08 February 2016, 18:02 / Finance

Top managers of Bank St. Petersburg are being questioned in a London court in the Arkhangelsky case

The former owner of the OMG group demands $500 million from the bank due to the loss of business, the bank from him demands 1.8 billion rubles in loan debt Maria Buravtseva Top managers of Bank St. Petersburg are being questioned in a London court in the Arkhangelsky case / E. Egorov / Vedomosti

Counterclaims by Arkhangelsky and Bank St. Petersburg were filed in the High Court of London in 2012-2013.

In the High Court of London, top managers of the St. Petersburg Bank are being questioned as witnesses in the case of the OMG group Vitaly Arkhangelsky. The hearing of the case began on January 28. Arkhangelsky demands that the bank compensate him for $500 million in damages from the loss of business; the bank, in turn, demands 1.8 billion rubles from the businessman. debt on loans issued in 2006-2008.

Bank St. Petersburg filed a claim for bankruptcy of Solo LLC

This company was previously one of the bank's shareholders and was involved in development projects

On February 8-9, Vladislav Guz, Chairman of the Board of Bank St. Petersburg, will be questioned as a witness by the court, reports Arkhangelsky’s press service. Earlier, Andrei Belykh, head of the directorate for work with the largest corporate clients of Bank St. Petersburg, was questioned as a witness.

The trial could last up to 12 weeks. In the second half of February, the court will sit in France at Arkhangelsky’s place of residence, where he received political asylum. France twice refused to extradite him to Russia. In Russia, a criminal case was opened against him in 2010, and since 2013 he has been wanted by Interpol for large-scale fraud committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.

We are talking about the bankruptcy of the OMG group (formerly Oslo Marine Group), as a result of which almost all of Vitaly Arkhangelsky’s assets became the property of the St. Petersburg Bank and were sold to pay off its debts.

In 2006-2008 Arkhangelsky borrowed about 4 billion rubles from the St. Petersburg Bank. for the development of OMG, which owned the Vyborg port, two terminals in the St. Petersburg port, the Vyborg Shipping Company, ships, the Scandinavia insurance company and other assets. The company took out loans for the construction of a wood processing plant in the Leningrad region and a large yacht club in the suburbs of St. Petersburg on the shores of the Gulf of Finland and other projects. In the spring of 2009, the group's companies began to go bankrupt, and in 2010 Arkhangelsky moved to France. During the bankruptcy process, OMG's assets were transferred to the bank.

Arkhangelsky writes in his statement of claim that during the crisis of 2008-2009. I agreed with the bank to defer loan payments for six months. As additional collateral, the bank demanded that shares of companies that were part of its Oslo Marine group be transferred to it - the Western Terminal port complex, the Scandinavia insurance company and the Onega terminal, he claims. Without waiting for the agreed period to expire, the bank, using its political contacts, including with Governor Valentina Matvienko, sold the shares at a reduced price to related structures and changed the managers of Arkhangelsky’s companies, his representative claims. The businessman estimates the damage caused to him at $500 million and accuses the bank's management of a raider takeover of his business.

The bank, in turn, filed a claim to recover 2.5 billion rubles from Arkhangelsk. (52.8 million pounds sterling), his lawsuit stated in March 2012. Arkhangelsky himself owed so much to the bank, as well as his companies that actively took loans from St. Petersburg in 2008–2009: Vyborg Shipping Company, LPK “Scandinavia” and “Onega,” a bank representative explained then. Now the bank’s requirements amount to 1.8 billion rubles, a bank representative clarified.

“Bank St. Petersburg and Alexander Savelyev filed a legitimate and understandable claim against Vitaly and Yulia Arkhangelsky in connection with the failure to repay various loans and obligations, the bank’s press service commented. The bank's representative believes that the court will prove that Vitaly Arkhangelsky or Yulia Arkhangelskaya signed all agreements and loan agreements and are bound by their terms. At the same time, the bank denies any suggestions by Arkhangelsky that he was politically motivated or that he was a victim of fraud or misappropriation of his assets by the bank.

The bank is confident that the High Court will conduct this case fairly and rely on the evidence presented, the bank's press service said, refusing further comments until the end of the trial.

Arkhangelsky’s chances of winning in the London court are illusory, since it is extremely difficult to prove the fact of political pressure or pressure from law enforcement agencies, says Pavel Khlustov, partner at Barshchevsky and Partners. Arkhangelsky needs to provide significant evidence confirming the fact of the threat that forced him to sell valuable assets at a reduced cost, the lawyer says. But the bank’s chances of success in court are also controversial, since Arkhangelsky denies the fact of signing a guarantee agreement for loans from his companies, and two examinations established that the signature on the guarantee agreement was made by another person. But the London court can recognize the legal force of the guarantee agreement if the bank proves that Arkhangelsky subsequently approved this agreement, Khlustov notes.

Vitaly Arkhangelsky insists on bringing to trial ex-governor Valentina Matvienko, whose son Sergei Matvienko at the time of the bankruptcy of OMG owned more than 4% of the bank’s shares and served as the bank’s vice president for information technology, and the former head of the St. Petersburg Central Internal Affairs Directorate, Vladislav Piotrovsky. It was not possible to contact Valentina Matvienko’s representative Natalya Fomenko and Vladislav Piotrovsky.

The London court has not involved Valentina Matvienko and Vladislav Piotrovsky in the case at the moment.

The main task that Arkhangelsky now faces is to provide the court with as much reliable evidence as possible of dishonest actions on the part of the bank and the involvement of the mentioned political figures in the process, says Ilya Sorokin, senior lawyer at BGP Litigation. Without such evidence, there is practically no hope that for political reasons the court will side with the disgraced businessman, he says. As the process progresses, the parties may resort to a variety of measures to influence each other, including demands for disclosure of information about property and seizure of funds and assets in various jurisdictions, he argues.