41:19 42:5,10,17 42:25 43:9,14 44:5 44:12 45:7,18,24 46:15 47:2,11,13 47:16,18,24 48:12 48:19,22 50:10,17 50:17 51:6,9 52:5 52:16 53:2,13 54:4 54:14,22 55:23 56:22,25 58:7 59:10,16 60:18 61:12,20 62:4,21 63:6,14 64:17,22 65:4,9,13,17 66:22 67:13 68:11,15

70:7 71:23 72:6,11 72:22 73:7,10,16 73:22 74:4,8,15 101:2,5,11,14,18 102:9,13,17,21 103:5 127:14,20 128:25 137:11,18 148:21 149:5,20 155:18 160:1,8,14 160:16 161:1,12

justification (1) 54:24 justified (1) 97:24

K

Kalinin (2) 97:22 98:2 keep (7) 9:13 42:15
51:18 69:23 116:1 128:10 160:14

kept (1) 13:9 Khortitsa (7) 94:23

97:1,4,7 99:9,24,25

Khortitsa’s (2) 97:9,10 kicked (1) 127:21 kind (7) 6:19 48:18

49:21 65:21 95:8 116:6 127:12

knew (4) 44:1 67:25 83:25 84:9

know (83) 2:15 3:18 3:18,23 4:15 6:13 9:7 12:19 14:5 21:8 36:23 38:11 40:21 42:7 45:24 48:12 53:5,7,8,10 54:1 56:10 59:18,19 62:13,22 63:14 67:13 73:10,16,18 77:12,17,20 78:4,5 78:6,7,19,23 80:25 81:2,23 82:13,15 83:8,13,23 84:7,17 85:6,22 88:4 89:19 90:13 94:11 100:6 100:8 101:11 104:4 105:11,15,21,25 106:1 107:8 108:7 109:4 112:21 113:10,14,16 114:10 117:19 118:2,8 131:16 132:8 140:13,24,24 152:24 155:13

knowing (1) 98:12 knowledge (17) 50:13

78:2 80:11,19 82:9 85:10 87:17 93:25 94:7 104:15 110:22 114:7,9 118:9 140:6,20 155:10

known (7) 67:10 78:10 88:5 90:18 92:4 112:21 125:23

knows (7) 14:25 23:21 25:11 29:12 33:7 34:9 72:23

Kontur (3) 109:6,9

112:12

Kosova (4) 157:14,21

158:7,22

Kostikov (10) 86:15 86:17 87:5 88:18 90:12,23,25 91:13 91:21 92:6

Kostikov’s (7) 87:8,14 87:19,22 88:5 90:14,20

L

L8/43/131 (1) 38:12 lessees (2) 122:16 144:14,15,17 124:2 127:19,23 Malysheva (7) 75:24
L8/43/132 (1) 38:13 126:20 148:19 151:20 137:9 149:2,19,21 84:10,17 85:3
L8/43/133 (1) 38:14 lest (1) 1:15 located (3) 143:4 155:17 157:7 92:20 123:4,4
lack (3) 35:23 49:13 Lestovkin (2) 85:25 158:1,13 159:24 160:12,18 man (1) 11:3
55:7 86:3 logic (1) 126:10 161:4 162:5 manageable (1)
ladder (3) 16:4 60:19 let’s (6) 46:21 124:11 logical (3) 93:8 149:4 Lord’s (1) 5:21 126:13
60:19 150:25 151:1 160:6 Lordship (90) 1:5 3:4 management (5) 55:4
lag (1) 156:1 161:12,13 logistics (2) 3:15 6:7 7:6,13 8:1,21 11:7 86:1 104:12 105:14
land (24) 60:11 letter (17) 10:1,4,5,5 London (1) 12:15 16:13,16,21 18:7 108:15
135:25 136:12,12 10:11,13,21 11:6 long (14) 61:7,20 19:6 20:16,16,24 managers (3) 83:20
136:16 140:3,14,23 11:19 21:17 49:6,8 62:16,18,18 128:16 22:16,18,22 23:5,9 85:13 91:18
141:9,13,19 142:5 52:17 53:14,17 130:19 131:17 23:21 24:3,6,8,16 managing (1) 95:8
142:12 143:4,8 141:22 159:2 132:6,8,11 156:10 25:10 28:23 29:1 mandatory (1) 64:5
153:15,15,25 154:7 letting (2) 47:13,13 156:11 160:20 29:12 32:18,20,22 March (4) 80:16
155:24 158:2,13 level (1) 76:15 longer (4) 2:15,18 33:1,6,12,15 34:9 107:24 134:8,8
159:4,17 liability (16) 16:13,16 156:25 161:6 34:18 35:18 36:6 Marine (3) 23:12
large (10) 5:8 79:2,9 16:18 24:21 25:23 look (27) 18:8,10 36:14,18,19,21,22 134:17,25
86:11 88:16 92:24 27:10 31:6,15,17 19:16 26:17 38:21 36:23 37:4,17,18 Maritime (2) 143:24
93:22 94:4 104:16 32:7 36:10,13 37:8 43:5 51:14 70:17 38:23 39:20 44:7,9 144:7
128:14 37:23 40:1 147:7 76:22 79:14 80:14 45:14 46:4,6 47:3,8 marked (2) 10:6
larger (1) 117:23 liable (5) 147:10,14,20 94:19 96:12,13 47:22 48:10,17 102:14
late (3) 75:15 83:17 147:25 148:2 103:8 109:18 49:5,10,19 50:3,23 market (14) 44:20
161:3 liaise (2) 5:20 6:4 118:12,14,19 120:1 51:13,14,25 54:17 86:13 88:2,24
latest (1) 17:18 liberty (1) 9:15 120:21 122:16 56:2,5,9,14,15,15 89:16 90:11 91:21
Latin (1) 107:11 licences (1) 87:16 141:20 151:21 57:21 58:2 60:8 111:15 127:6 128:6
law (13) 1:12,18 2:13 licensed (1) 88:25 152:7,13 157:14 61:13,14 62:11 128:6 132:17,24
3:23 4:13 6:12 8:8 life (9) 51:12 53:8 looked (5) 36:22 64:15 67:3 69:10 133:6
112:8 132:2 142:16 59:25 60:2,3,4,4 117:19,20 118:24 70:2 72:9 73:21 marketing (2) 83:12
147:24 156:15 67:7,24 118:24 137:15,16 85:1
159:18 light (3) 32:14 55:9 looking (14) 30:22 Lordship’s (10) 33:23 markets (4) 86:19
lawful (1) 151:22 69:19 58:8 79:15 80:25 34:2 39:22 44:24 87:2 92:5 126:20
lawyer (2) 145:14,16 liked (1) 133:3 93:17 111:5 116:21 45:17 50:20 55:4 marking (1) 22:25
lawyers (4) 68:7 155:3 limb (1) 124:18 122:2,12 127:8 61:4 62:12 69:15 Marsal (2) 10:8 14:24
156:6 158:10 limit (4) 7:8,15 18:18 128:14 138:24 lose (2) 7:24 22:3 Martinique (2) 66:1,4
lazy (1) 68:9 154:10 139:1 157:11 loss (7) 17:10 23:25 Maslennikov (4)
Leaflet (1) 37:7 limited (14) 8:20 looks (5) 29:5,19 23:25 24:15 31:1,1 105:8,10,11 138:7
leap (1) 70:23 13:15 58:14 64:9 30:23 37:18 77:11 32:6 massive (1) 8:7
learned (4) 37:12 66:17 71:20,25 Lord (194) 1:9 2:12,22 losses (3) 24:4 28:5 match (1) 65:8
119:15 120:18 72:18 73:1 120:9 3:1,7,10,15 4:12,16 30:13 material (5) 30:21
160:19 150:15,17 151:9,15 4:21,25 5:3,20 6:1 lost (3) 9:4 90:19 50:25 55:4 56:17
lease (36) 5:17 120:8 line (9) 22:7 38:12,14 6:4 7:4 9:23 10:16 119:16 129:13
120:23,25 121:4 44:17 49:19 102:21 10:23 11:6 13:8 lot (17) 7:17 9:21 matter (33) 2:3 7:1
122:4,6,7,15,17,23 116:24 124:20 14:8 15:9,19 16:8 14:15 30:20 54:9 20:2 21:11 24:2
123:5,16,21 125:16 125:14 17:24 19:5,24 58:7 62:5 72:13 26:20 31:23 32:12
126:5,18 127:9,18 lines (2) 116:11 20:13,22 21:5,6,23 76:19 85:11 87:15 33:21 43:4 48:14
127:24 128:3,6 141:17 22:10,13,14,15,16 92:8,11,16 119:6 52:19 53:4,18
129:2,4,18,20,21 link (3) 28:18 90:22 22:18 23:8 24:15 138:18 153:1 54:17 56:5,14 57:7
129:23 130:22 95:11 24:15,18 25:20,20 lots (1) 128:7 62:15,17 73:17
131:21 132:1,2,22 linked (1) 90:20 25:25 29:22 30:2,2 LPK (2) 78:17,19 79:5 95:16 96:21
133:10,25 153:24 liquid (1) 33:3 30:6,11,11 31:24 Luga (1) 117:21 100:2 101:16
lease-related (1) liquidated (1) 28:8 33:22,22 34:16,16 Lukina (1) 136:8 110:24 122:3 123:4
133:23 list (4) 21:22 106:22 34:24 35:2,22 36:9 lunch (1) 100:24 129:3 131:6,10
leased (3) 121:10,20 107:17 152:13 36:18,18 37:1,4,13 Luncheon (1) 101:9 161:17
126:7 listed (2) 141:25 37:17 38:3,3,15 luxurious (1) 66:11 matters (11) 11:13
leases (4) 128:1,19 142:2 39:5,18,18 40:4,4,8 luxury (2) 68:3,7 32:16 54:19 55:1
131:17 132:3 lists (4) 49:12 106:19 40:8,13,13 41:11 lying (2) 67:22 116:9 69:14 78:23 79:24
leasing (5) 120:17 152:22 158:4 41:18 42:4,9,9,12 83:11 90:2,3 155:4
121:16 123:11,23 literally (1) 9:22 42:12,24 43:7,7,10 M maximise (1) 141:6
153:25 litigant (1) 67:17 44:4,4,7,14,24 mafia (1) 93:7 maximum (2) 130:21
least-bad (1) 43:16 litigants (2) 51:17 45:13,13,23 46:4,4 131:1
Magnum (3) 38:11
leave (4) 5:14 6:14,16 68:6 46:18,18 47:12,15 mean (35) 12:17 13:7
106:8 159:25
11:21 litigation (3) 15:21 47:17,20,20 48:5,5 15:8 17:17 21:2
main (7) 83:1 84:25
led (2) 83:4 117:10 22:1 57:17 48:12,16,21 49:5 30:5 41:20 46:16
103:20 129:20
left (9) 8:10 37:10 little (10) 11:8 17:18 50:8,11,17,19,19 51:19 58:23 59:18
141:19 143:17,21
51:12 55:9,10 19:17 118:6 125:13 51:8,8,10 52:7,7,23 70:9 76:13 87:22
maintain (2) 25:18
84:25 89:14 90:23 127:15 137:20 53:6,6 54:2,5,17,23 94:19 96:2 102:8
91:22
90:25 147:19,21 161:6 56:1,1,23 57:2,13 112:24 118:5,6
major (7) 87:13,21
legal (16) 82:21,22 live (3) 45:6 56:8 76:9 57:25 59:6,6,11,24 128:19 129:19,20
88:1,5 89:7,23
83:3,4,11,14 90:1 living (2) 66:10 111:13 59:24 60:20,20 129:22 130:14,24
92:11
101:16 108:21 LLC (14) 23:13,15,16 61:13 62:11 63:5 133:24 135:4,16
making (11) 50:23
118:24 123:18 33:6 80:22 109:6,9 63:13 64:15,21 140:8,9 147:19,21
59:7 67:19 70:9
144:14,15 154:19 121:12,20,24 65:1,1,5,12,12,16 148:9 156:7
79:9,11 93:9 97:3
154:21 155:5 134:20 135:5 66:20 67:16 68:12 meaning (1) 101:21
120:3 123:25
legislation (1) 143:3 153:21,23 68:12,15,20 71:22 means (7) 5:12 45:9
146:13
lend (1) 54:21 loan (22) 69:24 134:4 72:5,9,20 73:3,11 72:7 77:18 78:25
Maleev (4) 80:21 81:4
lenders (1) 70:14 134:6,23 135:8,24 73:15,15,20 74:1,9 103:25 111:22
81:8,10
Leonteva (1) 158:8 136:2,15,22 140:4 74:11 100:23 101:4 meant (6) 1:10 2:22
Maloy (3) 106:21
lessee (2) 127:15 142:24,24 143:12 101:13 102:20 10:11 124:8,12
107:6 108:22
132:6 143:14,19,20,24 103:1 110:3 120:19 149:2

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

169

April 14, 2016 Day 38

measure (1) 122:17 mechanism (2) 81:14
104:12 media (1) 8:25 medical (1) 99:1

meet (2) 31:25 160:17 memory (9) 10:15

17:2 19:19 128:17 136:5 149:24 152:4 153:3,24

men (1) 53:2 mention (3) 82:16

119:21 120:3 mentioned (6) 77:17

85:19 119:1 126:11 137:19 140:2

message (1) 10:25 met (1) 83:24 middle (2) 12:9 52:2 Mikhail (4) 82:12,13

82:15 83:19

Millard (4) 53:10 55:12 60:15 68:2

Millard’s (1) 69:2 million (17) 16:19,21

17:3,7 19:11,12,21 24:12 32:1 33:10 70:16 136:6 140:16 140:18 152:5,6 153:11

Milner (5) 14:15 51:21 51:22 68:8,9

mind (15) 8:18 13:9 17:7 19:25 39:23 45:1 62:21 63:2 100:23 103:17 114:15,18,19 147:23 160:9

minded (1) 19:6 minimal (1) 122:18 minimum (5) 18:7,14

70:25 130:21 131:2 minister (1) 86:23 ministerial (1) 86:22 minority (1) 101:22 minus (1) 130:4 minute (1) 155:14 minutes (6) 1:7 73:22

100:24,25 137:11 160:3

mischaracterised (2)

68:14,14 misled (1) 67:21 misrepresenting (1)

67:9

missing (2) 115:22

116:2

misspoke (3) 2:22 89:13 90:25

misspoken (1) 89:12 mistaken (4) 79:21

85:24 152:18 158:9 mistakes (2) 108:9,10 misunderstood (1)

48:16

model (3) 28:13 31:3 31:4

modelling (2) 30:15 30:20

modus (1) 94:1 moment (10) 3:6

10:18 51:20 73:13 122:4,6,14 126:17 127:17 137:9

Monday (4) 160:22,25 161:7,14

money (18) 12:22 13:6,11,23 16:24 22:3 33:14 46:8,9

51:18,21 68:2 Nefte-Oil (22) 110:17 obviously (52) 7:6,9 operations (3) 113:12
118:6 122:20 130:2 111:9,22 138:9,10 7:14 9:20 10:23 113:14,17
130:18 131:16 138:17,20,21 139:4 13:17 15:9,13 20:7 operator (1) 106:8
144:2 139:10,22,25 21:21 22:16 28:2 opine (1) 125:10
monies (1) 57:16 145:17,21 149:22 30:22 31:23 35:17 opines (1) 34:19
month (4) 128:10,11 152:2,12 155:22 36:2 39:21 43:12 opinion (4) 28:16
129:8 156:25 156:5,19,22,23 49:6 54:18 56:5,6 30:25 56:16 158:7
monthly (2) 131:8,9 negative (1) 36:4 56:13 57:15,16 opportunistically (2)
months (5) 20:6,8 negotiations (4) 59:12,24 64:16 148:17 149:17
61:9 62:6 128:5 119:13,13,18,22 65:2,8 68:21 69:18 opportunity (1) 52:21
moral (1) 19:2 neither (1) 20:12 69:24 75:14 79:8 opposed (4) 56:12
morning (3) 1:4 74:7 net (1) 66:2 80:1 87:10 93:1 61:25 121:11
75:14 nettle (1) 63:17 107:8,10 108:3 131:11
Morskoy (16) 134:4,6 neutrally (1) 38:2 109:10 111:5 opposite (1) 7:14
134:7 135:9,24 never (17) 4:15 5:17 131:19 134:10 Option (1) 57:6
136:2 140:4,8 14:25 41:23 81:15 138:11 139:10 options (7) 40:2 56:20
141:24 142:23 85:23 94:6 100:20 146:1,7 153:16 57:3 114:21 117:7
143:14 145:3 100:21,21 105:10 156:3 157:15 117:11 139:13
148:19 149:8 150:7 119:13 123:12,14 occasion (1) 62:9 oral (10) 7:1 12:4 45:2
151:20 127:10 132:22 occasions (6) 4:13 8:2 45:6 47:8 58:5
mortgage (5) 137:5 140:20 35:23 96:3 100:18 63:15 65:15 71:15
140:18 143:7 nevertheless (2) 8:4 108:10 100:2
158:11 159:21 144:24 occupies (1) 96:20 orally (2) 29:15 99:21
mortgaged (2) 143:5,5 Nevskaya (1) 86:1 occupy (1) 96:7 order (13) 9:8 18:6,14
mother (1) 137:3 new (5) 87:6,19 93:6 occurred (1) 53:5 25:12 41:7 49:21
motive (1) 27:2 105:12 155:24 odd (1) 119:17 62:4 67:6 115:10
move (4) 42:1,21 48:7 newcomer (1) 75:15 oddity (1) 151:3 127:8 131:14 145:6
61:3 Nice (2) 54:22 73:6 offer (5) 11:21 12:3 145:7
moved (3) 34:8 83:9 nilly (1) 141:15 119:16 125:11 orders (1) 49:22
84:25 nominal (6) 95:23 150:5 ordinary (1) 47:5
movements (1) 91:15 96:4,19 97:2 98:15 offered (3) 29:13 organise (1) 149:14
moves (2) 9:7 73:17 99:16 51:22 64:6 organised (5) 79:8
moving (2) 27:15 nominated (1) 105:16 office (3) 83:21 87:4 93:10 145:25 148:6
73:11 nominee (6) 81:21 89:14 149:9
Moyke (3) 106:21 82:4,9,10 95:3 official (1) 87:1 orientation (1) 33:24
107:7 108:22 99:11 officials (1) 44:2 original (1) 76:12
mustn’t (2) 10:20 nominees (1) 94:14 offshore (4) 94:15 originally (2) 136:3
101:5 nomineeship (1) 99:7 95:24 150:14 145:2
mutated (1) 26:5 non (1) 145:15 151:13 originals (2) 154:7,8
mutual (2) 92:19 nonsense (1) 54:11 Oh (2) 48:21 137:18 orthodox (3) 40:16
100:12 normal (6) 40:10 oil (5) 138:10,12,14 46:20,20
47:21,24 57:5 139:16,19 Oslo (3) 23:12 134:17
N 59:12 161:8 okay (5) 4:15 12:1 134:25
name (11) 74:19 83:7 normally (2) 46:24 49:1 73:7 106:16 ought (1) 57:4
160:25 old (1) 61:1 outcome (1) 145:22
83:8 95:1 99:2,2,16
nose-dived (1) 147:8 OMG (19) 9:9 24:25 outside (7) 35:14
105:25 106:1
note (9) 22:17 28:22 27:12 28:4,5 32:16 52:14 126:15 153:6
108:18 118:17
29:2 36:16 38:17 34:5,11,20 35:14 153:12,15,19
names (1) 97:21
52:7,9 54:5 73:13 35:18 77:14,21 outsider (1) 150:21
narrow (1) 12:3
notes (3) 33:5,11,21 78:9,24 113:25 outsiders (1) 133:14
natural (1) 12:13
notice (2) 128:4 119:3 124:24 outstanding (3) 59:17
nature (2) 26:25 80:8
145:18 133:21 146:10 148:18
near (2) 64:14 66:18
notices (1) 145:24 OMG’s (2) 36:3 over-striking (1) 23:1
nearer (1) 88:17
notional (1) 30:15 123:18 overall (6) 24:6 25:4
necessarily (5) 31:2
notionally (1) 116:24 OMGP’ (1) 23:13 35:7 41:1 70:19
52:15 59:8 95:19
notwithstanding (2) once (21) 77:7 90:5 79:5
114:17
33:8 144:15 90:23,25 91:25 overlap (3) 29:20
necessary (11) 10:7
novel (1) 62:1 93:5 95:13 110:17 36:13,15
10:17 14:20 42:23
November (1) 49:16 110:19 116:22 overlapping (1) 155:7
47:18 58:22 63:20
number (8) 38:4 119:15 120:4,5 overlooked (1) 79:21
70:25 71:8 123:17
85:12 87:1 93:22 127:4 130:1,7 overnight (1) 128:3
141:3
94:4 102:1 141:14 131:16 132:12 overridden (1) 46:17
need (35) 1:6 2:14
141:19 140:13 146:19 override (1) 53:4
3:12,21 4:1,1,4
numbers (1) 106:9 156:7 overspeaking (1)
7:17,24 8:8 9:11
numerous (1) 108:10 one-off (2) 11:21 12:3 102:10
13:2 15:21,22,25
Onega (8) 17:11,15 overtop (4) 16:25
17:2 18:8,10,12
O 26:24 28:12 29:7 17:2 19:8 64:11
19:18 32:18 36:20
oath (1) 69:25 29:11 78:17,19 overturned (1) 91:17
39:18,23 49:11
ones (2) 2:1 142:3 overwhelmingly (1)
50:15 64:10 65:11 objective (3) 143:17
open (2) 125:14 97:15
68:7 71:12,24 159:8,9
160:11 owed (2) 16:25
88:10 128:2 156:11 objectives (2) 126:21
operandi (1) 94:1 144:11
161:10 158:25
operate (1) 116:11 owned (12) 17:12
needed (5) 1:13 obligation (2) 15:18
operates (1) 104:15 81:10 98:16,18
122:18 128:13 54:3
operating (7) 53:22 106:25 108:22
131:13 132:9 obstacle (1) 39:9
91:2 93:22 113:8 136:12 147:1
needing (1) 53:19 obtain (3) 3:21 13:20
113:20 114:1,9 151:12,15 153:20
needs (7) 7:5 20:4,5,7 154:7
operational (3) 112:2 153:22
22:23 97:11 159:8 obvious (1) 28:21
112:5 113:12 owner (10) 30:13 31:5

91:16,25 92:5 95:6 95:13 98:21 134:22 135:18

ownership (3) 17:11 31:1 155:25

owning (1) 113:16 owns (2) 81:19

109:16

P

pack (1) 128:23 page (32) 23:4,5 24:5
24:11 29:3,7 32:25 38:13 44:9,22 49:19 75:5,5 76:25 88:15 102:21 103:14 107:16 108:14 110:1,14 124:17 139:2 142:3 142:10,11,15 152:14 157:17,18 157:23 162:2

pages (2) 91:3 158:5 paid (5) 11:12,13

14:16 39:4 46:11 pain (1) 41:7

paper (6) 44:25 56:13 58:4 60:5 81:15 141:17

papers (3) 6:3 13:19 13:23

paradigm (1) 47:23 paragraph (45) 22:25 23:22 24:2 26:1 33:2 34:22 35:5 36:22 37:4,14

49:15 50:12 76:22 77:1,6,8 78:1 79:18 79:25,25 80:14 81:17 88:16 91:8 91:10,13 93:18,18 94:3 103:17 104:4 106:7,8,14,15,21 109:24 110:12 120:10,11,14,21 122:2 139:1 159:18

paragraphs (6) 37:14 77:2,12 80:6 121:5 121:16

parallel (2) 98:6,22 pardon (6) 99:20

102:12,15 120:13 120:16 140:9

parent (4) 84:11 94:21 95:15 144:12

Paris (1) 4:10 parity (1) 104:11 part (26) 11:23 20:1

26:2 30:25 40:25 45:16 52:18 56:4 56:17 57:16 61:18 78:17 79:9 82:21 87:13 96:2 97:9 109:9 123:22 125:17,25 126:23 129:18,25 141:11 148:9

participant (1) 88:24 participants (3) 90:11

91:20 104:11 participate (2) 111:14

111:17 participating (1) 104:2 participation (1) 88:25 particular (12) 12:4,21

16:12 35:9 58:12 58:17 59:5 77:16 79:23 97:7 116:23

122:25 particularity (1) 41:22 particularly (4) 9:16

55:9 65:23 122:10 parties (16) 42:4,5

46:22 47:3 54:25 59:7,14 67:10 71:1 100:11,13 135:14 146:4,15,15,24

partner (5) 104:8

118:16,17,18,22 partners (6) 93:6
103:25 117:22 118:3,5,10

parts (4) 31:11 73:11 79:14 126:14

party (16) 13:12 14:3 22:2 25:19 42:7 45:5 98:2 119:3,6 119:21,23 126:8 127:2 133:14 137:24 139:9

party’s (1) 15:24 passed (1) 52:13

Pause (15) 77:3,9 80:3 82:15 100:22 103:10 106:11 107:2 121:6 134:5 155:15,20 157:6,9 158:16

Pavel (1) 104:25 pavement (1) 116:13 pay (8) 38:25 46:11

46:14 49:17 57:9 105:22 147:7,15

paying (1) 148:4 payment (8) 18:5,14

18:25 20:6 50:21 53:3,9 130:23

payments (6) 44:2 69:19 129:11 130:22 131:1,8

pays (1) 13:4 peace (1) 71:4 peculiarity (1) 146:3 pencilled (1) 2:2 people (18) 44:1

65:23 66:2 70:17 92:16,19 93:5 95:22 100:15,17 104:22 127:6,20 128:8 146:5,16,24 151:5

perfect (1) 160:6 perfectly (1) 9:10 performing (1) 138:15 perimeter (3) 153:6

153:12,20 period (10) 83:18

84:14 86:10 87:14 87:16,25 89:22 100:16 128:4,16

permission (5) 8:7 47:7,9 50:25 135:10

permutations (1)

64:12

Perotti (1) 8:5 persist (1) 145:8 person (4) 67:17 68:6

154:1 159:15

personal (4) 18:21

80:19 109:11,12 personalising (1) 5:25 personally (8) 77:13 77:20 80:18,21 83:8,13 90:22

137:20 persons (2) 25:19

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

170

April 14, 2016 Day 38

108:17 pockets (1) 19:1 80:2 81:6,22 85:2 presentation (1) 8:9 products (6) 138:10
persuade (2) 41:14 point (77) 3:15,25 86:22,24 87:5 presented (4) 145:18 138:13,14 139:16
48:13 8:17 13:14,22 14:2 90:15,19 93:14 146:19,21 151:10 139:19,21
pertaining (1) 90:4 14:8 17:20 18:16 95:21 96:20 104:24 presently (3) 49:20 professional (7) 11:3
Petersburg (14) 27:14 22:6,19 23:2 24:22 111:11 114:7 58:25 72:15 11:11 15:18 52:11
84:21 85:4,9 91:19 24:25 25:3 26:6 144:10 147:7,16 preserved (1) 142:20 53:2 54:3 86:10
108:23 117:23 30:11,17,18 32:23 155:12 157:24 president (2) 85:8 profile (1) 107:6
118:4 125:3 140:8 33:17 34:3,7 35:9 positions (1) 96:7 91:23 profit (3) 147:15,20
140:10 142:13 38:4 41:14 43:4 positive (1) 132:11 press (1) 89:5 148:3
143:10,23 44:5,24 45:13 possibilities (2) 73:18 presumably (5) 3:11 profitability (1) 28:14
petroleum (2) 139:21 46:12 50:22,23 123:16 105:17 139:15 profitable (2) 102:3,3
140:1 51:13 52:17 56:1,7 possibility (8) 44:1 153:18 156:13 profound (1) 27:24
physically (1) 137:25 57:6,23,24 58:19 53:16 100:5 111:6 pretty (6) 64:14,23,25 progress (1) 1:15
picture (3) 72:23 62:1 63:11 65:6 116:18 117:20 66:18 68:3 129:8 project (11) 95:8 97:9
135:6 146:20 67:19 68:1 69:6,15 139:5,7 previous (4) 23:4 97:10,11 102:1,7
piece (3) 125:24 70:11 72:3 78:12 possible (19) 6:15 9:6 80:15 103:17 103:2 105:6 114:15
128:15 136:11 90:18 105:17 13:13 23:24 39:4 120:13 114:18 117:20
pieces (1) 116:21 113:24 114:3 116:8 66:9 98:7 115:9 previously (2) 2:4 projects (9) 110:11
pile (1) 115:24 118:11 120:3 123:8 118:12,24,24 107:22 111:7 114:13,14,19
place (23) 15:17 25:11 123:19,24 124:5,8 124:19,24 125:12 price (4) 152:3,5,16 114:20 115:5 117:2
27:4 35:22 63:15 124:8,10 125:23 125:18,22,24 131:1 152:18 126:24
78:3,5,6 112:12,15 129:12 132:14,15 139:13 pride (1) 15:18 promoting (2) 21:3,5
113:5,17 114:5 134:16 136:23 possibly (6) 6:24 prima (1) 58:7 promotional (4) 83:10
116:4 119:12 137:22 146:12 12:18 33:18 55:24 primarily (1) 93:12 83:11,15 85:1
132:17 133:19 148:15 154:21 61:9 126:6 principal (1) 141:12 promptly (1) 90:16
134:24 145:25,25 156:15 159:14 postulating (1) 47:22 principle (5) 42:3 proper (3) 14:19
150:1,18 151:24 pointed (1) 104:20 potential (17) 12:6 82:25 95:16 130:7 26:19 63:7
placed (1) 60:9 points (17) 7:20 40:25 30:15 38:16 43:7,8 158:24 properly (3) 74:6
placing (1) 86:12 45:1 46:5 51:15 61:4 111:16 119:15 principles (1) 46:20 145:24 159:25
plain (1) 51:3 53:13 54:23 58:20 121:24 122:11 printout (1) 103:12 property (5) 36:5
plan (4) 133:9 148:9 59:3,18 66:21 69:7 123:18 125:16 priobretatel (1) 127:16 128:15
148:16,16 72:4,19 77:11 126:20 131:17,22 145:20 133:23 152:16
plank (1) 31:16 116:23 120:19 132:7 139:15 prior (9) 82:17 88:5 proportion (1) 9:20
planned (1) 14:3 police (2) 112:7 potentially (8) 9:19 89:22 113:1,14,19 proportionate (1)
plate (1) 149:16 137:24 13:17 24:1 35:6 113:22,25 149:18 46:9
play (3) 55:22 61:18 policies (1) 67:7 38:21 47:9 55:20 priori (1) 116:17 propose (5) 64:20
61:21 policy (5) 51:12 53:8 126:25 priorities (1) 71:24 65:9 66:18 73:12
played (1) 57:16 67:24 101:20,23 power (1) 132:15 priority (1) 115:8 92:8
players (1) 128:7 polite (1) 11:16 powers (1) 5:13 private (2) 103:21 proposed (4) 18:19
pleaded (1) 26:6 politely (1) 11:15 practical (3) 16:1 109:11 21:6 118:20 120:7
pleading (1) 22:22 political (1) 97:8 43:25 62:8 privilege (1) 12:19 prospectively (1)
please (38) 1:5 22:16 poor (1) 58:11 practically (1) 94:12 probability (1) 21:20 30:17
22:20 23:4,8,24 Popov (32) 7:9 8:13 practice (3) 8:11 probably (11) 5:12 prospects (1) 35:13
24:3,5 26:1 29:4,8 20:21 22:9 23:17 98:13 159:19 6:20,21 21:18 protect (4) 27:15
32:22 34:6 44:9,22 27:11 29:8,14,15 pray (1) 48:10 52:20 69:16 70:8 123:5,17 124:19
46:15 49:7,10 30:4,9,24 31:10 preceded (1) 10:5 102:15 115:8 160:4 protecting (1) 123:10
74:15,18 75:1,4,6 33:10,15 34:4,9 precise (1) 141:2 160:7 protection (3) 124:21
76:22 77:5,7 79:14 35:3,15 43:10 precisely (1) 151:21 problem (5) 17:10,11 125:6 138:16
88:8 91:3,5 97:18 46:22 56:18 59:20 predicating (1) 47:22 49:25 64:25 160:5 protocol (2) 152:9,22
103:8 106:5 107:3 60:2,5,15,17,21 predominant (1) 42:3 problematic (1) 22:5 protocols (3) 83:25
109:22 137:15 65:11 68:24 71:6 prefer (4) 21:24 43:15 problems (4) 20:9 152:21 153:4
152:7 157:16 72:12 48:24 53:20 27:21 53:21 61:5 proved (1) 71:9
pleasurable (1) Popov’s (16) 26:21 preference (3) 1:21 procedure (1) 143:9 proven (1) 18:9
161:18 28:9,13,16,19,25 6:14 60:20 procedures (2) 145:7 proverbial (1) 41:7
pledge (26) 112:12,19 29:4,18,25 32:15 preferences (3) 16:5 145:22 provide (1) 89:23
113:2 124:22 34:18 36:9 37:21 60:19 73:14 proceed (9) 16:18 provided (2) 154:4,9
131:22 133:6,13 37:22 56:16 72:10 preferred (1) 28:11 20:24 45:11 46:2 providers (1) 89:8
135:25 136:3,3,5 Popov/Steadman (5) prejudge (1) 66:13 70:24 71:5,9 provides (1) 138:15
136:10,11,19,20 1:11 7:1,4 62:14 prejudice (2) 59:16 160:25 161:7 provisional (3) 43:15
140:3,20,25 141:8 71:17 62:22 proceeded (1) 144:20 62:23 70:12
142:19 143:11,11 port (26) 113:7,12,14 prejudiced (1) 15:5 proceedings (32) 8:19 provisions (1) 142:16
149:10 159:2,6,18 113:17 115:1,2,7,9 preliminary (1) 119:14 8:21,23 9:1,3,10,14 pry (1) 73:17
pledged (15) 136:18 115:14,17 117:2,8 premature (1) 27:14 66:9 75:2,3,24 76:2 public (12) 94:13,20
141:13 142:13,25 117:12,17,21,23,24 premise (7) 18:2,5 76:9 78:20 136:7 94:25 111:10,17
143:5,6,15,22 117:25 118:3,4,15 39:10 46:5 48:5 144:21,25 145:4 112:11 133:12,18
158:2,12,13,20 118:25 127:11 51:4 57:11 146:1,4,13,17,22 138:23 148:6,6
159:5,5,13 136:4,7,14 premised (2) 23:19 147:12,13 148:5,20 150:18
pledges (2) 136:2 portfolio (1) 109:13 39:6 148:22 149:3 151:9 publication (3) 88:11
141:5 portray (1) 135:17 premises (1) 38:18 151:17 154:2 88:12 91:12
plenty (2) 19:22 20:8 Ports (2) 9:9 23:13 prepare (4) 8:13 proceeds (3) 46:5 published (2) 89:11
plot (16) 135:25 positing (1) 62:11 13:24 20:7 59:1 52:19 53:19 89:14
136:16 140:14,23 position (46) 8:11 prepared (7) 7:7 process (12) 13:1 punch (1) 22:7
141:13,19 142:5,12 9:10 10:2 14:22 10:18 60:25 61:1 21:19 26:12 45:17 purchase (3) 84:23
143:4,8 153:14,15 19:3 20:17,23,23 75:24 76:2,3 47:24 48:9,18 99:14 111:1
158:1,13 159:4,17 21:13,14 33:7 38:1 prepares (1) 15:13 61:11 69:24 71:16 purchased (1) 147:18
plus (1) 16:14 52:22 54:25 58:8 preparing (1) 13:10 72:18 156:14 purchaser (11) 30:16
pm (7) 101:1,8,10 61:16 64:2 65:18 prerogative (1) 60:13 processing (1) 77:25 119:3 132:1,7,8
137:12,14 161:10 66:16,24 67:2,6,9 present (4) 4:10 23:17 produced (2) 10:1,12 139:5,9 145:9,10
161:20 67:23 73:19 77:19 81:19 107:18 product (1) 140:1 145:17,21

purchasers (2) 106:20

111:16 pure (1) 148:25

purely (2) 97:20 99:9 purported (2) 148:6

150:18 purpose (17) 41:6

93:23 112:17,18 122:20,23,25 123:5 123:10 125:12 143:13 145:20 147:11 151:19,21 158:19 159:22

purposes (19) 3:22 4:3 5:23 71:6 72:1 111:12,24 112:20 123:7,21,23 124:19 125:6,8 139:8,20 141:23 144:4 155:24

pursuant (5) 32:7 134:11 143:3,9 148:5

pursue (2) 144:21,24 pursued (4) 9:2

123:11 126:21 146:14

pursuing (1) 123:9 pushes (1) 20:15 put (25) 9:1,3 13:16

14:22 22:17 24:16 35:22 38:1 43:16 48:7,12 54:6 55:15 56:1,11 63:21 64:18 68:16 71:2 90:12 127:14 133:4 139:6 151:18 160:13

putative (1) 30:14 puts (3) 8:13,15 21:13 putting (6) 30:6 69:9

127:18 132:16 136:14 154:8

Q

quantification (5) 24:8 24:20 32:6 36:11 38:7

quantum (10) 16:10 16:11,13 18:10 24:1 27:10 29:23 36:13 37:8,23

quasi (1) 4:19 query (2) 43:20 55:2 question (40) 4:24

21:16 22:4 25:5 27:13 33:16,20 36:14,22 40:1 41:2 41:4,19 44:18 46:18,24 47:4,20 48:25 51:20 57:19 60:23 62:14 65:17 67:9 77:15 97:17 103:17 105:21 109:3 115:8,13 120:14 124:20,21 124:24 126:13 140:11 145:15 150:24

questionable (2) 27:8 115:19

questions (11) 31:7 39:22 44:15 55:15 56:16 58:12 63:20 74:13 75:11 89:19 151:6

quick (1) 22:23 quickly (1) 34:8

quite (48) 2:14 7:21 8:1,3,7,20 9:7,21 11:4,6 12:2 17:24 18:1,3 20:3 21:19 31:6 41:6 43:11 59:11 61:15,16 66:25 68:10,16,18 70:13 76:14 85:12 88:4 90:22 94:17 97:17 101:25 115:1 119:5,19 122:9,25 123:8,22 127:19 131:22 139:13 143:2,2 149:21 152:24
quote (4) 31:24 91:11 125:13 133:18

quotes (1) 36:5

R

raid (4) 26:8,14 27:2,3 rails (6) 116:6,9,13,17
116:19,20 railway (9) 115:20

116:1,22 141:17 142:6 152:22 153:1 153:8,19

raise (3) 44:25 60:23 132:9

raised (2) 130:23,25 raising (3) 44:1 69:24

149:7 rare (1) 53:3 rash (1) 52:5

rate (2) 136:15 139:23 rationale (1) 121:3 Razvitie (4) 107:22,24

108:1,23 re-examination (2)

44:11,13 re-presented (1)

50:21 re-read (2) 66:14

121:5

reach (2) 25:1 76:25 reached (6) 52:3

70:11 72:2 110:2,3 159:8

read (35) 20:13 37:3 37:14 43:17,20 47:19,25 59:23 60:5 66:13 71:18 75:16,19,20,22,23 76:1,3,5,8 77:1,8 80:1 91:7,9 103:12 103:16 104:3 107:11 121:5,8 124:13,16 126:1 158:14

reading (6) 43:6 48:4 71:14 91:11 92:2 158:15

real (7) 24:10 41:24 55:2 59:16 131:11 159:4,16

realisation (4) 112:18 113:1 142:18 145:23

realise (7) 13:5 133:13 136:19,20 140:3 141:4 143:10

realised (7) 50:1 111:3,16 117:4 140:20 149:8,9

realistic (3) 21:7 43:25 69:20

reality (3) 74:7 92:5 146:23

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

171

April 14, 2016 Day 38

really (93) 4:7,11 7:5 47:6 129:10 98:20,21,22 99:5,7 resources (4) 8:17
8:18 9:11,17 11:1 regime (1) 95:9 99:12,17,17,25 9:17 51:16 55:13
11:10 12:14,20 region (3) 19:21 33:9 100:9,14 101:21 respect (13) 17:13
13:10,22,24,24 109:24 104:14,18,25 105:2 25:9 45:25 50:8
14:8,10,10,13,14 register (10) 94:18,20 105:4,8,9,10,12,16 58:12 63:24 78:19
15:15,22,22 16:8 95:12 98:9 108:20 105:20 106:3,4 80:9 100:12 136:9
17:25 18:6 20:4 131:14 155:23,24 107:1,19,21,24 147:18 149:11
22:2 23:18 25:13 156:2 159:16 108:1,23,25 109:1 154:5
26:22 34:21 35:16 registered (8) 123:12 109:10,14,18 respectable (1) 11:10
35:25 41:3,14 127:10 132:22,23 110:16,25 111:9,23 respectful (5) 24:18
43:22 46:19 47:22 143:7,11 156:22 112:3 113:2,11,16 26:16 36:12 37:17
51:23,24 54:6,8,21 159:21 114:12,15,20,25 54:24
54:23 55:1,2,6,21 registering (1) 159:15 115:3,5 116:25 respectfully (1) 32:11
57:4,7,14,20,25,25 registration (5) 156:8 117:4,6,17 119:20 respectively (3) 88:15
58:9 59:12 60:7,7 156:19 157:3,6 119:22 120:3,4,5 91:4 158:6
61:15 63:9,16 159:20 120:14 122:5 respects (2) 38:4 63:4
65:24 66:5 67:8,10 Registry (4) 136:12 125:19 126:7,11,17 responded (1) 50:5
67:12,20 68:7,22 154:8 155:24 126:23 129:5,5 response (1) 158:7
70:5 73:1 92:16,18 159:15 134:1,2,14,16 responsibility (1) 79:5
97:1 98:5 101:25 regroup (1) 61:7 135:1,12 137:5 responsible (1) 87:1
110:4 121:12 125:5 regular (2) 161:2,5 139:25 141:5 rest (3) 41:5,15 61:10
127:16 129:7,13 regulating (1) 88:6 142:23 143:16 resting (1) 26:6
131:9 135:1 146:3 regulation (1) 87:2 144:2,6,7,22 146:8 restore (1) 115:12
147:12 152:24 regulator (1) 88:1 148:7,10,11,12,23 restored (1) 5:18
155:12 158:17 reiterate (1) 127:4 148:23 150:4,5 restriction (1) 47:10
160:12,19,22,23 relation (9) 10:4 29:18 151:15 154:1,14,17 result (8) 8:25 87:14
reason (11) 5:5 10:8 50:22 52:9 58:11 156:5,22 133:5 136:6 145:16
11:11 17:6 47:4 67:2 142:19 157:24 Renord’s (3) 117:7 149:7,17 152:10
58:18 102:10 158:11 130:5 132:15 resulted (1) 147:16
123:20 127:13 relations (1) 93:1 Renord-Invest (30) resulting (1) 51:6
128:18 160:11 relationship (1) 79:20 80:10,13 results (1) 132:3
reasonable (2) 9:11 138:20 81:20 94:14,15,19 return (2) 38:19 62:13
9:13 relevance (1) 26:21 95:15 98:13 101:20 returning (1) 116:1
reasonably (1) 29:16 relevant (13) 28:14,17 102:1,6,23 103:2 reveals (1) 43:6
reasons (6) 33:20 32:4 37:15 39:11 103:13,20 104:23 reviewed (1) 35:12
64:22 87:24 88:2 41:5 44:19 47:7 104:24 106:23 revived (1) 45:22
97:5 124:10 63:12 64:24,25 110:10,20 111:3,11 revoke (1) 88:2
recall (13) 35:23 80:23 69:13 124:13 111:21 119:2,5 revoked (1) 87:16
84:13,23 102:24 relevantly (1) 124:16 121:17 123:11 rhetoric (2) 67:3,15
118:14 120:9 reliable (1) 104:9 140:7 147:2 right (85) 3:1 5:5 7:3
131:24 138:5 139:4 relied (1) 21:1 Renord-Invest’s (1) 7:19 12:24 19:10
140:5 152:20 relies (2) 30:8 44:13 110:9 20:10 21:2,22 23:2
156:18 reluctant (1) 15:8 rent (1) 130:17 24:15,16 25:6,24
received (5) 56:13 rely (3) 29:23 45:8 rep (1) 83:21 27:8 31:14,14
61:10 129:17 130:8 72:9 repeat (7) 29:3 50:15 32:20 34:24,24
131:1 remain (1) 145:10 65:5 95:13 97:17 38:15,17 40:17
receiving (1) 130:23 remainder (1) 6:6 120:4 140:14 41:6 44:4,7,9 45:14
reception (1) 58:4 remained (3) 114:7 repeatedly (1) 43:24 46:21 47:16 52:7
recollect (6) 29:1 119:14 144:14 replaced (1) 105:14 54:4 59:11 60:7,7
35:18 36:14 38:23 remaining (3) 143:23 reply (4) 66:23 102:11 61:12,25 70:14,18
44:8 49:6 152:23 153:7 102:14 162:6 76:11 77:11 79:8
recollection (4) 33:8 remains (1) 33:7 repo (7) 112:17,20,22 83:18 84:20 86:19
121:6 153:7,11 remember (17) 5:7 134:11,17,23 89:13 99:18 100:22
Reconstruction (3) 8:4 26:4,12 35:21 135:15 101:2,14,17,18
84:21 85:4,9 39:1 51:6 66:1 report (6) 1:6 13:4,6 103:7 109:20 110:5
reconvene (3) 61:7 86:11 89:10 115:10 13:21 29:4 30:10 112:1,11 113:4
100:25 101:3 118:11 119:10 reported (1) 155:2 116:25 120:12,18
recorded (1) 81:16 120:25 153:4 154:4 reporting (1) 154:25 121:2,9 122:9
records (2) 94:13,25 156:11 reports (7) 7:9,16 133:10 134:8,15,19
recur (1) 145:11 remembered (1) 20:12 34:18 60:5 135:2 136:14
reduce (5) 19:6 119:11 68:22 109:17 138:13,24 141:1,20
131:21 132:24 reminded (1) 44:10 representatives (1) 143:2 149:1,5,21
133:20 147:12 remove (2) 132:16 137:25 150:7 152:2,24
reduced (1) 132:18 145:8 request (1) 91:11 154:16,20 155:18
reduction (2) 133:5,8 remunerate (1) requested (1) 81:7 158:21
reference (5) 22:23 105:20 require (7) 2:9 6:11 right-hand (1) 75:6
36:21 38:12 47:9 remunerated (1) 17:21 18:25 31:22 rightly (4) 8:3 67:5
74:22 105:17 45:10 63:22 92:12 104:20
references (4) 28:22 Renord (144) 25:17 required (11) 5:6,9,10 rights (3) 142:23
32:17 38:8 79:9 77:13,20 78:10,24 5:25 6:8 71:18 150:7 151:20
referring (2) 80:5,6 79:4 80:17 81:1,3 115:12 117:12 riot (2) 112:7 137:24
refinancing (1) 69:20 81:11,23 85:11,13 139:17 154:5,13 rise (2) 116:7 161:1
reflect (1) 81:13 85:21 86:4 93:10 requires (2) 9:21 18:6 risk (13) 8:15,23 9:3
reflective (1) 17:10 93:11,11 94:24 requiring (1) 58:13 12:8 16:2 61:24
reforms (3) 87:15 95:1,4,5,12,22,24 requisite (1) 63:16 101:1 102:4,5
88:17,25 96:2,3,7,14,16,18 reservation (1) 48:7 103:3 118:21 144:9
refresh (1) 121:6 96:19,22 97:3,5,13 resolved (1) 7:5 145:10
refused (1) 50:24 97:13,14,15,25 resort (1) 21:25 risking (1) 22:2
regard (4) 21:14 47:6 98:4,5,7,11,17,19 resource (1) 55:11 risks (6) 118:12,15,19

118:24,25 145:8 road (1) 48:15

rod (1) 63:19

role (3) 8:22 88:18 118:23

roles (1) 155:7 room (1) 19:22

Roslyakovskiy (1)

153:5 roubles (1) 17:4

roughly (3) 17:8 19:11 94:8

route (2) 1:17 61:14 RPC (2) 5:20 6:4 RUB (6) 33:10 136:6

140:18 152:2,5,16 rule (5) 69:17 71:3

95:4 103:23 104:18 ruled (1) 150:6

rules (5) 16:13 41:6 41:10 47:5,21

ruling (1) 50:20 rulings (1) 55:5 rumour (1) 136:24 run (1) 116:17 running (3) 38:13 97:1

101:1 runs (1) 5:17

rupture (1) 153:14 rushing (1) 70:4 Russia (4) 9:8 87:2

90:6 92:11

Russian (38) 1:11,18 2:13,25 3:23 4:13 6:11 8:24 71:9 76:12,23 79:16,18 86:23 91:7,23 92:4 93:19 102:16 103:9 103:11,15,22 106:7 107:5 110:15 120:11 124:25 132:2 141:21 142:16 143:3 144:25 145:19 147:24 152:8 157:11,18

Russians (1) 6:23

S

safeguard (2) 100:5 100:10
safely (4) 37:10,21 56:15 63:15 safety (2) 3:4 66:2

sale (12) 78:19 99:13 99:15 114:8 133:18 148:6,6 152:5,10 155:22,22 156:12

sand (1) 27:23

Sankt-Peterburga (3)

107:23,24 108:1 satellite (1) 22:1 satisfactorily (1) 15:14 satisfactory (2) 20:14

59:10

save (2) 4:19 5:15 saved (1) 13:24 saw (2) 43:25 114:3

saying (34) 15:1 16:23 17:25 20:1 31:3 40:14 45:10 61:2 62:19 72:7 82:7 89:25 94:4 98:7 99:5 100:6 109:14 113:13 115:4,15 116:19,25 117:3,10 125:1 127:23 129:9 130:12,13 131:5

138:4 147:11 148:25 149:3

says (17) 27:11 30:9 30:24 35:9 49:16 49:19 59:20 81:4 82:6 100:14 107:14 108:6,11 110:9,24 120:14 125:14

Scan (5) 27:1 34:7,15 34:16 69:8

scan-read (1) 158:3

Scandinavia (15)

23:16 26:23 32:24 33:4 34:5,10,13,15 34:17,20 35:3,11 78:15,18 106:18

scans (1) 24:10 scattered (2) 116:20

116:21 scenario (2) 22:6

151:1 scenarios (2) 16:9

127:7 scenery (1) 5:12 scenes (1) 41:8 scheme (4) 26:2,3

90:7 131:11 schemes (1) 112:20 scoop (1) 37:21 screen (8) 22:21 37:13

49:7 77:6 88:9 138:25 142:11 157:23

script (1) 107:11 scroll (21) 23:23 24:3

44:22 76:25 77:5 79:18 81:18 91:3 103:13 107:16 108:14 110:12,15 110:18 121:2 124:17 142:10,15 152:14 157:17,22

search (4) 71:24 94:23 97:19 98:8

second (15) 10:11 20:1,11 29:5 37:5 37:11 40:2,3 42:18 42:18 45:13 106:13 107:2 115:12 136:11

secondary (1) 141:16 Secondly (3) 8:16

27:11 68:1

section (4) 79:24

107:12 108:16,17

sections (5) 116:6,9,9 116:19,20

sector (1) 87:10 sectors (1) 115:7 secure (1) 71:1 secured (4) 112:3

135:24 136:2,15

securities (2) 83:22

88:23

security (2) 127:15

136:8

see (93) 13:7 17:6 18:11 19:25 21:2 23:5,9,24 24:3,8,11 30:5 32:20,22 33:1 33:12,15 34:19 35:2 37:20 38:21 39:22 41:18 42:12 43:5 44:14 45:25 48:25 49:3 52:2 55:14,16,17,20 58:22 60:6,6 61:6 69:22 70:24 74:5,6 81:17 90:22 91:6

93:23,24 94:21 95:1 98:1,1,9 99:15 101:16 102:18,19 106:10,13,17 107:7 107:11,14,18 108:3 108:5,10,16 110:7 111:1 116:13 119:25 120:1 123:16 124:12 126:3 138:8 141:25 142:1,11,17,20,21 152:13,15,23 154:1 154:12 157:20,23 158:3,6,15 159:2

seeing (2) 39:7 68:21 seek (4) 32:13 60:24 64:17 136:19

seeking (2) 32:2,3 seemingly (1) 51:22 seen (1) 7:13

sees (2) 29:8 101:17 seize (1) 26:3 selectively (1) 87:20 sell (3) 117:5 120:6

134:1

semi-dilapidated (1)

115:13 send (1) 73:13 sends (1) 158:7

sense (5) 35:13 41:20 45:4 54:5 125:5

sentence (1) 37:5 separate (1) 153:1 September (6) 112:12

112:14,16,16 113:5 157:22

Sergeevich (1) 105:7 series (4) 58:20

145:16 148:8 158:19

serious (1) 32:12 seriousness (1) 46:10 served (1) 145:24 service (2) 78:21

152:12

services (7) 89:8,16 89:24 90:21,23 91:1 138:15 servicing (1) 83:1 set (14) 10:6 14:18 17:21 33:1 35:7 49:8 55:1,7,8,8

71:2 130:3 131:15 142:16

setting (2) 58:21 152:9

severe (1) 65:24

Sevzapalians (27)

94:24 112:7,8 134:10,19 135:10 135:13 136:19 137:24 144:13,16 144:20,23,24 145:4 146:2,7,20 147:1 147:17 150:8,13,16 150:20 151:1,11,24

Sevzapalians’ (2)

135:9 147:12 sham (1) 132:21 shape (2) 13:16,23 shareholder (13)

80:22 96:4 98:9,10 99:16 107:19,23 108:4 134:20 135:11,18,21 144:16

shareholders (7)

96:19 97:13,20 98:2,15 104:1

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

172

April 14, 2016 Day 38

107:17 sites (1) 30:23 45:15 48:8,8 50:21 24:25 25:2 46:12 68:20 71:22 72:5 successful (4) 19:2
shareholders’ (1) sitting (2) 128:15 52:2 54:25 57:22 79:17,24 80:16 72:20 73:3,8 74:1,5 86:7,9 87:25
104:8 153:25 58:11 62:23 91:8 120:9 125:14 74:9 75:11,13,14 successfully (1)
shareholding (10) situation (11) 8:10 sorted (1) 74:6 starts (4) 26:14 91:3,11 101:4,13 104:10
80:16 95:23 99:9 38:5 39:6 46:6 sorts (2) 70:20 92:13 141:21 152:8 101:15,19 102:12 suddenly (2) 57:18
99:14 109:16 53:25 59:4 60:16 sought (2) 142:24 157:12 102:15,19 103:6 100:6
150:13,17 151:8,16 64:14 128:22 143:10 state (8) 27:17 48:3 106:12,15,17 124:2 suffering (1) 27:20
151:19 135:17 148:17 sound (4) 2:18 52:8 94:20 108:20 114:4 124:8,11 127:19 sufficient (5) 16:15
shareholdings (1) six (2) 62:5,6 54:5 106:1 117:10,14 141:16 128:24 129:1 137:9 46:25 56:3 62:25
80:9 size (2) 24:7 33:9 source (4) 80:11 stated (1) 107:12 137:15,19 149:19 128:11
shares (17) 80:24 81:5 skeleton (4) 17:18 89:23 105:22 118:9 statement (34) 10:2 149:21 155:19 suggest (8) 16:8 18:5
81:23 82:4,8,11 18:1,4 30:18 sources (1) 91:19 63:25 74:22,23,25 159:24 160:3,11,15 77:16,18 101:2
98:14 99:11 106:18 SKIF (2) 106:22,25 space (1) 128:9 75:1,3,5,8,10,17,18 160:18 161:4 162:4 122:24 156:11
134:10,14,17,21,24 skills (1) 72:17 SPARK (4) 94:20 107:6 75:20,22,23 76:3 162:6,9 160:24
135:14 151:2,25 Sklyarevsky (9) 75:21 107:8 108:21 76:12,23 79:8,10 Stroilov’s (6) 38:19 suggested (7) 68:11
sheet (1) 33:4 76:4,6 77:23 84:1,7 speak (3) 76:16 82:23 79:15,22 82:16 40:2 42:18 49:24 68:13,24 88:16,23
sheets (2) 32:25 33:19 85:14,25 92:20 101:5 93:16 94:17 104:14 51:2 54:7 113:24 123:15
shell (1) 30:16 Sklyarevsky’s (1) speaking (11) 19:11 106:6 109:23 119:2 structure (4) 79:20 suggesting (18) 72:9
shift (1) 16:2 75:22 77:12 97:12 106:13 120:2,10 138:24 84:5 95:20 126:4 78:8 87:24 89:21
ships (1) 138:15 slabs (2) 115:23 116:5 121:20 128:17 146:16,25 structured (1) 95:5 92:3,9 95:18 98:12
short (3) 73:24 84:15 sleep (2) 65:20 67:4 136:5 152:4 153:3 statements (4) 63:8 struggling (1) 157:7 98:15 108:12
137:13 sleepers (1) 115:24 153:24 156:12 76:1 119:9,10 stuck (4) 1:6 17:6 59:5 113:11 114:25
shortly (3) 62:15 slight (1) 52:11 special (3) 93:23 Steadman (37) 8:12 72:19 126:15 135:7
150:12,12 slightly (5) 2:17 39:14 96:11 127:12 9:18,21,25 10:16 studied (1) 139:14 152:23,25 153:2
show (5) 42:20 76:18 70:5 132:14 154:17 specialist (1) 158:8 18:6,25 20:7 23:18 stuff (1) 128:10 158:17
102:8 155:15 slot (1) 71:16 specific (7) 7:21 80:6 29:9 32:21,23 33:1 style (1) 66:10 suggestion (2) 20:11
157:10 slow (3) 155:17,19 80:7 82:24 95:6 41:3 43:2,11 46:12 sub (19) 121:10 122:7 125:9
showing (2) 48:22 157:8 101:25 126:12 46:22 48:24 50:22 122:11,12,13,16 suggests (4) 73:21
89:18 small (1) 136:23 specifically (1) 138:3 51:23 52:10,10,24 126:5,7,16,18 139:10 156:3
shown (4) 28:20 smaller (2) 126:13 speculate (2) 94:10 53:7,19 55:18,22 127:2,15 128:1,19 158:18
94:13,18 95:15 128:20 140:13 56:3 57:15 58:17 128:20 129:13,20 sui (1) 127:12
shy (1) 17:19 Smirnov (59) 75:17 speculation (1) 59:21 60:2,25 130:22 132:3 sum (1) 13:15
side (10) 1:18 39:15 76:4 77:23 79:10 125:25 61:22 63:21 72:2 subheading (1) 125:6 summarily (1) 127:21
54:6,10 64:11 79:15,19 81:4,7,12 spend (2) 13:11 66:3 Steadman’s (2) 17:22 subject (4) 5:13 49:20 summarise (2) 44:19
70:15 122:23 81:19,21 82:3,6,7,8 spent (4) 57:17 68:2 30:10 58:21 159:5 123:2
123:18 132:17 82:11,12,13,14,15 70:18,19 steal (6) 23:19 25:3,7 subjective (1) 8:1 summarising (1)
136:14 83:19,19 84:9 85:8 spillover (1) 3:3 26:14 27:3,3 submission (26) 14:10 124:3
side’s (1) 59:2 85:15 92:20 93:11 split (12) 7:8,15 16:6 stenographers (1) 16:14 22:19 24:18 summary (6) 36:9
siding (1) 57:18 93:17 97:8 100:3 16:6,10,12 21:6 102:14 24:22 25:8 26:16 97:6 124:4 129:5
signature (1) 75:6 100:14 106:6,17,21 40:5 41:16,20,23 step (2) 40:10 149:15 36:12 37:17,22 131:12 145:1
signed (2) 83:25 109:15,16,17 110:7 126:13 steps (2) 60:24 141:9 39:2,25 41:11 summer (1) 112:16
143:20 110:18,24 114:21 splitting (2) 25:2 stick (1) 116:13 42:12 46:8 50:12 summons (10) 12:6,9
significance (1) 44:15 115:15 117:22,25 36:23 sticking (1) 116:6 50:14 51:15 54:24 14:18 21:18 53:20
significant (3) 37:9 118:10,16,21 119:8 sponsored (1) 5:8 stock (1) 1:13 56:20 57:3,4 60:10 57:6,8 58:16,22
100:8 115:11 119:17 120:14 sport (2) 161:9,12 stood (2) 65:12 71:7 60:14 62:16 67:15 61:25
significantly (2) 43:12 125:21 126:8 137:7 spotted (1) 2:3 stop (3) 44:3 66:4 submissions (45) 6:25 summonsed (2) 14:17
49:14 139:23,24 140:12 spreading (1) 55:23 83:14 7:10,12,13,18,22 63:22
similar (1) 147:17 154:15 155:2,8 spring (1) 45:1 stopping (1) 143:17 9:24 22:15,17 sums (1) 11:5
Similarly (1) 94:23 Smirnov’s (8) 80:6 spruce (1) 6:18 store (1) 25:11 25:20 31:23 39:18 superhuman (1) 161:9
Simonova (21) 16:22 81:5,24 84:1 spur (1) 153:5 story (1) 148:4 39:24 40:23,25 supplant (1) 47:5
18:13,19 28:15,20 109:12,22 119:10 SPV (1) 35:11 straddles (2) 24:9 42:11 43:20 48:1 supplies (3) 138:10
28:21,24 29:13,17 120:2 squash (3) 16:4 60:18 60:15 49:8,12 50:16 54:7 139:17 140:1
30:2,22 31:12 32:9 so-called (2) 88:19 60:19 straightaway (1) 54:19 58:1,3,9 59:8 supplying (1) 138:22
45:2 56:8 59:22 112:11 St (14) 27:14 84:21 33:13 59:14 63:15 65:2,5 support (2) 31:22
60:4,8,12 68:25 sold (7) 112:12 85:4,9 91:19 strain (1) 5:15 66:14,23 67:1,20 49:2
69:2 114:24 117:5 152:2 108:23 117:23 strategy (3) 13:10 68:13 69:18 70:3 suppose (17) 3:3 4:24
Simonova’s (10) 17:8 153:1,10 156:4 118:4 125:3 140:8 141:5,11 70:21 71:13,15 14:17 20:4 54:2
19:6,19,23 28:11 sole (2) 135:18,18 140:10 142:13 street (1) 47:2 73:9 162:4,5,6 59:6 80:14 86:25
29:6,9 31:2,12 32:5 Solo (1) 94:23 143:10,23 stress (1) 65:24 submit (6) 8:10 19:7 107:10 112:5,16,24
simple (3) 14:12 soluble (1) 27:21 stacked (1) 115:24 stressed (2) 8:1 66:25 32:11 40:8 46:18 139:17 142:1 144:2
76:18 148:20 solution (6) 16:2 42:2 staff (1) 91:14 strict (2) 72:2 87:6 69:21 145:14 157:14
simpler (1) 17:10 43:16 61:4,14 stage (11) 12:18 13:12 strike (1) 42:6 submitted (2) 29:13 supposedly (1) 116:4
simpliciter (1) 30:14 62:12 33:3 37:11 64:17 Stroilov (115) 1:5,18 38:10 supposing (4) 15:2
simply (32) 3:18 8:10 solvency (1) 34:13 64:19 69:13 72:14 2:12,22 3:1,10,13 subsequent (3) 28:5 18:17 97:19 150:25
9:23 12:19 13:3,15 somewhat (2) 11:3 119:14 125:19 4:6,12,18,23 5:2 52:23 106:19 sure (20) 11:7 22:25
20:13,25 21:7,24 12:13 133:24 6:10 7:4,12,13,20 subsequently (1) 36:19 38:9 55:24
65:13,21 66:3,15 soon (4) 38:20 156:13 staged (1) 48:9 10:3,15,23 11:6,23 66:17 62:11 77:15 78:10
72:4 80:5 82:5 156:14,21 stake (1) 104:1 12:2,16 13:8 14:8 subsidiaries (2) 94:13 90:21 103:14
89:18 97:2 99:23 sorry (28) 1:22 2:22 stand (2) 2:12 67:23 14:24 15:4,9,19 95:12 105:15,21 108:5
109:4 111:2 115:22 5:4 18:3 30:2 32:3 stand-alone (1) 35:13 16:8,20 17:2,8,24 subsidiary (6) 96:8 109:3 126:10 130:2
118:8 119:16 34:7 42:9 44:14 standalone (1) 34:21 18:3,23 19:5,11,16 144:22 147:4 133:13 135:4 142:2
120:25 121:16 47:12 48:5,21 standards (1) 36:8 19:24 20:4,13,22 148:23 150:21 150:24
131:1,10,10 137:4 56:23 57:2 58:5 start (7) 16:10 17:1 21:5,12,23 22:10 151:5 surmount (1) 44:6
145:4 68:12 89:12 90:25 37:20 93:6 112:25 22:13 29:12 30:11 substance (2) 11:9,11 surprised (2) 53:11
simultaneous (1) 4:16 91:5 102:9,20 115:22 161:13 36:15 44:11,12,14 substantial (2) 8:14 54:14
sir (4) 101:25 126:1 124:9 137:18 started (4) 83:15 44:17 49:9,16 50:5 33:13 surprising (2) 11:3
127:5 150:24 149:20 157:7,9 90:24 111:5 130:22 52:15 54:20 60:1,9 substantially (1) 13:3
sit (6) 2:9,20 74:15 159:24 161:10 starting (13) 1:19 60:18 65:19 66:20 153:10 surrounding (1) 20:17
130:19 156:8 161:2 sort (11) 27:22 42:15 22:18 23:2 24:22 66:23,24 67:16 succeed (1) 16:16 survive (1) 9:12

survived (1) 35:14 suspect (1) 6:22 SV-15 (1) 142:5 SV-16 (1) 142:5 Svetlana (3) 154:18

157:13,21

sympathy (2) 66:6

137:4 system (5) 99:11

107:9 108:8 155:19 157:8

T

table (1) 67:11 tacks (1) 62:9 tail (1) 43:18

take (33) 1:13 6:21 11:20,21 13:11,14 14:2,8,25 21:2 31:21 36:18,20 49:10 56:3,6 61:21 62:5 63:15 68:12 78:1,3,5,6 97:9 108:7 123:1 127:16 133:18 145:25,25 150:1 156:10

taken (11) 19:18 33:12 60:24 96:22 97:8 112:6 124:24 134:7 137:25 141:10 151:23

takes (3) 40:10 64:15 155:22

tale (1) 51:23 talk (1) 112:20 talked (1) 111:15 talking (2) 83:19

142:8

target (2) 27:2 102:3 targeting (1) 88:1 tasks (1) 155:9 Tatyana (1) 157:14 tax (9) 51:11 147:10

147:12,15,20 148:2 148:2,3 152:12

taxable (2) 147:6,9 taxation (1) 95:9 taxed (1) 40:13 team (5) 82:22,22

83:4,15 95:21 technical (2) 108:9

160:5

Telemed (1) 99:4 telescope (1) 25:10 tell (18) 11:1,17 33:18

39:14 74:1 77:8 80:2 84:3 87:17 88:10 89:3 110:2,3 114:19 122:14 155:12 157:5 161:10

telling (3) 52:4 69:10 159:13

tells (3) 51:23 89:4 119:18

temporary (1) 27:20 tempting (1) 68:4 tenant (7) 121:21

122:11,13 126:16 127:2 128:15 132:6

tenants (6) 122:12 126:20 128:1,20 129:14 130:19

tender (1) 60:21 tendered (1) 139:4 tends (1) 59:24 tenet (1) 31:20

term (8) 128:4 129:10

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

173

April 14, 2016 Day 38

130:15,21,24 131:2 4:12,13,19 5:2,9 time (101) 2:8,15 3:4 tramlines (2) 116:11
132:6,11 6:13,20 7:4,17,21 5:14 13:7,9 19:13 116:16
terminal (92) 17:9,9 10:15,16 11:9 12:7 20:3,7,8 36:20 trams (1) 116:17
17:11 23:15 26:23 14:14 16:9,20 39:15 41:17 61:6,8 tramways (1) 116:14
26:24 27:1 28:12 17:17 19:5,12,16 62:17,18 63:7,9 transaction (18) 33:5
28:12 29:7,11 19:19 20:8 21:12 64:4 67:5,25 71:14 77:13,16,20 78:2,6
44:16 78:13,17 22:10,21,23,24 73:4 74:3 75:17 78:9,12,24 118:12
105:13,16 110:17 29:1,16 32:23 78:12 82:20 83:14 118:13,20 134:18
112:3,6,10 113:2,8 33:11 35:15,19 83:23 84:1,7,10,14 134:23 135:16
113:9,21 114:2,3 38:3,15 39:18,23 84:15,17,25 86:8 144:10 155:23
114:11,13 115:6,21 40:14 44:10,18 86:10 87:8 89:7,9 156:2
117:1,13 120:8 45:8,9,18 46:4 48:4 90:18 92:4 100:17 transactions (8) 25:17
121:12,18,20,24 49:11,14,19 51:10 105:3 108:22 33:9 77:22 97:4
122:19,21 125:21 51:11 52:5,8,16,19 110:20,25 111:9,10 145:17 148:9
126:23 127:24 53:18,24 55:23 111:21,22 114:12 155:11 158:19
129:3 130:4,11,22 56:7 57:25 58:2,7 117:14 118:17 transcript (4) 1:9
134:7,11,20 135:5 60:13 62:21 63:18 123:3 125:23 72:24 76:5 102:20
135:8,19,21 136:1 64:4,5,13,22 65:10 128:16 129:12,17 transcripts (4) 55:17
137:21 139:11,18 65:19 66:13,14,18 130:13,16 132:9,16 76:8 123:1 124:7
141:7,13,25 142:25 66:20,24 68:1,4,11 133:8,18,22,24 transfer (4) 106:18
143:15,18,21,22,25 68:23 69:23 71:23 134:10,16,23 143:14 151:16
144:12,17,19,23 72:6,9,12,13,14,15 136:24 138:21 156:22
146:2,8,21 147:1,6 72:16 73:4 76:19 139:14 140:19 transferred (5) 80:17
147:14,18,20 79:12,21 81:18 144:3,24 146:7,20 150:13,16 151:8
150:14,17 151:2,12 82:16,21 83:17 147:6 148:15 156:23
152:1 153:6,13,20 84:15 85:2,15,24 150:16,18 151:20 transferring (1)
153:22,23 154:6,18 85:24 88:10,16 154:4,19,21 155:22 151:19
155:11 157:25 89:24 93:8,11 156:1,15,15,24 translated (1) 124:14
Terminal’s (1) 135:2 94:12 97:1 101:4 157:4 159:14,19 translation (2) 74:23
terminate (4) 122:6 102:9,10,13,15,15 160:1,4,6,17 91:6
122:14 126:17 102:21 103:9,11,15 161:15 transparent (1) 67:8
128:2 105:5 107:16,18,22 times (2) 83:24 119:2 transpired (1) 136:17
terminated (3) 122:4 108:10 117:6 timescale (1) 62:12 transport (1) 139:17
122:7 132:1 118:21 119:1 timetable (1) 71:10 transportation (4)
terminating (1) 120:21 121:3 timetabling (1) 1:12 138:12 139:15,19
143:17 123:15,18 124:12 timing (4) 22:7 58:2 139:21
termination (3) 126:5 124:12,16,17 125:5 62:13 73:9 transports (1) 138:14
132:2,3 125:24 126:2 127:5 tiny (3) 140:15 160:20 transshipment (2)
terms (34) 1:10,11,18 127:20 128:17 160:23 113:20,23
10:21 11:9 13:16 129:1 132:14 136:5 today (11) 1:10 6:22 treasury (2) 34:5,20
18:9 22:7 24:4 137:19 139:2 141:1 44:10 54:20 62:24 treat (1) 9:17
26:21 35:22 43:23 141:3 142:10 143:8 69:17 81:23 119:2 tremendous (1) 62:9
54:2 58:1 59:20 145:14 149:25 140:23 160:15 trial (24) 7:24 8:9,15
66:8,24 110:13 150:4,10,12 152:4 161:6 8:20 9:1 13:1 16:10
115:19 122:3,15 152:18,20 153:8 today’s (1) 39:12 16:13 21:9 26:6
129:2,16 130:14 154:22 155:16 token (1) 54:12 29:15 36:23 37:11
131:2,6,14,19 156:14,15,24 157:8 told (12) 2:6 37:12 39:3,9 40:6 41:16
133:3,5 135:15 157:17 158:8 160:5 53:7,8,12,21 70:1 41:19,23 45:22
149:7 154:16 160:12,19,23 161:5 82:11 83:5 85:25 47:4 63:4 70:11
156:24 161:17 123:3 153:18 71:1
terrible (2) 22:2 64:24 thinking (9) 13:20 tolerably (1) 37:8 tricky (1) 13:24
test (3) 18:7 53:6 37:25 42:21 72:16 tomorrow (9) 160:13 tried (1) 54:11
72:14 114:23 128:8,17 160:14,17,21,24 trouble (2) 66:7 67:13
tested (2) 59:9,13 136:25 141:11 161:2,8,10,19 troubled (1) 12:20
testing (2) 42:17 third (13) 13:12 14:2 tone (1) 10:22 true (9) 25:18 30:25
47:23 21:15 22:1 98:2 tool (1) 131:13 67:22 69:14 75:9
text (1) 103:14 119:3,6,21,23 top (10) 14:14 83:20 75:10 92:10 98:16
thank (16) 22:12,13 127:2 133:14 139:8 85:12,20 103:18 134:9
65:16 73:15 74:15 148:23 110:14 127:18 truly (2) 63:11 64:2
75:11 77:4,5 Thirdly (2) 28:9 29:12 142:11 157:16,20 truncated (1) 48:8
100:22 101:7 103:5 thought (8) 3:5 12:22 topic (1) 46:16 trust (7) 89:5 92:19,25
106:9,16 109:25 37:2 40:13 45:17 total (4) 136:22 152:4 100:19,21 108:8
112:1 149:21 62:1 74:5 124:4 152:5,16 134:21
theoretically (1) 50:7 thoughts (2) 70:12 totally (4) 95:14 truth (1) 89:4
thereabouts (1) 139:2 89:18 126:19 138:22 try (17) 9:8 12:12
thing (11) 6:19 15:14 thousands (1) 94:8 151:11 25:25 39:21 40:9
16:24 22:8 31:4,5 threaten (1) 9:14 touch (1) 81:8 61:17 65:14 66:12
50:4 59:17 62:15 threats (1) 66:8 town (1) 116:14 70:24 73:5 119:6
65:21 142:8 three (18) 2:13,25 3:2 track (4) 116:22 153:5 119:23 123:2
things (22) 2:10 5:21 3:5 7:2 22:8 57:6 153:8,25 136:20 146:19
7:2 9:19 10:21 62:6 113:3,6,7,13 tracks (10) 115:20 154:16 161:9
12:20 14:12 15:24 113:15 128:5 137:3 116:1 142:7 153:8 trying (15) 13:16
38:5 43:25 48:3,9 138:6 153:9 161:5 153:9,12,14,16,19 38:17 42:10 68:6
52:12 54:10 64:24 throughput (1) 31:7 153:22 78:7,22 83:6 95:19
66:7 78:7 80:7 thrown (1) 127:17 traffic (3) 1:7 54:22 99:10 111:8 123:11
124:6 132:10 thrust (1) 60:6 72:21 130:9 142:22
136:17 161:18 Thursday (1) 1:1 trail (1) 160:9 159:11,12
think (181) 1:5 2:3,13 tidying (1) 6:7 trajectory (1) 116:23 Tsennyje (1) 83:22
2:14,16,18 3:1 4:7 timber (2) 113:20,23 Trak (1) 80:18 Tuesday (1) 1:9

tune (1) 16:18 unreliability (1) 59:22 vice (2) 85:8 91:23
turn (5) 32:18 60:3 unsatisfactory (2) videolink (4) 3:22
62:3 75:4 112:8 57:13,18 4:24 5:1 6:11
turned (1) 136:7 untrue (1) 50:9 view (14) 14:25 15:15
turns (1) 5:3 updated (1) 108:20 15:23,24 19:9 22:6
two (43) 4:12 7:20 upsurge (1) 86:11 35:4 41:16 48:17
17:12 19:13 20:6,8 use (9) 34:4 111:18,19 48:20 55:19,19
23:14,19 24:9,13 115:9 117:6 119:24 123:8,19
24:16 26:9 27:1 139:7,15 142:7 violation (1) 159:18
29:21 30:19,19 usually (2) 81:15 vis-a-vis (1) 104:24
31:8 38:5 40:25 99:21 visit (3) 49:2 138:3,6
45:1 47:10 56:21 utilised (1) 50:1 visiting (1) 137:20
57:4 60:12 69:3 vital (4) 9:15 14:11
91:18 123:16 125:6 V 40:25 43:23
125:7 128:5 136:2 valid (1) 150:6 Vladimir (1) 85:14
142:3,6,20 146:14 Vladimirovna (3)
validity (1) 31:20
146:15,22 150:5 74:12,20 162:7
valuable (9) 23:14,20
152:21 153:4,9 Volodina (1) 123:2
25:3 26:9,14 27:7
155:3,9 Vyborg (3) 136:4,7,14
27:19 141:7 142:4
two-way (1) 47:2
valuation (13) 13:21
type (1) 159:21 W
14:11 16:22 17:4,8
wait (3) 6:10 11:24
19:7,19 28:14 29:6
U
29:10 49:17,17 156:9

ultimately (3) 11:10 64:11 waiting (2) 137:16
43:22 56:14 valuations (4) 16:14 160:9
uncertain (2) 35:22 18:10,18 32:5 waiver (1) 12:18
68:18 value (31) 23:21 wall (1) 55:15
uncommercial (3) 24:19 25:12,15,18 want (24) 4:19,25
131:19,21 133:4 26:25 28:9 30:22 20:25 21:8,10
uncontrollable (1) 31:13 33:3 36:4 46:14,22 47:3
104:6 44:20 60:11,11 48:23 51:18 52:20
undergrowth (1) 68:18 69:11 103:23 52:23,25 55:12,15
69:23 104:7 131:22 62:22 68:22 104:23
underlying (5) 17:15 132:18,24 133:6,8 124:2,3 127:16
18:2,4,20 38:18 136:4,21 140:14,17 142:2 154:16
undermine (3) 9:9 141:6,19 152:4 160:10
68:24 69:2 153:16 wanted (3) 6:20
understand (39) 4:3,4 valuer (1) 47:10 128:18 133:19
12:5 40:5 41:13 valuers (2) 47:10 wants (1) 13:4
46:15 47:20 48:16 60:12 warehouse (1) 128:9
49:5 63:13 64:1 values (8) 12:25 24:3 warehousing (3)
65:1 68:16,19 26:22 29:23 30:1,3 115:18,19 117:13
70:23 75:16 76:17 32:10 43:23 warrant (1) 108:18
77:15 78:22 83:6 valuing (1) 28:11 wary (1) 66:16
83:18 84:10 89:3 valve (1) 3:5 wasn’t (13) 11:6,23
94:17 95:19,21 varied (3) 129:16 12:2 34:20 38:6
99:10 100:14 130:7 131:3 53:12 67:8,12
104:23 107:10 various (20) 30:23 105:18 112:17,17
111:8 112:2 115:6 32:16 37:21 49:8 115:11 122:10
130:9 134:6 135:4 52:12 69:11 70:12 waste (2) 13:7 41:15
154:16,18 159:22 73:11,16 84:5 93:2 watch (1) 37:21
understanding (8) 94:15 96:7,17 98:6 water (4) 17:1 18:19
10:11 12:2 72:2 98:13,14 111:14 31:7 74:16
128:2 135:14 155:5 158:4 way (48) 2:10 12:9
153:21 154:3 VAT (1) 152:17 13:11,14 15:23
156:21 VECTOR (1) 156:24 16:1 20:4 26:7
understood (6) 67:19 Ved (4) 83:4,5,7,12 33:25 38:13 41:9
102:16 111:3 120:5 vehicles (4) 80:17 43:16 45:16,25
150:24 159:14 93:23 94:16 95:25 46:2,7,8 53:6 55:2
undertaken (1) 113:9 verified (1) 22:22 57:5 59:11 60:3
undertook (1) 111:15 versed (1) 36:7 61:2,21 64:18 65:7
undervalue (1) 134:2 version (24) 22:21 67:9 68:5 69:12
unfair (8) 39:16 42:7 76:24 77:7 79:16 71:2 73:20 74:9
49:1 60:1 68:5 69:4 79:19 81:18 91:15 79:4 90:11 97:20
71:15 145:15 91:16 93:19 103:9 99:6,12 117:13
unfortunate (1) 65:22 103:11,15 106:7 119:23 125:8 126:6
unfortunately (3) 8:18 107:5 110:4,5,15 126:22 135:17
13:13 42:6 120:11 121:3 145:3 146:14
Unified (1) 108:20 141:21 152:8 147:17 151:9
unify (2) 141:5 158:20 157:12,17,19 155:10
unilaterally (1) 126:17 veteran (1) 86:2 ways (1) 114:23
Union (1) 91:23 veterans (2) 85:20 we’ve (1) 68:9
unnecessary (1) 95:14 92:21 website (2) 103:13,15
unpledged (3) 143:1 veto (2) 135:2,4 week (10) 1:18,25
143:16 158:20 viability (5) 27:11,17 3:20 4:17 5:6 6:5,6
unquote (2) 31:25 34:12 59:20 64:19 63:5,6 65:11
133:18 viable (4) 27:15,19 weekend (1) 22:18
unrealistic (2) 8:11,12 30:24 131:4 weeks (5) 11:2 61:23

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

174
April 14, 2016 Day 38

62:5,6 138:6 weight (4) 15:17

31:21 56:10 60:9 went (2) 38:7 119:22 weren’t (3) 116:3,3

119:12

Western (83) 17:9,9 23:15 26:23 27:1 28:12 44:16 78:13 105:13,16 110:17 112:3,6,10 113:2,8 113:9,21 114:2,3 114:11,13 115:6,21 117:1 120:8 121:12 121:18,20,24 122:19,21 125:21 127:24 129:3 130:4 130:11,22 134:7,11 134:20 135:2,5,8 135:19,21 136:1 137:21 139:11,18 141:7,13,25 142:25 143:15,18,21,22,25 144:12,17,19,23 146:2,8,21 147:1,6 147:14,20 150:14 150:17 151:2,12 152:1 153:6,13,20 153:23 154:6,18 155:11 157:25

whatsoever (1)

117:16 wide-ranging (1)

36:10

willing (4) 15:11,25 111:4 149:12

willy (1) 141:15 willy-nilly (1) 91:9 win (1) 41:13 winning (1) 157:8 wish (6) 35:23 53:23

66:13 71:5 73:17 102:25

withdrawal (1) 51:7 withdrawn (1) 50:13 Withers (2) 14:14

28:22

witness (51) 1:14 6:6 12:6,8 15:10,11,11 21:18 53:20 54:8 55:16 57:6,8,12 58:16,21 59:2,25 61:24 63:8,25 74:10,21,25 75:1,3 75:10,15,17,20,22 75:23 76:1,3,12,22 79:9,15,22 82:16 93:16 101:7 106:5 109:22 119:1,9,10 120:2,10 138:24 161:16

witness’s (1) 102:11 witnesses (8) 4:3 6:12 29:21 56:11 61:7

85:19 122:22 141:1 wonder (2) 22:20

103:6

word (5) 100:12,18,20 108:7 119:8

worded (2) 11:8,15 words (10) 3:21 28:10

29:24 62:12 83:22 91:8,18 123:2 124:18 144:22

work (25) 1:15 10:7 11:12 12:23 14:15 14:20 54:9 58:22 65:13 82:17,24 84:17 92:23,24

98:22 104:23 105:18 127:9 131:11 132:6,12 141:4 155:5 156:5 158:11
worked (14) 82:21 84:7 85:12,18,22 86:3,8 90:1 92:17 93:5 105:10 126:6 126:22 142:22

working (10) 82:25 83:14,15 87:10 92:18 95:22 105:6 108:25 154:2,14

works (2) 86:1 99:7 world (3) 58:25

146:21 151:10 worry (3) 44:12 68:15

120:18 worth (1) 31:17

wouldn’t (22) 2:20 11:13 14:12,19 15:21 16:2 20:20 20:22 64:5 69:20 69:24 70:1 72:3 90:16 100:1 122:5 122:8 126:9,18 127:3 144:2 148:13

wrestle (2) 55:5 65:7 wrestling (1) 65:7 writ (1) 145:6

write (2) 10:17 65:14 write-off (1) 147:5 writing (4) 10:18

12:12 43:21 55:14 written (19) 6:25 7:8 7:13,16,18,22 9:24

22:17 40:7,23 42:11 58:5,9 61:6 70:21 71:13 72:10 81:13 144:18

wrong (13) 17:7 19:8 25:10 30:10 58:24 95:18 103:6 105:5 113:18 125:8 135:8 149:24 159:24

wrongly (2) 67:5

92:12 wrote (1) 11:7 WS (1) 80:6

X

X (3) 12:24 97:20 98:1

Y

Yatvetsky (24) 74:11 74:12,18,20,24 75:14 91:7 95:2 97:21 98:1 101:5 101:20 110:7 118:23 119:17 120:18 122:22 124:14 126:3 133:2 137:19 155:21 158:17 162:7

year (5) 57:17 83:9 86:7,8,17

years (11) 26:7 113:3 113:6,7,13,15 114:8 129:7 131:2 131:7,7

yesterday (1) 1:23 young (1) 66:9

Z

Zao (4) 107:18,19,21

108:3

Zapadny (1) 153:22

0

0.4 (1) 88:15

1

1 (2) 135:22 162:3

1.0 (1) 101:1

1.1 (1) 152:13

1.50 (3) 101:3,4,10

10 (12) 1:7 36:22 37:4 37:14,14 73:22 75:5 100:24,25 131:7 137:11 140:16

10-minute (2) 73:4 137:10
10,000 (5) 11:21 51:22 52:4 65:24 66:3

10.0 (1) 160:24

10.30 (5) 160:24 161:8,13,19,21
100 (7) 22:25 70:16 80:22,23 81:20 102:21 107:23

10th (1) 2:8 11 (1) 2:2
11.36 (1) 73:23

11.47 (1) 73:25

12 (1) 2:2

12.5 (1) 13:5

12.50 (1) 101:8

13 (1) 37:14

14 (5) 1:1 37:14 38:12 79:18,25
15 (5) 80:14 141:14 141:19 142:12 161:22

161,000 (1) 152:3

161,497.50 (1) 152:16

161,500 (1) 152:2

17 (1) 81:17

176 (1) 26:1

18 (3) 79:25 93:18,18

181B (2) 23:22 24:2

19 (3) 29:2 44:17 139:2
1990s (1) 86:14

1998 (1) 91:25

1999 (2) 83:17 89:15

2

2 (6) 1:19,25 24:6 102:21 125:14 157:22

2.1 (2) 35:5 152:15

2.2 (1) 35:10

20 (2) 108:21 136:6

20-minute (1) 8:6

20,000 (1) 129:8

200 (4) 16:19,21 17:7 19:12

200,000 (3) 51:8,9,12

2000 (4) 83:9,17 86:7 86:17

2003/2004 (1) 89:22

2004 (3) 82:17 86:8 90:15

2006 (3) 88:13 89:12 89:14

2007 (1) 100:15

2008 (3) 28:3 80:16 107:24

2009 (10) 89:11 112:3 112:5 113:5,15,22 113:25 114:4 134:8 137:21

2011 (5) 108:21 150:8 150:11 154:22

157:22 2012 (4) 108:4 112:12

112:14 114:8
2013 (1) 105:5
2015 (2) 38:12 49:16
2016 (2) 1:1 161:22
21 (1) 44:8
22 (3) 75:5 150:8
162:5
22,000 (1) 51:21
24 (1) 38:13
25th (1) 5:7
26 (1) 49:16
26th (1) 5:7
27 (1) 139:1
290,000 (1) 51:10

2nd (2) 2:18,19

3

3 (5) 2:2 44:9 102:21 103:14 140:18
3.13 (1) 137:12

3.27 (1) 137:14

30 (7) 76:22 77:1,2
134:8 156:16,16,17
31 (1) 77:2
34 (1) 49:19
35 (4) 95:22 96:6
100:15,17
3rd (3) 2:18,20,22

4

4 (2) 2:2 88:15
4.15/4.30 (1) 161:2
4.26 (1) 161:20
4.30 (1) 161:8
4.6.8 (1) 33:2
43 (3) 77:6,8 78:1
45 (3) 120:10,11,21
46 (1) 121:5
47 (1) 121:6
48 (3) 106:14 121:6
122:2
49 (4) 106:7,15 129:7
131:2

4th (3) 2:18,20,22

5

5 (3) 2:2 38:14 49:15

5.00 (1) 161:10

50 (4) 97:21,22 104:19 106:21

500 (2) 24:12 32:1

53 (2) 109:24 110:24

56 (1) 159:18

59 (1) 110:12 5th (2) 2:21,23

6

6 (6) 2:2,4 49:19 152:5,6 153:11
6.34 (1) 34:22

6.35 (1) 34:22

6.36 (1) 34:22

60 (2) 17:3 19:11

61 (1) 120:14

66 (1) 162:6 6th (1) 2:5

7

7 (3) 29:3 50:12 162:4

70 (1) 131:7

700,000 (2) 13:25 14:9

725 (1) 33:10

74 (2) 162:7,8

75 (4) 19:21 80:16

81:10 162:9

8

8 (1) 124:20

9

9 (2) 2:2 88:13

9.45 (1) 1:2

90,000 (1) 140:19

99 (2) 144:16 151:5

9th (1) 2:10

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