[Page 528]
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF
INVESTMENT DISPUTES
ICSID Case No ARB/16/8
between
ZBIGNIEW PIOTR GROT AND OTHERS
Claimants
- v -
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Respondent
The Arbitral Tribunal
The Hon L Yves Fortier CC, OQ, QC - Arbitrator
Professor Dr Rolf Knieper - Arbitrator
Professor Philippe Sands - President
HEARING
VIENNA, AUSTRIA
Wednesday, 13 December 2017
[Page 529]
The Tribunal:
The President:
PROFESSOR PHILIPPE SANDS
Matrix Chambers
Gray's Inn
London WC1R 5LN
United Kingdom
[email protected]
[email protected]
Co-Arbitrators:
THE HON L YVES FORTIER CC, OQ, QC
Cabinet Yves Fortier
1 Place Ville Marie, Suite 2822
Montréal, Quebec H3B 4R4
Canada
[email protected]
PROFESSOR DR ROLF KNIEPER
c/o Atelier Correia
7, place de la République
21210 Saulieu
France
[email protected]
ICSID Scretariat:
MS FRAUKE NITSCHKE, Secretary of the Tribunal
Assistant to the President of the Tribunal:
MS LEA MAIN-KLINGST
Court Reporters:
MS ANN LLOYD
MS DIANA BURDEN
Interpreters:
MS DANIELA CORINA IONESCU
MS SILVIA STATESCU
MS LELIA GALIS
[Page 530]
On behalf of Claimants:
TODD ALLEN WELLS
THEODORE GLEASON
COREN HINKLE
ANDREW ASTUNO
LUCIA CRACIUNEANU
GIEDRE STASIUNAITE
GLEASON WELLS
The Colorado Building
1615 California Street, Suite 616
Denver, CO 80202
United States of America
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Also present from the parties:
ZBIGNIEW PIOTR GROT, Claimant
WITNESSES:
ZBIGNIEW PIOTR GROT
VALERIU BERIL
EXPERTS:
ROGER GLADEI, Gladei & Assoc
DAN NICOARA, Gladei & Assoc
MIHAIL RURAC, Agricultural expert
ANDREI GUMOVSCHI, Agricultural expert
LARS WIECHEN, Deloitte
[Page 531]
On behalf of Respondent:
LEON KOPECKY
CHRISTOPH LINDINGER
VICTORIA PERNT
ANISSA ACHAIBOU
FELIX SCHNEIDER
SCHÖNHERR RECHTSANWÄLTE GMBH
Schottenring 19
1010 Vienna
Republic of Austria
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
ANNA CUSNIR (remotely)
ANDRIAN GUZUN
SCHÖNHERR MOLDOVA
Alexandru cel Bun 51
Chisinau 2012
Republic of Moldova
[email protected]
[email protected]
EXPERTS:
PROFESSOR VIOREL RUSU, Legal expert
MICHAEL PEER, KPMG
MARTIN KOZAK, KPMG
[Page 532]
INDEX
MIHAIL RURAC and ANDREI GUMOVSCHI, continued.
Re-examination by Claimant ... 541
Questions by the Arbitral Tribunal ... 552
Re-examination by Claimant ... 582
Examination by Claimants ... 585
Cross-examination by Respondent ... 605
Re-examination by Claimants ... 632
Questions by the Arbitral Tribunal ... 635
Examination by Respondent ... 639
Cross-examination by Claimant ... 659
Re-examination by Respondent ... 679
LARS WIECHEN and MICHAEL PEER ... 680
Questions by the Arbitral Tribunal ... 680
Re-examination by Claimant ... 712
Closing submission by Claimant ... 720
Closing Submission by Respondent ... 752
Closing remarks and future timetable ... 774
[Page 533]
1 (9.32 am Wednesday, 13 December 2017)
2 MIHAIL RURAC and ANDREI GUMOVSCHI, continued.
3 THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.
4 I hope everyone had a fine evening. I hope you got
5 to enjoy Vienna last night. We are so sorry to have
6 kept you overnight, but it is very important and we
7 are grateful for you being back with us. We
8 continue with your cross-examination, there will
9 then be some re-direct and the Tribunal may well
10 have a few questions for you.
11 Just before we start, a couple of
12 housekeeping matters. The only outstanding issue
13 that I have is new titles for CH-7 and CH-8
14 MR GLEASON: I have those documents for
15 you right here. I am happy to pass those out to you
16 and to opposing counsel. (Same handed)
17 THE PRESIDENT: We have revised copies of
18 CH-7 and CH-8 with new headline. CH-7, table 4
19 Recommended fertilizers dosage and priceconsidered
20 to achieve average yields in Floresti, and CH-8,
21 table 5, Plant protection products used and related
22 price to achieve average yields in Floresti.
23 Thank you very much. That is entered and
24 in on the record.
25 Claimant?
[Page 534]
09:34
1 MR GLEASON: First and foremost, I want to
2 be completely transparent about this. Last night
3 unfortunately Mr Rurac had a hotel reservation
4 problem. He arrived and there was no room available
5 for him, so he did communicate with our team about
6 this particular issue. I wanted to be fully
7 transparent about this. We have discussed this with
8 the Respondent. The email communications are
9 available upon request, just to get that on the
10 record that that did happen unfortunately, but we
11 found him a place to stay, so all is well that ends
12 well.
13 THE PRESIDENT: He didn't sleep in the
14 street?
15 MR GLEASON: I don't think so. I haven't
16 talked to him today.
17 THE PRESIDENT: You didn't sleep in the
18 street?
19 MR RURAC: No.
20 THE PRESIDENT: Respondent, do you have a
21 reaction?
22 MR KOPECKY: No problem.
23 THE PRESIDENT: I express my gratitude to
24 Claimant for its transparency and Respondent for
25 flexibility and decency. I hope you got a good
[Page 535]
09:35
1 night's sleep wherever you slept.
2 MR GLEASON: There are a couple of other
3 issues for the record. I will let Mr Kopecky have
4 his say on this issue as well, but one is related to
5 the translation of C-94. Respondent had provided
6 their updated version of the translation and we have
7 looked at it and we agree, so there is agreement on
8 that particular issue.
9 THE PRESIDENT: Could that be submitted as
10 C-94 Rev? There is agreement on a revised
11 translation of C-94. Just for information, have you
12 just translated additional parts or the whole?
13 MR GLEASON: Additional parts.
14 THE PRESIDENT: Is it marked clearly which
15 are the additional bits?
16 MR GLEASON: It is red-lined.
17 THE PRESIDENT: Excellent. Thank you very
18 much. We will have copies of those, will we? Or is
19 it on the hyperlink straightaway?
20 MR GLEASON: In the course of the day.
21 There are a few more exhibits we would
22 like to formally introduce to the record which have
23 been formally discussed. We would like to make sure
24 they are formally put on the record. It is C-142,
25 C-143, C-144 and C-145. These are documents
[Page 536]
09:36
1 pertaining to issues concerning Moldovan agriculture
2 which were raised in Michael Peer's report. Thus,
3 we believe they are responsive to Mr Peer's report.
4 I have discussed this with Mr Kopecky and I turn the
5 word over to him.
6 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Kopecky?
7 MR KOPECKY: We agree with that with the
8 exception of C-144, which is a video. As far as
9 I understood, it concerns beets. Mr Grot didn't
10 farm beets.
11 THE PRESIDENT: Beet as in beetroot?
12 Maybe it is not beetroot. It is sugar.
13 MR KOPECKY: Mr Grot did not farm beets.
14 It is not responsive per se to the report of Mr Peer
15 and therefore we object to it being onthe record.
16 THE PRESIDENT: What is the timing? This
17 is likely to come in this morning so we need to take
18 a decision pretty much straightaway, because
19 Claimant is planning to rely on C-144, which is a
20 video, did you say?
21 MR GLEASON: We are discussing a video of
22 former Prime Minister Vlad Filat in the year 2011
23 meeting with local agricultural producers, sure, in
24 the context of sugar beets, the overall general
25 underreporting of yields in the agricultural
[Page 537]
09:37
1 industry. It is a video but we have a transcript in
2 Romanian with an English translation. It is just
3 additional support for this...
4 THE PRESIDENT: Your reason for tendering
5 it is it goes to the question of the underreporting
6 by agricultural producers of their total annual
7 production? That is the rationale for introducing
8 it?
9 MR GLEASON: Yes. That is the rationale.
10 It is just additional support for the proposition
11 that there is widespread underreporting of
12 agricultural yields.
13 THE PRESIDENT: Although I have read
14 Mr Peer's report, I have to confess I haven't
15 memorised it, but I do recall it does address that
16 question of underreporting, does it not?
17 MR KOPECKY: With respect to the crops
18 that Mr Grot planted, not beets. It is a different
19 product.
20 THE PRESIDENT: Is it Claimant's position
21 that C-144 does or does not relate only to beets, or
22 does it go more broadly?
23 MR GLEASON: The statement was given in
24 the context of a conversation with sugar beet
25 producers, that is true, but Claimants would submit
[Page 538]
09:39
1 that the statement does represent the broader trend
2 of underreporting of yields in Moldovan agriculture
3 as recognised by the Prime Minister
4 THE PRESIDENT: Could we have a moment to
5 confer so we can take a decision now.
6 (The Tribunal conferred off the record)
7 THE PRESIDENT: In the interests of just
8 taking a speedy decision our feeling is we take the
9 point of Respondent that it may relate to a crop
10 that is not directly in issue, but since it is
11 broadly responsive to a matter that is addressed in
12 Mr Peer's report, and against the background that it
13 is perhaps unlikely that this single document will
14 form the basis for the decision that will be taken
15 at some point, our inclination is to let it in, but
16 under reserve, I would say, that if upon viewing it
17 we discover that indeed Respondent is right, that it
18 bears no relation to the subject that is being
19 discussed, then we will revisit our inclination.
20 The decision is, with that reserve, we
21 admit it for the purpose of the next phase of the
22 arbitration and the hearing of the quantum experts,
23 but you are free, Respondent, to make your points as
24 to the weight to be given to this newly introduced
25 document in due course and we will listen to those
[Page 539]
09:41
1 arguments.
2 Very good. Any other questions from
3 Claimant?
4 MR GLEASON: No not at this time.
5 THE PRESIDENT: Respondent?
6 MR KOPECKY: Just one point of order. We
7 discussed this with counsel for Claimants just
8 before the hearing. The final report of Mr Wiechen
9 was submitted to us just after midnight this
10 morning, and therefore without any further
11 commenting on that, we agreed with Claimants that
12 Mr Peer will be given additional time in his
13 presentation to address that. We spoke of 15
14 minutes extra, but the general consensus, because we
15 are good on time, is just to let them speak as long
16 as they need to get everything they need to get on
17 record, on record.
18 THE PRESIDENT: Just to understand, I have
19 not seen this new document. I think we have not
20 seen this, so we are not in a position to know what
21 its contents are or are not, so subject to that and
22 reserve to that, are you saying that the parties are
23 agreed that this can be introduced but you would
24 like more time to be able to address the new
25 document?
[Page 540]
09:42
1 MR KOPECKY: We had agreed more time
2 already.
3 THE PRESIDENT: You have agreed more time.
4 The only thing I am hesitating slightly about it is
5 it is completely open-ended.
6 MR KOPECKY: We said 15 minutes and if we
7 runs over by a minute or two that will be
8 acceptable.
9 THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be
10 flexible on that. If that is the agreement of the
11 parties, then the record shows that that new -- what
12 are we calling it?
13 MR GLEASON: It is just the presentation
14 that Mr Wiechen will be using. Unfortunately there
15 was a last minute change, we could say, to the
16 presentation, so we encouraged Mr Wiechen, pursuant
17 to discussions yesterday, to get the presentation
18 over to Respondent by lunchtime, he worked hard to
19 do that, but in reviewing his work he said "I need
20 to fix something", so that is what he did yesterday.
21 THE PRESIDENT: On that basis that
22 document is in and you will have sufficient time to
23 be able to address the document
24 MR KOPECKY: Thank you.
25 THE PRESIDENT: Any other issues from
[Page 541]
09:43
1 Claimant or Respondent? No? Excellent.
2 Ms Pernt, back to you for the continuation
3 of the cross-examination.
4 MS PERNT: Thank you. Upon reflection
5 I have no further questions. Thank you.
6 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ms Pernt.
7 Claimant?
8 MR GLEASON: We will have a few questions.
9 It will not be very long.
10 Re-examination by Claimant
11 MR GLEASON: Good morning.
12 MR RURAC: Good morning.
13 MR GLEASON: We can talk again. That is
14 just to preserve the integrity of these proceedings
15 and I do hope you understand and I do thank you very
16 much for your tolerance of these procedures and
17 staying this unforeseen extra time here in Vienna.
18 I think both sides appreciate it very much, as do
19 the Tribunal, so thank you.
20 I just want to confirm that the
21 translations are okay, that you are hearing
22 everything I say? Do you understand me?
23 MR RURAC: Yes.
24 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes, everything is fine.
25 MR GLEASON: As Mr Gumovschi explained
[Page 542]
09:45
1 yesterday, he does not speak English, but Mr Rurac,
2 we normally communicate in English, right?
3 MR RURAC: Sure, yes.
4 MR GLEASON: So you understand the parts
5 of the reports which were shown to you yesterday
6 which were in English?
7 MR RURAC: Yes, of course.
8 MR GLEASON: If you are working with
9 Mr Gumovschi on a project, and something is in
10 English, you would explain it to him?
11 MR RURAC: Yes, of course.
12 MR GLEASON: Now you worked closely with
13 the team from Deloitte in Bucharest, correct?
14 THE PRESIDENT: If you could maybe
15 question slightly less leading?
16 MR GLEASON: Sure. No problem.
17 Who did you work with to create this
18 report?
19 MR RURAC: I worked with Deloitte experts,
20 Marius and Athena. Marius and Athena from Deloitte.
21 MR GLEASON: These are the Marius and
22 Athena that you mentioned yesterday, correct?
23 MR RURAC: Yes. The same people.
24 MR GLEASON: Where do they work? I want
25 to confirm this point.
[Page 543]
09:46
1 MR RURAC: They work for Deloitte,
2 Bucharest.
3 MR GLEASON: I would just like to look at
4 some of the parts of your original Romanian reports
5 which were in English. This should only take a
6 minute. This is your original report, the Romanian
7 version. As Ms Pernt pointed out yesterday, there
8 are some paragraphs in English. I would like to
9 focus on paragraph 4 to begin, and I would like to
10 read that paragraph, if I may. It says, "I confirm
11 that I have no conflict of interest relating to any
12 of the parties in this matter".
13 Do you agree with that?
14 MR RURAC: Yes.
15 MR GLEASON: Mr Gumovschi, do you agree
16 with that?
17 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes.
18 MR GLEASON: I would like to look at
19 paragraph 5. "I understand that my overriding duty
20 is to assist the Arbitral Tribunal on matters within
21 my expertise and that this duty overrides any
22 obligation to Laguardia or its legal advisers".
23 Do you agree with that?
24 MR RURAC: Yes.
25 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes.
[Page 544]
09:48
1 MR GLEASON: And, finally, paragraph 6,
2 "I have made clear which facts and matters referred
3 to in this report are within my own knowledge and
4 which are not. Those that are within my own
5 knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have
6 expressed represent my true and complete
7 professional opinions on the matters to which they
8 refer".
9 Do you agree with that?
10 MR RURAC: Yes.
11 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes, of course.
12 MR GLEASON: Did you agree with all these
13 statements on the date that you submitted your
14 report?
15 MR RURAC: Yes, of course.
16 MR GUMOVSCHI: Certainly.
17 MR GLEASON: We are almost done with this
18 part. I would also like to turn to the very end of
19 your reports, paragraphs 46 and 47. Again these are
20 paragraphs which are in English. I want to read
21 these paragraphs and confirm whether you understand
22 or not. Paragraph 46 says, "I confirm that, at the
23 time of providing this expert report, I consider it
24 to be accurate and constitute my true professional
25 opinion".
[Page 545]
09:49
1 Do you agree with that?
2 MR RURAC: Yes.
3 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes.
4 MR GLEASON: Paragraph 47. "I confirm
5 that if, subsequently, I consider this opinion
6 requires any correction, modification or
7 qualification, I will notify the parties to this
8 arbitration and the Sole Arbitrator" -- although we
9 have three arbitrators in this case -- "forthwith".
10 Do you agree with that?
11 MR RURAC: Yes.
12 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes.
13 MR GLEASON: And you agreed with both
14 paragraphs 46 and 47 at the time you submitted this
15 report?
16 MR RURAC: Yes, of course.
17 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes.
18 MR GLEASON: Now I am sure you did not
19 expect to spend so much time talking about the
20 English language when you came to Vienna and I am
21 sure you expected to talk a lot about farming, so
22 I would like to do some of that just for a few
23 minutes. The rest of the report, other than the
24 paragraphs in English on the first page and
25 paragraphs 46 and 47, is in Romanian. I just want
[Page 546]
09:50
1 to confirm and ask you the question whether you
2 worked together to provide your own joint
3 independent analysis of Laguardia's operations?
4 MR RURAC: Yes.
5 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes, certainly.
6 MR GLEASON: I would like to talk about
7 the Visoca centre for a minute. Let me turn to the
8 relevant paragraph in your report. I will use the
9 English version for this part. In paragraph 30 of
10 your expert report you state that "the harvest in
11 the testing sectors is by 20 per cent on average
12 higher than the harvest on the farmers' lands".
13 What farmers' lands are you referring to
14 in paragraph 30?
15 MR RURAC: This is a statement I will say
16 in English. This is a scientific statement. It is
17 in a science community there is a lot of
18 information, a lot of data, that confirms that the
19 yield in science plots are higher than in farmers'
20 plots. This is a common world in science.
21 MR GLEASON: It is a common what?
22 MR RURAC: It is a common science
23 information. It is not something concerning
24 Moldova.
25 MR GLEASON: You are not comparing the
[Page 547]
09:53
1 state centre to Moldovan averages?
2 MR RURAC: No.
3 MR GLEASON: What are you comparing the
4 state centre to?
5 MR RURAC: Both.
6 MR GLEASON: You can answer either in
7 Romanian or in English, it is your choice
8 MR RURAC: When we had the data from
9 Floresti with small yields in productions, we are
10 farmers, so we know what productions the farmers
11 had, and we needed arguments to show how that yield
12 could be adjusted, and scientific literature enabled
13 us to say that the test fields yielded 20 per cent
14 on average higher crops than the fields of the
15 farmers.
16 MR GLEASON: But the question is which
17 farmers? 20 per cent better than which farmers?
18 The average Moldovan farmer or the worldwide --
19 MR RURAC: No, not just the Moldovan
20 farmers. In order to determine the productive
21 potential of the hybrids we used various approaches
22 and research works are being conducted. The
23 conclusion of that is that the potential of a hybrid
24 can be achieved only when there are enough
25 fertilizers, there is enough water supply, and the
[Page 548]
09:54
1 Visoca centre was not irrigated. This made us think
2 that the Visoca centre could not yield the maximum
3 production.
4 In addition to that, Visoca did not apply
5 phytosanitary products, so perhaps the production
6 there could be under-evaluated. In order to plan
7 the yield for Laguardia we needed to collect several
8 points of view in order to draw a final conclusion.
9 MR GLEASON: Just to confirm, the
10 20 per cent higher than average that you refer to in
11 this paragraph does not refer to 20 per cent higher
12 than Moldovan averages, but rather worldwide
13 averages? Is that fair to say?
14 MR RURAC: Yes, right. Farmers worldwide.
15 MR GLEASON: I would like to turn to the
16 next paragraph 31. Actually, before we move on,
17 I would like to ask Mr Gumovschi if you agree with
18 what Mr Rurac just said. Do you agree with what
19 your colleague has just said?
20 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes, I agree with what he
21 said.
22 MR GLEASON: I would like to look at the
23 next paragraph, paragraph 31. The Visoca centre,
24 you say does not use pesticides or plant protection
25 products, but Laguardia uses pesticides. Is that an
[Page 549]
09:56
1 accurate understanding of what your report says?
2 MR RURAC: Yes, of course.
3 MR GLEASON: If Laguardia uses pesticides
4 and pesticides normally would provide for a higher
5 yield, why did you calculate yields for Laguardia
6 which are equal to the Visoca centre which does not
7 use pesticides? Maybe you can explain your
8 methodology.
9 MR RURAC: I want you to repeat?
10 MR GLEASON: Maybe there was a translation
11 problem. In your report it says that Laguardia uses
12 pesticides and the Visoca centre does not use
13 pesticides, and normally, you say, pesticides lead
14 to higher yields, correct?
15 MR RURAC: Yes.
16 MR GLEASON: If Laguardia uses pesticides
17 but the Visoca centre does not use pesticides, why
18 did you not calculate Laguardia's yields to be
19 higher than the Visoca centre? Why did you
20 calculate them to be equal? Can you explain?
21 MR RURAC: Yes, of course I can. In
22 Visoca the processing takes part on small plots of
23 land, so that the surfaces are very small, 50 to 100
24 square metres. That means that even under such
25 conditions the crops are higher. We explained that,
[Page 550]
09:58
1 and that is why we left a minus 20 per cent compared
2 to Visoca, because we understand that that is
3 possible there.
4 MR GLEASON: And you agree, Mr Gumovschi?
5 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes, I do agree.
6 MR GLEASON: How did you arrive at that
7 20 per cent figure?
8 MR RURAC: It is not my number.
9 MR GLEASON: Whose number is it? Is it
10 your professional opinion?
11 MR RURAC: No, it is not my professional
12 opinion. Several authors declared that this is the
13 median.
14 MR GLEASON: This is a number that you
15 took from literature?
16 MR RURAC: Yes.
17 MR GLEASON: Then you also include a
18 15 per cent reduction for corn from the Visoca
19 centre number. Can you explain how you got that
20 15 per cent number?
21 MR RURAC: The corn in Moldova normally
22 does not get aggressive pests or diseases, and that
23 is why, even though there was in Visoca no use of
24 pesticides, that means that, because of what
25 I mentioned before, that would have no impact on the
[Page 551]
09:59
1 crops.
2 MR GLEASON: But a similar question to the
3 one I asked you to the 20 per cent question. Where
4 did you get that number, that 15 per cent?
5 MR RURAC: This 15 per cent was not
6 calculated by myself. These are the commonly used
7 percentages.
8 MR GLEASON: Are you confident in these
9 numbers?
10 MR RURAC: Yes.
11 MR GLEASON: I just have one last
12 question. You guys are almost done.
13 I would like to turn to table 7, very
14 quickly.
15 THE PRESIDENT: Old or new?
16 MR GLEASON: The old table 7 in the
17 original report. Thank you for your clarification.
18 Although I don't think there is a new table 7.
19 There is a new table 4, 5 and 6. My apologies.
20 This table 7 is rent payments which were,
21 as the source says, presumably calculated from the
22 Laguardia lease agreements. How did you calculate
23 these numbers?
24 MR RURAC: These are the data that are
25 captured by the contract, these are the payments for
[Page 552]
10:01
1 the lease. There is a 6 per cent adjustment for
2 inflation.
3 MR GLEASON: And you agree with that,
4 Mr Gumovschi?
5 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes, I do agree. That is
6 how we calculated. We took out the average figure
7 for inflation and we calculated this rent every year
8 and we added the inflation...
9 MR GLEASON: Yesterday you were talking
10 about the lease agreements with Ms Pernt and you
11 said we never saw the contracts, so I want to know
12 how did you arrive at these numbers? You have to
13 have this number from somewhere, where did you get
14 it? Not the inflation rate, but the actual numbers?
15 MR RURAC: We had the data from Deloitte.
16 MR GLEASON: I have no further questions.
17 Thank you very much.
18 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Gleason.
19 I think there may be questions from the Tribunal.
20 Questions by the Arbitral Tribunal
21 MR FORTIER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
22 Gentlemen, you are both graduates of the
23 Agricultural State University of Moldova, you are
24 both agronomists, and you both have PhDs in
25 Agricultural Sciences and Associate Professor. That
[Page 553]
10:03
1 is very impressive. Have you ever done this sort of
2 work for other clients in your experience? One
3 after the other. Mr Gumovschi?
4 MR GUMOVSCHI: I acted when there were
5 some differences between a German company called
6 Europlant and the farmers, and there I acted as an
7 expert to prove that the potatoes were infected by
8 the farmer because the seeds were not brought from
9 Germany. Otherwise, if there were some differences
10 or disputes between the firms, between the inputs or
11 between the seeds that were sown in various fields,
12 and that there were problems and issues amongst
13 them, I would do an expertise and explain
14 scientifically what the correct result would be. I
15 was just trying to be fair.
16 MR FORTIER: And you were acting as an
17 expert?
18 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes, I was acting as an
19 expert then.
20 MR FORTIER: And you, Mr Rurac?
21 MR RURAC: Yes, of course, I acted as an
22 expert. I taught the experts how they have to
23 calculate all sorts of things. I have never been
24 before a Tribunal.
25 MR FORTIER: No, but you have prepared
[Page 554]
10:06
1 expert reports as agronomists?
2 MR RURAC: Yes, I did. Yes, of course.
3 MR FORTIER: Do you farm land yourselves?
4 Starting with Mr Gumovschi, do you farm land in
5 Moldova?
6 MR GUMOVSCHI: Honestly, if I am honest
7 with you, I did a lot after I graduated. I was a
8 chief agronomist and afterwards I was leading a
9 section in an agricultural college and I worked as
10 an agronomist. This was a very prosperous farm, and
11 there there was like a school or a university team.
12 We had 1200 ha and I was a deputy director there.
13 I was heading, monitoring and managing all the
14 processes. The students would work with their hands
15 and would practise everything from sowing,
16 processing the fields and harvesting. That is how
17 we were training them. I have to say I am very
18 proud that some of those graduates have done very
19 well and they are now developing the agriculture of
20 Moldova.
21 MR FORTIER: Very good.
22 And you, Mr Rurac, have you ever farmed
23 land in Moldova and, if so, have you been
24 successful?
25 MR RURAC: I remember when I was working
[Page 555]
10:08
1 in the co-horse in the tobacco fields, I started
2 together with my siblings when I was six.
3 Afterwards, of course, we didn't have any land, we
4 didn't own any land. I have been with the
5 university for 25 years. There was always research
6 and consultancy work. In the last two years I was a
7 Dean of the faculty. I left the administrative
8 duties and I am working part time in agrobusiness.
9 I am even closer to the farmers and the producers,
10 and had I written the report now it probably would
11 have been different. I am convinced that Moldovan
12 farmers make more money.
13 MR FORTIER: If you were doing the report
14 now in what way would it be different? You have
15 opened that door: I have to step in!
16 MR RURAC: Moldovan farmers take advantage
17 of the existing legislation. We have very fertile
18 lands in Moldova. They useless fertilizers and yet
19 they have good yields, good crops.
20 MR FORTIER: So Moldovan lands are very
21 fertile. They produce, if well managed, good crops.
22 Would you say it was a good idea for Mr Grot to
23 invest in farming when he did in Moldova?
24 MR RURAC: Absolutely, yes.
25 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I am sorry to
[Page 556]
10:11
1 interrupt, but I was a little bit surprised about
2 what you say now because, when I read your report,
3 in particular paragraph 27, I have the impression
4 that this paragraph 27 contradicts completely what
5 you say right now.
6 Do we have the Romanian version?
7 Paragraph 27 says, "Currently most of the arable
8 surface is poor and very poorly provided with ..."
9 and then all kinds of things.
10 MR FORTIER: The witness said if I had to
11 write it today, it would be different. That is why
12 I...
13 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That is true but it is
14 strange that the quality of the land changes.
15 MR FORTIER: Very well, I will continue,
16 if I may, Mr Chairman, with my questions.
17 MR GLEASON: Can the witness perhaps
18 respond to that?
19 THE PRESIDENT: Professor Knieper just put
20 a question to you on paragraph 27, so it would be
21 sensible just to hear your response as to why the
22 apparent contradiction between what you just told
23 Mr Fortier that land was good, but as
24 Professor Knieper says in paragraph 27 you say land
25 is poor. Could you explain what your position is?
[Page 557]
10:12
1 MR GLEASON: Can I ask them to read
2 paragraph 27 first?
3 MR RURAC: I can read all that. Yes.
4 Normally according to science there is
5 a big problem, namely the problem with the loss of
6 fertility of the soil, but in practice we see that
7 the farmers get big crops, and they are increasing
8 every year. In Moldova no one is leaving the plots
9 of land. Everybody wants more land. Everybody
10 wants to be in agrobusiness, because 80 per cent
11 from the soil are chernozem soils which are the most
12 fertile soils in the world.
13 MR FORTIER: Would you like to comment on
14 that, Mr Gumovschi? Do you agree with Mr Rurac?
15 Would you like to expand?
16 MR GUMOVSCHI: I agree with what he said
17 but I would like to add something. Normally Moldova
18 soils come from the Steppes. Mr Grot comes from
19 there where he rented this land. But I would like
20 to add something. In 1991, for example, when we
21 transitioned from the collective farms and we
22 divided the lands, had we then introduced, we said
23 36 kilograms of fertilizers, nitrogen and phosphate,
24 there were only 19 kilograms added to the fields the
25 next year -- this is an average for 1 ha -- whereas
[Page 558]
10:15
1 in Europe the average is 45 kilograms. In other
2 countries, in western countries, they even add 160
3 fertilizers as an average. Our soils are rich but
4 the farmers get the crops due to the humus
5 percentage that is contained in the soil.
6 The problem is phosphorous, and I have
7 that in paragraph 26. Our soils have a low content
8 of phosphorous which is why these fertilizers need
9 to be introduced. If Mr Grot had followed our
10 recommendation his yields would have been very high,
11 even higher than the ones in Visoca.
12 MR FORTIER: So it was a good investment
13 for Mr Grot?
14 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes. It would have been a
15 very good investment for Mr Grot. He was an example
16 for other farmers as well, because he had the
17 technology, he had representatives there, and his
18 technology had a higher performance, and then if he
19 had used the fertilizers and the plant protection
20 measures, he would have had fairly high crops.
21 MR FORTIER: I have one question. I need
22 to be told how this score is performed.
23 In paragraph 16 you see there you have
24 reliability score 75, reliability score 66. How are
25 we to understand the way these scores are arrived
[Page 559]
10:18
1 at? Either one of you; the one who knows!
2 MR RURAC: This is soil description. It
3 is just the quality of the soil. It is not our
4 data. It is average data.
5 MR FORTIER: Coming from where?
6 MR RURAC: From the soils of Moldova. It
7 is a book, it is a monogram, it is a study. It is a
8 specialised study on agrochemicals.
9 MR FORTIER: These are not your numbers?
10 These are numbers that you have picked up?
11 MR RURAC: Yes, that is right.
12 MR FORTIER: And you have inserted them in
13 your report?
14 MR RURAC: Yes.
15 MS CRACIUNEANU: Mr Gumovschi actually
16 mentioned that he took this data from the Institute
17 of Agronomists and Scientific Institute of Agronomy,
18 and the translation was not so clear about this.
19 MR FORTIER: How would you get a score of
20 100?
21 MS CRACIUNEANU: He didn't hear the
22 translation.
23 MR FORTIER: My question is simple. How
24 would you arrive at a reliability score of 100?
25 MR GUMOVSCHI: How we would get to one
[Page 560]
10:20
1 hundred percent? I am sorry the translation is not
2 clear.
3 This reliability can be done in the
4 following way: First of all, organic fertilizers
5 have to be used in order to form the structure and
6 the humus of the soil. Then there needs to be
7 mineral fertilizers that I have mentioned recently.
8 Until 1991, we always used for a hectare
9 of arable land up to 5 tons. During these last
10 years when we carried out research there were used
11 only 40-50 kg for 1 ha of arable land. Why?
12 Because the firms disappeared, the cows went back to
13 the village, the cattle numbers decreased, so the
14 fertilizers were thrown away in ditches, so we had
15 problems with medium, with the protection of the
16 medium because there was pollution in the water, in
17 the fountains. 80 per cent of the fountain water is
18 polluted, and it is not drinkable water.
19 Mr Grot I believe intended to include all
20 these scientific recommendations and to introduce
21 also organic fertilizers, vegetable waste, as
22 I said, which was used to feed the animals, or they
23 were just burnt. I believe he would have introduced
24 mineral and organic fertilizers, and he would have
25 used advanced current technology so that the
[Page 561]
10:23
1 reliability could have reached up to 100. I think
2 it would have been very good, and it would have been
3 a benchmark, an example, for other farmers to
4 follow.
5 MR FORTIER: Thank you very much.
6 Do you know the company Bio-Alianta?
7 MR RURAC: I know.
8 MR GUMOVSCHI: Just a little bit.
9 MR FORTIER: What do you know?
10 MR RURAC: I know that in Balti in
11 Floresti there is an agricultural company called
12 Bio-Alianta.
13 MR FORTIER: It is a Moldovan company?
14 MR RURAC: From what I know it is a
15 limited company. I don't think it has foreign
16 capital.
17 MR FORTIER: What do you know about it,
18 Mr Rurac?
19 MR RURAC: I know that this company has 4
20 or 6,000 ha. I know that this company is quite
21 mechanised. I visited this company with my work in
22 agrobusiness, so I have seen this company.
23 MR FORTIER: Mr Gumovschi?
24 MS CRACIUNEANU: Can I add?
25 MR FORTIER: I don't want an answer from
[Page 562]
10:25
1 the sidelines.
2 MS CRACIUNEANU: It is not an answer. It
3 is a lack of translation. He said "I don't think it
4 has a foreign capital because it is a limited ..."
5 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, that was
6 translated. I heard that.
7 MR FORTIER: Mr Gumovschi, do you know the
8 company?
9 MR GUMOVSCHI: I have heard about this
10 company on the media, the television. I haven't
11 been there, I haven't visited. I don't know the
12 results. There is not much I can say about them.
13 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: After your first
14 answers I was a little bit confused about these
15 parts in English in your report. My question is
16 very simple: did you write the English parts or were
17 they sent to you and you integrated them after
18 having understood what was said in the English parts
19 of your report?
20 MR RURAC: We integrated our part.
21 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: So it was sent by
22 somebody?
23 MR RURAC: We worked with Deloitte. We
24 made or formulated the paragraphs. The English part
25 we needed to have translated so we asked them to
[Page 563]
10:27
1 give it to us so that we could put it in our report.
2 There are some things we don't have. The agronomy
3 part I know, but the other part I don't know, but it
4 is our part.
5 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: This is not really my
6 point of interest. What I am interested in actually
7 is that in your report, and Mr Gumovschi you
8 impressively repeated this just now, you described
9 the investments of Laguardia and Mr Grot as
10 hypothetical investments. You said right now he
11 would have used this and he would have done that and
12 he would have improved. When you talk about
13 "Laguardia's operations" or "Laguardia's yields,
14 "Laguardia's production", "Laguardia's performance",
15 you always talk about possible production and
16 performance and yields. You never looked into the
17 reality of Laguardia's business. Is that correct?
18 MR GUMOVSCHI: In general in our agronomy
19 science and practice you have to know that from a
20 small plot of land where all the nutrients have been
21 extracted, there is a period of two or three years
22 that is needed in order to reach a certain
23 potential. There needs to be fertilizers introduced
24 in the first year that needs to be processed in a
25 scientific way, a conservative scientific American
[Page 564]
10:29
1 way which is now being used in our country, and then
2 two or three years later it could get these
3 particular crops we that mentioned. So what we
4 calculated is what the crops would have been during
5 the first two or three years and there was a
6 forecast for these two years.
7 For the future had he used these
8 technologies, then the forecast would have been
9 higher. Had our forecast covered five or six years,
10 then the crops would have been calculated at a
11 higher level.
12 I would like to tell you this, that the
13 famous agronomist member of the academy, Dimtri
14 Bereshnikov (?), he said that the mistakes of
15 agronomists sometimes could be remedied by the
16 introduction of fertilizers. I believe and my
17 forecast is that other elements besides the
18 fertilizers could have been introduced in Mr Grot's
19 enterprise.
20 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: So if you had been his
21 adviser you would have advised him scientifically to
22 use technology and fertilizers and pesticides, and
23 under these conditions he would then have made
24 better yields, better productivity, but the question
25 is it is only under these hypotheses that you work.
[Page 565]
10:31
1 It is not the real business of Laguardia that you
2 describe. You describe a possible scenario which
3 could have happened if everything had gone right.
4 Is that correct?
5 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes. It is true.
6 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Thank you very much.
7 For me that is important
8 My next and last question goes to the same
9 direction. We were told in the submissions that in,
10 I think, 2012 there was an exceptional drought in
11 Moldova. Is that reflected somewhere, this reality
12 of an exceptional drought in Moldova?
13 I know that at the beginning of your
14 report you talk about climatic conditions, but then
15 when I looked into the figures I didn't find
16 anything which would make reference to this
17 exceptional drought which brought Laguardia into
18 difficulties in 2012. Did you integrate the reality
19 of the climatic conditions of 2012 into your report
20 or not?
21 MR GUMOVSCHI: In general, in 2007 and
22 2012, we faced the biggest drought in Eastern
23 Europe. The Republic of Moldova in 2007, as regards
24 agriculture, underwent losses of 1 billion USD.
25 In 2012, agriculture in the Republic of
[Page 566]
10:33
1 Moldova again had a loss of 1,250,000,000 USD
2 because of the drought. The district of Soroca
3 Floresti were affected to a lesser extent by
4 drought. We researched the studies, we compared
5 data that were given by the state, the state data
6 from Soroca, and the data coming from Floresti,
7 because they are located in the same geographical
8 area. By using these data that we retrieved from
9 the institute and the data that we obtained locally,
10 we noticed what it was and we wrote about this in
11 the report, but drought affected these two districts
12 less. It was the autumn of 2011 when the cereals,
13 the grains, were quite dry. Wheat, for instance.
14 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: But I didn't really
15 understand completely because you are talking here
16 in your report, as I understood, about hypothetical
17 production. How, then, did you reflect the reality
18 of the drought into this hypothetical production?
19 I simply want to understand how you did that?
20 MR GUMOVSCHI: Scientifically and from the
21 documentary point of view we took data from the
22 State Commission of Visoca, and the average figures
23 from the two districts, from Soroca and from
24 Floresti. We took the average figures and then we
25 calculated further on from the scientific point of
[Page 567]
10:36
1 view the agricultural yield, and we mentioned that
2 in the report.
3 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Can you take me to one
4 of these tables where you can explain to me where
5 this is reflected in your tables?
6 MR GUMOVSCHI: These are the data in
7 English. In table 2, in 2012, 2011 and in 2014 you
8 have the figures. The average figures for the crops
9 sunflower, corn, wheat, soya and rape, and data from
10 the testing and experimental centres of Soroca, the
11 average figures for the district of Floresti. The
12 average figures are also ranged for Soroca. From
13 these figures we calculated the crops, the harvest,
14 within the range of 2011 to 2014 for Laguardia.
15 You may notice that we did that per plant
16 that is sunflower, corn, wheat, soya, so you can see
17 that the figures are equal or similar to the figures
18 of the State Institute of Visoca. In the sunflower
19 or in other grains, such as soya or rape, we took up
20 the figures from Visoca.
21 Just a couple of minutes ago my colleague
22 mentioned why is this the situation. Because for
23 smaller areas the harvest is bigger than the crop on
24 bigger areas. You can see on the last row where
25 everything is in bold the figures and compare them,
[Page 568]
10:39
1 the annual harvest.
2 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: But these figures that
3 you have put here as planned, hypothetical figures
4 for Laguardia are identical to the figures of
5 Visoca, except for the maize. Is that correct?
6 MR GUMOVSCHI: Yes.
7 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: What I do not see is
8 any effect of climatic extreme conditions, but that
9 cannot be extrapolated from these figures? Or is it
10 my fault not to understand it?
11 MR GUMOVSCHI: Drought effects are visible
12 for some crops in Floresti for the average figures.
13 If you look at soya, for instance, soya requires a
14 lot of humidity, so the average figure is 0.53. In
15 Soroca it was a bit higher, 1.15, while in Visoca it
16 was 2.2, 2.08.
17 What we did was to take average figures
18 for several years, because in Moldova in the past
19 out of five, one year was a drought year, but now it
20 so happens that there are two years that have
21 climatic droughty periods of time, so what we did
22 was to take over the average figures for several
23 years.
24 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Thank you very much.
25 THE PRESIDENT: I just have a couple of
[Page 569]
10:41
1 questions. Could I take you to table 6 at page 14
2 in the report? At the bottom of table 6 you have a
3 source: Costs tariffs in agriculture, 2007. Could
4 you tell us what that is?
5 MR RURAC: This source is a guideline for
6 the farmers which was done by the Institute of
7 Statistics and Technology. They calculated maps
8 with all expenditures and costs for certain quoted
9 areas of arable land, et cetera, et cetera. So all
10 these figures are calculated according to
11 traditional technologies by use of multiple
12 technological procedures, or means, including Soviet
13 technology.
14 THE PRESIDENT: That is a local land
15 publication?
16 MR RURAC: Yes, this is a local
17 publication.
18 THE PRESIDENT: I see that what it does is
19 it comes up with a figure of the cost in USD per
20 hectare, for example.
21 MR RURAC: No, it is in lei. It is
22 transferred. It is converted into Moldovan lei.
23 THE PRESIDENT: The original document is
24 in lei and you have converted it into USD for the
25 purposes of this?
[Page 570]
10:43
1 MR RURAC: Yes.
2 THE PRESIDENT: I would find it helpful --
3 not today but in due course -- to have a copy of
4 that original publication in full to be able to
5 ascertain exactly what this information provides.
6 Let me explain why: I am not a farmer,
7 I am just a lawyer, but I assume that the cost of
8 farming an area will depend on a number of
9 variables, including the size being farmed. We
10 learn constantly about cost benefits of farming very
11 large farms, so we are dealing here with a total
12 area of 2830 ha. I appreciate it is spread over
13 three areas, and we have also had evidence that it
14 is in different parcels, so it is not necessarily a
15 single, easily harvestable space.
16 Am I right in thinking that the average
17 cost per hectare of farming an area of nearly 3000
18 ha is going to be less, and significantly less, than
19 farming an area of 25 ha per hectare? Is that
20 correct?
21 MR RURAC: Yes, it is correct, but it also
22 depends on the technology to be used for the 25 ha
23 area or for the much bigger area.
24 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Fortier makes a point
25 that in asking to see the underlying document it is
[Page 571]
10:45
1 a request not to you, but in fact to the Claimant.
2 We do not need it today.
3 MR KOPECKY: Mr President, you see the
4 problem? We were never given this document before
5 the hearing and if it is given to the Tribunal after
6 the hearing...
7 THE PRESIDENT: We will deal with that in
8 due course, but you had an opportunity -- this
9 document has been available for a long time-- you
10 had an opportunity to ask for the document. I am
11 just saying that I think the Tribunal will find it
12 helpful now. Let me explain why I am interested.
13 It may be that it is not necessary, but I am trying
14 to work out my logic here.
15 Going straight to the question, this cost
16 of mechanised works by year was originally in lei,
17 it has been converted into USD, it is produced in
18 2007. How do we know whether this relates to
19 average costs for a small area, 20-30 ha, or very
20 large areas of nearly 3000 ha? How do we know that?
21 MR RURAC: In the guidelines the figures
22 are given for small areas and for big areas. There
23 is a sort of gradient. In fact, there are three
24 types: small, medium-sized, and large-sized areas.
25 THE PRESIDENT: I have just done a very
[Page 572]
10:46
1 rough calculation taking 2830 ha and taking an
2 average cost per year of 300 USD per ha, that is a
3 rough back-of-the-envelope average. That takes you
4 to a mechanised cost per year of about 840,000 USD.
5 That seems to be approximately the total 840,000
6 USD.
7 Could you tell us how that 840,000 is
8 allocated? How much of that is in relation to
9 capital cost of equipment, depreciating or
10 otherwise, rented, and how much is in relation to
11 the operating costs, diesel, petrol, whatever? How
12 does that 840,000 per annum break down?
13 MR RURAC: I can only say that the tariffs
14 indicated in the guidelines are exceedingly high,
15 exaggerated. We have technologies in Moldova which
16 use approximately up to 14 technological procedures,
17 or means, but we had no other solution for coping
18 with the farm areas besides the technology we had.
19 For instance, Semanatoaea, Great Plains,
20 sells grains without any prior farm works, so we had
21 no motivation to diminish the costs.
22 THE PRESIDENT: We have had evidence
23 before us that Laguardia and Mr Grot made capital
24 investments. In CEX-2, the report of Lars Wiechen,
25 we had evidence that there were capital investments,
[Page 573]
10:49
1 costs for the acquisition of equipment and vehicles
2 necessary in the period 2009-2012 which came to
3 887,000 USD. That is the evidence before us. Did
4 you ask to see any information as to the equipment
5 that Laguardia had purchased for this farm?
6 MR RURAC: We received a list of the
7 equipment that Laguardia had. We saw the sowing
8 machines, the threshing machines, the equipments,
9 and I can confirm that for the respective area the
10 technical equipment was enough, the productivity was
11 enough, and the technology would cost at least
12 half --
13 THE INTERPRETER: I don't understand what
14 "half" is.
15 THE PRESIDENT: I think we need some help
16 on what "half" means. We don't understand.
17 MR RURAC: If we hypothesise, if we refer
18 to the table -- wheat 313.84 -- what is calculated
19 here is a lot of procedures, a lot of traditional
20 technological procedures. Wheat, judging by the
21 present technology, costs -- that is the mechanical
22 equipment -- could cost or could imply two
23 procedures: sowing and harvesting.
24 THE PRESIDENT: Let's look at those two
25 procedures. You told us you were given a list of
[Page 574]
10:51
1 machinery, and you have expressed a view on it.
2 Just for me to understand, how much equipment would
3 you need to engage in the sowing and harvesting of
4 2830 ha?
5 MR RURAC: 2800, you said? Sorry, sir?
6 THE PRESIDENT: If you go back to
7 paragraph 21 of your report, we have the areas
8 occupied by Laguardia, and at paragraph 21 you say
9 the total leased area is 2830 ha. My question is,
10 and I have explained that I am not a farmer, I have
11 no idea how much equipment you need, but you have
12 helpfully explained you need sowing equipment and
13 you need harvesting equipment. How much equipment
14 do you need?
15 MR RURAC: Mr President, we have three
16 different plantations. They refer to different
17 procedures of sowing and harvesting. When we
18 harvest wheat then we only harvest wheat. We don't
19 harvest sunflower. Sunflower comes in autumn. Do
20 you understand, sir?
21 THE PRESIDENT: Even I understand that!
22 My question is what is the total equipment you would
23 need to engage in this activity, these different
24 crops, over these areas? You told me you were given
25 a list. What did the list say in terms of the
[Page 575]
10:52
1 technologies?
2 The reason I am asking is you say at
3 paragraph 43 -- but you don't give us information --
4 "When the lands were leased, ICS Laguardia had a
5 high productivity agricultural technology". My
6 question is how do you know that? What did you see?
7 How are you able to express that opinion?
8 MR RURAC: In simple terms we looked In
9 my case, agricultural farming, I looked at what they
10 had. They had a highly competent performing type of
11 technological
12 THE PRESIDENT: I would like details.
13 What did they have?
14 MR RURAC: I cannot recall everything.
15 There were three caterpillar combines. I don't
16 remember about tractors, two sowing machines, very
17 modern ones. Ploughs with discs. Highly performing
18 tools or mechanised equipment. We do not have
19 normative bases for that. That is why we used the
20 costs coming from the guidelines.
21 THE PRESIDENT: You have described three
22 caterpillars, two sowing machines, ploughs and other
23 equipment. Did you ever see any of that equipment?
24 Did you ever see that equipment for yourself?
25 MR RURAC: On the picture. As an
[Page 576]
10:55
1 agronomist, I know them. I know what they are, so
2 I can say.
3 THE PRESIDENT: You see, what you say at
4 paragraph 43 is that "Laguardia had a high
5 productivity agricultural technology". To be shown
6 a picture that indicates this is the technology they
7 were going to use is a different thing from knowing
8 that they actually had that available.
9 What I am trying to get at is how -- you
10 have understood -- all you have seen is a
11 photograph. I can show you a photograph, this is my
12 caterpillar, but in fact I don't have one. You have
13 understood? Just showing you a photograph does not
14 establish that is what they actually had, not only
15 available to them in principle, but had purchased,
16 had brought to the land, and it was there about to
17 be used.
18 MR RURAC: To me I understand that a
19 caterpillar combine is just for harvesting. It
20 cannot serve any other purpose. When I saw these
21 highly performing harvesting machines, of course if
22 they are not correctly used, not a good harvest can
23 be obtained. But we, as agronomists, what we think
24 is how to do well, how to obtain a good harvest, not
25 a bad harvest.
[Page 577]
10:57
1 THE PRESIDENT: I understand, but what
2 I am putting to you is that you never saw the
3 machines. You saw photographs of the machines?
4 MR RURAC: Only in the picture.
5 THE PRESIDENT: Did the picture show the
6 equipment present and ready to be used or being used
7 at the site? Or were they catalogue-type
8 photographs? I am just curious to know what you had
9 seen.
10 MR RURAC: No. They were pictures taken
11 on site. They were not catalogue-type. It was a
12 list with all types; that is, these pictures were
13 followed by a list. They are not coming from a
14 catalogue.
15 THE PRESIDENT: And, Claimant, do we have
16 that in evidence?
17 MR GLEASON: No, we do not. The list and
18 the pictures?
19 THE PRESIDENT: The list and the pictures
20 that was made available as the basis for the report?
21 MR GLEASON: I don't believe that is on
22 record.
23 THE PRESIDENT: We will confer, but we may
24 well have further requests in relation to that
25 issue.
[Page 578]
10:58
1 MR FORTIER: You said that you saw the
2 photos of this machinery on site. What site are you
3 referring to?
4 MR RURAC: Pictures had been taken in a
5 certain place. We received them from Mr Grot's
6 representative in Moldova. We received those
7 pictures.
8 MR FORTIER: And they were on the site on
9 some of the lots that he had leased. Is that
10 correct?
11 MR RURAC: Yes, or even all. The whole
12 equipment. That is all the machinery. Because we
13 asked for the list of the technology, that is all
14 the technological equipment in order for us know all
15 the equipment in order to calculate the
16 mechanisation costs. But, as I said before, we
17 don't have a normative basis for that. That is why
18 we used the figures in the guideline.
19 THE PRESIDENT: Did you visit the sites at
20 Cosernita, at Varvareuca and Rosietici?
21 MR RURAC: No.
22 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Gumovschi?
23 MR GUMOVSCHI: I was in Rosietici, but
24 I did not know exactly what lands they were, which
25 land was which, so to say. I went to Floresti and
[Page 579]
11:00
1 to Soroca and to Visoca. As to the farmlands,
2 I just saw all the farmlands.
3 MR KOPECKY: Just a general note, I know
4 it is not exactly responsive to what has just been
5 said, but I think it needs to be clarified for the
6 public record of this hearing that there were
7 certain cut-off dates for putting in evidence, and
8 I do agree that Respondent did not put in a rebuttal
9 report. However, to put in evident was on Claimants
10 and we have been extremely liberal and flexible with
11 evidence being presented later on, before and during
12 this hearing, but I would strongly object to the
13 Tribunal asking for any evidence to be put in at or
14 after the hearing, even though Respondentdid not
15 submit a rebuttal report here, because those are
16 unrelated issues and it is the issue of the burden
17 of proof.
18 THE PRESIDENT: We take your point and it
19 is on the record. We will take it under advisement
20 MR KOPECKY: Only for the record. Thank
21 you.
22 THE PRESIDENT: You will be aware that in
23 2011 this project fell into difficulty, and in none
24 of these three areas -- Cosernita, Varvareuca,
25 Rosietici -- was there ever actually any harvesting.
[Page 580]
11:01
1 What would happen, for example, to the harvesting
2 equipment that is said to have been purchased? Do
3 you just throw it away, or do you just sell it?
4 MR GUMOVSCHI: What I know is that
5 Mr Grot's representative displayed them for sale to
6 be sold. That is what I know. How many machines
7 were sold we don't know. We have the list in our
8 computer, the pictures of where they had been
9 stored, these machines. We can leave that with you.
10 That is what we know.
11 THE PRESIDENT: Your testimony is that the
12 machinery that you had identified in photographs and
13 on lists was put up for sale. Do you know when it
14 was put up for sale? Do you recall? I realise it
15 is some years ago. Do you have a rough
16 recollection?
17 MR GUMOVSCHI: It was one year and a half,
18 maybe two years before. At that time approximately
19 that we learnt about it, one and a half years back
20 or so.
21 THE PRESIDENT: Would it be possible,
22 having regard to practice in Moldova, to find out
23 what happened to this equipment? Is there a central
24 register, for example, of such equipment so we are
25 able to ascertain whether or not it was sold or
[Page 581]
11:03
1 whether it remains unsold?
2 MR GUMOVSCHI: There is no such register
3 or evidence. It is only the selling companies,
4 those companies which sell the equipment and that
5 purchase new equipment who may have such lists, or
6 maybe the taxation agency would have this data. We
7 don't have such data.
8 MR FORTIER: I recall that the Respondent
9 talked specifically about the machinery in their
10 pleadings and they said they could not be claimed by
11 Mr Grot because they belonged to the company, right?
12 MR KOPECKY: Yes, and further there is
13 evidence on the record in the form of exhibits R-9
14 and R-11 that the equipment was sold and when it was
15 sold and to whom and under what conditions.
16 THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that.
17 MR ASTUNO: If Claimants might respond?
18 THE PRESIDENT: I was trying to get from
19 the experts here, who have given expert opinion
20 including on aspects of equipment, what they know.
21 I appreciate that, I want to understand what they
22 know about this equipment and what happened to it.
23 I am grateful for your honest answers.
24 MR ASTUNO: Mr President, if we might also
25 be on the record on this point, it is still an open
[Page 582]
11:05
1 issue as to what the value of the equipment
2 presently is, how much of it was sold. Those are
3 open questions still. To generally claim that all
4 the equipment was sold pursuant to Respondent's
5 cited exhibit is an open issue in our minds.
6 THE PRESIDENT: That is understood. The
7 purpose of my question was only we have these two
8 gentlemen with us, they are experts in this field,
9 they know how things work in Moldova in this domain,
10 I have no idea. I was trying to benefit and get a
11 sense of what equipment was available and what had
12 happened to it. I think we have taken that as far
13 as we can go.
14 I am very grateful to you. I don't know
15 whether there are questions from my colleagues, or
16 any follow up in relation to the Tribunal's
17 questions from the Claimant, very briefly?
18 MR GLEASON: If I may just ask a follow up
19 question.
20 Re-examination by Claimant
21 MR GLEASON: There was some concern about
22 the figures you used in table 2 not taking into
23 consideration a drought year. I would like to put
24 table 2 back up for you. You calculate these
25 numbers using a forward-looking approach. In other
[Page 583]
11:06
1 words, you were asked to put yourself in the shoes
2 of Laguardia in 2011 and calculate the potential
3 yields looking forward from that point. Is that an
4 accurate description of what you were asked to do?
5 MR RURAC: Yes.
6 MR GLEASON: So you used the figures of
7 2007-2010 for the Floresti and Soroca average
8 yields, and 2006-2010 for the Visoca centre yield,
9 as the table clearly shows.
10 MR RURAC: Yes.
11 MR GLEASON: So those periods do take into
12 consideration drought conditions, true?
13 MR RURAC: Yes, of course. In 2007, when
14 average figures were obtained, that year was also
15 very droughty. It was a drought year. When we
16 planned and programmed everything, again, we did
17 take into consideration drought. The harvest for
18 sunflower 2.87, we can say that in a regular year
19 the harvest is even 4.5, but 2.85 is a year which
20 does include the drought year.
21 There are years when peasants, when
22 farmers, obtained even a harvest of 4.5, but the
23 2.85 reflects the fact that there was a drought
24 year.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Can I repeat what I said
[Page 584]
11:08
1 to you to the gentlemen? (Pause)
2 Yes, they confirm.
3 MR GLEASON: Just to simply ask the
4 question, because it was a long answer, the
5 2007-2010 averages include at least one year of
6 drought conditions?
7 MR RURAC: Of course, yes.
8 MR GUMOVSCHI: In average figures for
9 Floresti Soroca, 2007 was a drought year, and
10 2011-2014, this interval, 2012 was the drought year,
11 but here you have the average figures and the
12 average figures do include the drought year of 2012.
13 The same for Visoca. For 2007, again the figure is
14 an average one.
15 MR GLEASON: Thank you very much.
16 THE PRESIDENT: Gentlemen, I think we have
17 reached the end. We are very grateful to you for
18 making your time available and coming to Vienna.
19 Enjoy the rest of your visit here. You are now
20 released.
21 Let's take a 15 minute break to rearrange
22 the room. We will resume at 25 past 11 to hear
23 Mr Wiechen.
24 (Short break from 11.10 am to 11.28 am)
25 LARS WIECHEN
[Page 585]
10:28
1 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Wiechen, welcome. My
2 name is Philippe Sands. I have the privilege to
3 chair this Tribunal. I sit with Mr Fortier and
4 Professor Knieper.
5 Could you begin by simply reading out the
6 declaration in front of you?
7 MR WIECHEN: I solemnly declare upon my
8 honour and conscience that my statement will be in
9 accordance with my sincere belief.
10 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Welcome to
11 this proceedings. I think we will begin with
12 presentations, questions, introductory statement or
13 a mix of all of the above, and Mr Astuno will
14 commence.
15 MR ASTUNO: Thank you, Mr President.
16 Examination by Claimants
17 MR ASTUNO: Mr Wiechen, thank you for
18 being with us here today. Could you start by
19 briefly explaining this presentation that is now
20 appearing on screen, CH-9?
21 MR WIECHEN: This presentation basically
22 provides just a brief background of myself, of what
23 I have been asked to do. That means to provide an
24 independent, objective assessment of potential
25 damages incurred to Mr Grot. I calculated basically
[Page 586]
10:30
1 two types of damages: loss of investment value and
2 loss of business value. Further on, I would like to
3 comment upon the report filed by KPMG or Mr Peer.
4 MR ASTUNO: We will get to that. On the
5 screen right now is the slide that indicates the
6 loss of the initial investment costs that were paid
7 for by Mr Grot. Would you care to comment on the
8 valuation methodology insofar as you were able to
9 calculate and arrive at this number of approximately
10 798,000 USD?
11 MR WIECHEN: First of all, I would like to
12 make a comment that I made a small revision to my
13 initial calculations because I excluded all
14 operating expenses which would have been necessary
15 to start up the farming operations. I did it first
16 for simplicity reasons and to be more conservative,
17 not to confuse operating expenses with capital
18 expenditure. Capital expenditures is kind of
19 exclusive for the investment in fixed assets, and we
20 excluded the operating expenses from my original
21 calculation.
22 MR ASTUNO: Thank you. As we can see
23 here, for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 there are
24 denominated amounts. How were those numbers
25 justified?
[Page 587]
10:31
1 MR WECHEN: Basically what we did was we
2 had a field team travelling to Moldova and
3 identifying or verifying the existence of the
4 equipment. Secondly, from an accounting point of
5 view, we investigated their fixed asset registers,
6 basically the financial statements of Laguardia, and
7 looked for entries in the fixed asset register which
8 are investments for the years 2009 and 2010. We
9 cross-referenced the financial entries with custom
10 documents to ensure that only the equipment which
11 has been contributed by the company before
12 September 2010 are included in our calculations.
13 MR ASTUNO: Thank you. My next question
14 pertains to a request on allocation of damages that
15 Claimants have filed in this case. You do not need
16 to know about the details of that but I wanted to
17 put that on the record before I make this question.
18 What do the financial records indicate
19 insofar as who was the party that paid for this
20 equipment and vehicles?
21 MR WIECHEN: We made an analysis of
22 pertaining documents, like copies of bills of sale,
23 sales invoices and certificates of transfer, which
24 clearly evidenced that either Mr Grot or one of his
25 wholly-owned companies have bought the equipment and
[Page 588]
10:33
1 that this equipment has been transferred to the
2 capital of the Moldovan entity, Laguardia SRL.
3 MR ASTUNO: I now want to turn our
4 attention to the forward-looking damages analysis
5 that was applied by both experts in this case.
6 Would you care to comment why you believe that a
7 forward-looking lost profits analysis was justified
8 in this matter?
9 MR WECHEN: Considering this investment,
10 I would not classify it as a newly-established
11 business due to the fact that we had accounting
12 records proving that Mr Grot ran quite successfully
13 farming operations in Poland. We have been provided
14 with documentation from his accountants which prove
15 that he generated net or profit margins even close
16 to 50 per cent in Poland, and secondly, even if you
17 analyse the financial statements of Laguardia SRL,
18 you see that 2010 was quite a successful year where
19 the company also had a profit margin I think even
20 above 30 per cent, which made me reasonably believe
21 that Mr Grot is a capable businessman in
22 agriculture.
23 Secondly, we consulted with agricultural
24 experts and, based on our discussions with the
25 agricultural experts, and they have decades of
[Page 589]
10:35
1 experience in agriculture in Moldova, I felt
2 reasonably satisfied in applying a forward-looking
3 DCF analysis in this case.
4 MR ASTUNO: To be clear you worked
5 alongside the local agricultural experts, they
6 forecasted the damages in this case on an ex ante
7 basis. Is that correct?
8 MR MECHEN: Yes.
9 MR ASTUNO: And as of the year 2010?
10 Approximately the valuation date.
11 MR WIECHEN: The valuation date which is
12 clearly stated in our reports was February 2011 for
13 the location Cosernita, and 10 March for the
14 locations in Varvareuca and Rosietici.
15 MR ASTUNO: Thank you. I now would like
16 to turn to an issue that was raised by Respondent's
17 expert report in that report and that pertains to
18 one of the variables that is part of the stated DCF
19 calculation known as a change in working capital.
20 Can you explain our current insertion of this
21 variable and how that came to be.
22 MR WIECHEN: Basically in my First Expert
23 Report I took a too simplified assumption that this
24 business would run on a pure cash basis, that you
25 sell immediately your products at harvest date, you
[Page 590]
10:36
1 don't have any inventories, and it was too
2 simplified and also incorporating the criticism from
3 KPMG's report I concluded that working capital is
4 indeed a very, very important variable in
5 calculating a DCF, so this was an omission I regret,
6 yes.
7 MR ASTUNO: That has now been correctly
8 calculated, just to be clear, and that has been
9 updated as of today?
10 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
11 MR ASTUNO: I would now like to, first of
12 all, identify this slide. If you could just
13 identify what this number represents, particularly
14 the number that is highlighted [slide 13)
15 MR WECHEN: Basically we calculated
16 potential damages for each location separately based
17 on an income approach, applying the discounted cash
18 flow method separately for each location. What you
19 can see here is basically the sum of potential
20 damages resulting from each location summing up in
21 2.75 million USD.
22 MR ASTUNO: That does not account for
23 interest. Is that correct?
24 MR WECHEN: Correct (slide 15)
25 MR ASTUNO: Regarding pre-judgment
[Page 591]
10:37
1 interest, could you explain to the Tribunal why you
2 thought it was appropriate to apply the weighted
3 average cost of capital?
4 MR WECHEN: Basically one important
5 component to take into consideration when talking
6 about pre-award interest rates is the element of
7 opportunity costs and especially in an investor case
8 like this on hand, I believe that an investor should
9 be at minimum be rewarded for the opportunity cost
10 of capital which is basically the next best
11 alternative which has been foregone.
12 MR ASTUNO: Thank you. I now direct the
13 parties and the Tribunal's attention to the slides
14 in our presentation which updates the numbers after
15 applying pre-judgment interest.
16 Mr Wiechen, I now would like to discuss in
17 particular the expert report prepared by
18 Mr Michael Peer on behalf of the Respondent in this
19 matter. Before we get into any specifics, would you
20 care to generally summarise your impressions of this
21 report and some of the main points you would like to
22 address today?
23 MR WIECHEN: Basically one fundamental
24 misunderstanding I have seen in Mr Peer's report is
25 basically that Mr Peer used several times hindsight.
[Page 592]
10:39
1 That means he used many times information which
2 became known or knowledgeable after the valuation
3 date.
4 I would like to highlight at this point
5 that we performed an ex ante analysis. This
6 analysis requires that we take only into
7 consideration that information known or
8 knowledgeable until the valuation date, or the date
9 of injury which is equal to the valuation date.
10 MR ASTUNO: Was there a difference in
11 methodology in regards to where information was
12 derived from, especially as it pertains to costs?
13 MR WECHEN: If you refer to underlying
14 information, for example, if you refer to the
15 agricultural report, for instance, although this
16 report has been dated 5 January 2017, it only took
17 into consideration information which has been
18 available as of the date of revocation of lease
19 agreements in the respective locations.
20 MR ASTUNO: I would like to discuss your
21 collaboration a bit with the local agricultural
22 experts who just testified. Can you explain why you
23 believe it is more reliable to rely on the input of
24 local experts when conducting a business valuation?
25 MR WIECHEN: I believe that agriculture is
[Page 593]
10:41
1 a very specific and particular business, and that
2 pretty much depends on the location. You cannot
3 simply copy and paste from one country to another.
4 You cannot even copy and paste from one district to
5 the other in a country. I think it is of utmost
6 importance to have the input of local experts for
7 agriculture, and Mr Rurac and Mr Gumovschi have
8 decades of experience in this case.
9 I discussed, or the team discussed, with
10 the two experts and we gained reasonable certainty
11 as regards to the quality of the information
12 provided by them, and we relied on the information
13 provided by those experts.
14 MR ASTUNO: Would you care to contrast
15 that methodology to the one employed by Mr Peer?
16 MR WIECHEN: In principle, Mr Peer applied
17 a very extensive benchmarking analysis using
18 guideline companies which are stocklisted entities
19 operating in different countries, operating
20 different business models, some of them are even
21 traders or have different business models, rather
22 than the production and sale of agricultural
23 products.
24 MR ASTUNO: I want to ask about Mr Peer's
25 reliance on the local experts for costs and revenue.
[Page 594]
10:42
1 Would you care to describe how he relied upon their
2 work for some of the inputs, but not all?
3 MR WECHEN: Analysing Mr Peer's
4 assumptions, I have not seen the consistency in
5 applying the yields, that means tons per hectare,
6 for each crop. Sometimes he uses national averages
7 from one area, then national averages from the other
8 area, and sometimes he uses the expert numbers.
9 One of the overriding principles applied
10 in business valuation is to be consistent in the
11 source from which you derive your information.
12 I have not read any substantiation for the
13 assumptions Mr Peer took as regards the yields per
14 crop.
15 MR ASTUNO: Do you think there is a
16 difference between being an expert in valuation and
17 being an expert in the specific company or industry
18 that is being valued?
19 MR WECHEN: There is a huge difference.
20 MR ASTUNO: Can you explain how that
21 difference affects the credibility of Mr Peer's
22 report insofar as he does not rely upon a local
23 expert, for yields as least?
24 MR WIECHEN: Apparently, as I have used
25 the inputs from the agricultural experts, I strongly
[Page 595]
10:44
1 believe that this is the right methodology rather
2 than relying on averages from Moldovan statistics
3 which are basically, as we learn from the
4 agricultural experts, not one hundred percent
5 reliable.
6 MR ASTUNO: And isn't it true, though,
7 that Mr Peer did rely upon the local experts for
8 cost assumptions?
9 THE PRESIDENT: I think if you could
10 rephrase the question and continue with -- I think
11 you recognised it was leading.
12 MR ASTUNO: Would you please explain the
13 methodology that Mr Peer used when calculating
14 Laguardia's costs?
15 MR WIECHEN: Mr Peer actually used the
16 operating costs which have been used also in
17 Deloitte's report.
18 MR ASTUNO: Would you care to comment on
19 the assumption that the costs would remain as
20 predicted by the local experts, but at the same time
21 the yields would be used based on national average
22 data?
23 MR MECHEN: It is a matter of fact that
24 costs and revenues are directly and positively
25 correlated, so that means especially on the case in
[Page 596]
10:45
1 hand, using more input factors with higher cost will
2 directly lead to higher revenues.
3 MR ASTUNO: Thank you. I would now like
4 to focus on the emphasis the KPMG report places on
5 guideline companies.
6 First of all, can you explain where these
7 guideline companies are derived? Where KPMG found
8 this information?
9 MR WIECHEN: Those guideline companies
10 Deloitte used for calculating the cost of capital,
11 particularly the beta factor and the debt to equity
12 ratio.
13 MR ASTUNO: Your reliance on these
14 companies, was that limited to the beta calculation?
15 MR WIECHEN: Beta and debt to equity, and
16 the cost of capital calculation.
17 MR ASTUNO: Did that comparison at all
18 relate to your calculation of projected revenue?
19 MR WECHEN: No.
20 MR ASTUNO: Projected costs?
21 MR WECHEN: No.
22 MR ASTUNO: Does Mr Peer, however, use
23 these guideline companies when discussing
24 profitability?
25 MR WIECHEN: He used those companies, as
[Page 597]
10:47
1 you can see on this slide (20) to make a
2 profitability analysis.
3 MR ASTUNO: Do you think that was a
4 reasonable approach?
5 MR WIECHEN: I think this does not provide
6 a value added for the valuation of the business.
7 MR ASTUNO: Is that related to the fact
8 that the valuation study is done on an ex ante
9 basis?
10 MR WIECHEN: As to the profit margins, as
11 we can see on this slide 20 are also historical
12 ones, it is not a violation of the ex ante approach.
13 The point I would like to make on this slide is
14 basically if you just look for the standard
15 deviation of those two margins, gross and EBITDA
16 margins, you can see that it is immense. There is a
17 big variety from margins for the gross margin from
18 52 to minus 37 per cent, which indicates that those
19 averages derived cannot be reliable. Because at the
20 end of the day they are not directly comparable
21 companies. Those are stock listed companies.
22 MR ASTUNO: Would you care to comment
23 where these companies are located geographically?
24 MR WIECHEN: In several countries, as you
25 can see: Germany, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Croatia,
[Page 598]
10:49
1 Denmark, Russia.
2 MR ASTUNO: And the industries that these
3 companies operate in?
4 MR WECHEN: They are different.
5 MR ASTUNO: Do any one of these companies
6 represent the cost structure in the specific
7 business model that Laguardia had in place as of
8 2010?
9 MR WECHEN: No.
10 (Slide 21)
11 MR ASTUNO: I would like to turn our
12 attention to the next slide regarding some conflicts
13 or disagreements that the two respective expert
14 reports had. What is being assessed generally on
15 this slide, Mr Wiechen?
16 MR WECHEN: This is basically a
17 methodical error or calculation error Mr Peer did.
18 He did not deduct the appreciation to arrive at his
19 operating profit, namely the EBITDA, but he added
20 the depreciation expenses to derive at the
21 discounted cash flows which somehow is an adjustment
22 or creates a positive cash inflow with no economic
23 basis.
24 MR ASTUNO: Thank you. Could you please
25 briefly describe Mr Peer's calculation of income tax
[Page 599]
10:50
1 in this calculation?
2 MR WIECHEN: As you can see, the operating
3 profit is negative, so the business is loss-making.
4 Then Mr Peer deducted taxes from this amount which
5 basically is a positive impact, that means minus
6 plus minus makes plus, and implies it is a business
7 which actually saved money by paying taxes, so the
8 right amount of taxes would be zero, because you
9 don't pay taxes on negative results, right? You
10 need profits to pay taxes.
11 MR ASTUNO: To be clear, under Mr Peer's
12 analysis, Laguardia was cash negative, or had
13 negative earnings. Is that the case?
14 MR WIECHEN: The earnings are negative in
15 this.
16 MR ASTUNO: Could you briefly describe, in
17 your experience, is it common to see a historically
18 profitable enterprise suddenly then begin to incur
19 negative earnings without making any adjustment to
20 its cost structure?
21 MR WECHEN: (Shrugged)
22 MR ASTUNO: Is that common for you to see
23 in your experience? Is that common for you to see
24 companies that are historically profitable begin to
25 incur negative earnings without any changes to its
[Page 600]
10:52
1 cost structure?
2 MR WIECHEN: Rarely the case.
3 MR ASTUNO: I know it is very technical,
4 but would you care to describe some of the primary
5 issues that you found in Mr Peer's calculation of
6 the net working capital variable?
7 MR WECHEN: Working capital, as we
8 previously acknowledged, is an important factor to
9 consider when applying a discounted cash flow
10 method. These are basically data derived from table
11 F2 in the KPMG report.
12 If you just look at this table (slide 23)
13 there is one line popping up into the eye of the
14 educated reader which is basically the inventory
15 balance, which is much, much bigger than the trades
16 receivable balance, which is usually not the case.
17 Here Mr Peer did a calculation error because he
18 calculated the inventory balance by using revenues
19 and multiplying the revenues with the days inventory
20 outstanding. He should have multiplied the cost of
21 goods sold or direct input costs and multiplied them
22 by the days inventory outstanding, so this led to a
23 complete overestimation of inventory and a
24 significant downward adjustment to potential
25 cash flow.
[Page 601]
10:53
1 MR ASTUNO: Would you now care to describe
2 an issue or issues that you discovered in reviewing
3 Mr Peer's calculation of the discount rate?
4 MR WIECHEN: If you don't mind, I would
5 like to continue with the working capital because
6 I believe this is very important for the Tribunal to
7 see.
8 MR ASTUNO: Of course. If I may ask
9 Ms Nitschke, what is my time?
10 Perhaps a note for the record, if the
11 Tribunal could review the particular analysis
12 regarding the working capital? I am afraid we don't
13 have time to review this analysis further.
14 MR WIECHEN: Honestly, I want to help, and
15 this is a significant valuation error here, because
16 although Mr Peer has calculated the working capital
17 as outlined in the previous slide, he does not apply
18 the working capital and changes of working capital
19 in his own DCF calculation, because he uses the
20 operating expenses of the following year as working
21 capital balance, which leads to a complete
22 understatement of cashflows. This is a capital
23 mistake, I think even the biggest in the entire
24 report of Mr Peer.
25 MR ASTUNO: Thank you, Mr Wiechen.
[Page 602]
10:55
1 To be clear there is an errata that was
2 prepared by Mr Peer recently submitted to you. Were
3 any of these aforementioned issues cured?
4 MR MECHEN: The working capital issues?
5 No.
6 MR ASTUNO: The assumption that the costs
7 would remain high and the yield inputs would remain
8 average?
9 MR MECHEN: No.
10 MR FORTIER: Where is that in your paper
11 submission? What you have just underlined as being
12 one of the most severe errors made by Mr Peer.
13 MR WIECHEN: It is on page 24.
14 MR FORTIER: Thank you. We can read it
15 for ourselves.
16 MR ASTUNO: Thank you. I believe we might
17 have a couple of remaining minutes, Mr Wiechen.
18 Would you care to defend why you believe the
19 weighted average cost of capital is the correct
20 discount rate to apply in this matter?
21 MR WIECHEN: One of the elemental steps in
22 performing a business valuation in general is to set
23 a standard of value. That means the question value
24 to whom? I believe that the standard fair market
25 value is the most frequent standard of value used in
[Page 603]
10:56
1 business valuation and also in the context of loss
2 of business value calculations.
3 This standard of fair market value implies
4 that we are talking here about a price between
5 knowledgeable willing partners in an arm's length
6 transaction which are engaged to transfer business
7 in between themselves, and those hypothetical market
8 participants would strive to optimise the capital
9 structure, and on the other hand this would also
10 maximise the business value. That capital is
11 usually less expensive than equity capital. That
12 means you would induce more debt into your company
13 until you reached the minimum point which maximises
14 the business value, and this is the reason why we
15 use an optimal capital structure, that means the
16 weighted average capital structure of debt and
17 equity.
18 MR ASTUNO: Thank you. I understand that
19 you have a lot of experience in collaborating and
20 working alongside local experts. Would you care to
21 comment on your particular experience working with
22 Mr Rurac and Mr Gumovschi, and just to generally
23 describe how you perceive the reliability and
24 accuracy of their data and their reports?
25 MR WIECHEN: I had a very good
[Page 604]
10:58
1 collaboration with the two agricultural experts.
2 I am reasonably satisfied with all the input data
3 I received from them on areas where I am not an
4 expert -- I am not an agricultural expert -- and
5 yes, it was a fruitful collaboration.
6 MR ASTUNO: I apologise we have limited
7 time, but thank you for being here and for your
8 presentation. I believe there will be some further
9 questions. Thank you.
10 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Kopecky?
11 MR KOPECKY: Thank you.
12 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Mr Wiechen, I have one
13 technical question. I worked with your initial
14 report. When you go to page 8 of your initial
15 report you have the capital expenditure. There is a
16 table, table No 1. This table No 1 talks about
17 equipment and vehicles for fiscal year 9 and 10. In
18 your new report the figures do not match. Why is
19 that? It cannot be that you excluded the operating
20 expenses because that is a different line. When you
21 look up on table...
22 MR WIECHEN: I do not have my original
23 report here.
24 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Perhaps with your
25 permission, we can hand it to you. (Same handed)
[Page 605]
11:00
1 I simply want to know why?
2 MR WECHEN: It is different.
3 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: How does that come?
4 MR WECHEN: First of all, there was not
5 the exclusion of operating expenses.
6 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That comes later.
7 MR WIECHEN: But you are referring to the
8 first line?
9 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Yes.
10 MR WECHEN: This was basically an
11 additional recalculation of the initial investment
12 costs. We revisited our analysis when again, after
13 filing the initial report, we went again through the
14 fixed asset registers of the company, identified
15 again, and this is the reason why we have these
16 differences in the numbers.
17 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Slightly lower?
18 MR WIECHEN: Yes, they are slightly lower.
19 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Thank you.
20 Cross-examination by Respondent
21 MR KOPECKY: Good morning, Dr Wiechen.
22 Before I get to you, I would like to address one
23 point of order. I understand that the Tribunal
24 reserved but did not allow that a supplementary
25 report be filed. If we look at this report, pages
[Page 606]
11:03
1 1-16, it is effectively a new report, and only pages
2 17 and following are in fact a reaction to Mr Peer's
3 report. I understand we agreed for an extension on
4 time, but I would like to put it on record that this
5 was done without Tribunal approval because there
6 was, as you yesterday clarified, Mr President, only
7 a reservation on that and not an allowance to submit
8 a new report.
9 THE PRESIDENT: Let's proceed.
10 MR KOPECKY: Just a point of order.
11 Good morning, Mr Wiechen. Before we start
12 with specific questions I would like to tell you, as
13 you have heard, we received your new report ten
14 hours ago, so many of my questions will be
15 pertaining to your original report and if your
16 answer would be "I have addressed this in the
17 supplemental report", just bear with me, we will get
18 there, and if I do not get there you will be able to
19 clarify. I only worked with what I had and that was
20 your original report.
21 MR WIECHEN: So the report filed at the
22 beginning of the year?
23 MR KOPECKY: Correct.
24 MR WECHEN: Okay.
25 MR FORTIER: To be clear, that is the
[Page 607]
11:04
1 16 January 2017 report, right?
2 MR KOPECKY: 16 January, correct.
3 MR ASTUNO: Would it be okay to approach
4 Mr Wiechen with a copy of that report for the
5 purposes of this line of questioning?
6 MR KOPECKY: He must have it.
7 THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. (Same handed)
8 MR KOPECKY: I would like to turn to table
9 1 in that report on page 8, which is the alleged
10 actual investment cost, and there I would like to
11 turn to Capex, which you indicated for the first
12 four years being 09, 10, 11 and 12 as 451,711,
13 389,528, 204, and 46,032. If I may turn you to
14 paragraph 18 of your First Report, which is on
15 page 5, you say that "Deloitte team members have
16 visited the Republic of Moldova (Floresti district)
17 where they have inspected the equipment, (ie
18 tractors and machines), and had discussions with the
19 local administrator of Laguardia SRL".
20 Could you confirm that those assets were
21 still owned by Laguardia, meaning under Claimant's
22 control? Is that your expert assertion?
23 MR WECHEN: This is not an assertion
24 I can make. I am not in a position to comment on
25 the legal ownership of the equipment. My working
[Page 608]
11:06
1 assumption was that Mr Grot did not have physical
2 control over the assets.
3 MR KOPECKY: Yet they are included in the
4 report. I would like you to explain where you note
5 that the Claimants still own these assets for which
6 they purportedly claim value? Because they own
7 these assets still, as we have just established, so
8 where do you indicate that in your report?
9 MR ASTUNO: Pardon me. I don't believe we
10 have established ownership or entitlement to assets
11 or anything along those lines. I believe that is an
12 open issue.
13 MR KOPECKY: Well, that is a conflicting
14 position. Who has them now?
15 THE PRESIDENT: We have noted your
16 objection, Mr Astuno. Why don't you continue with
17 the questioning, but be particularly careful not to
18 put words into the mouth of the expert in the sense
19 of making questions which are premised on a matter
20 which is not addressed. I have paragraph 18 in
21 front of me. It doesn't actually say anything in
22 terms about who owns what and who has title.
23 MR KOPECKY: I apologise for that. We
24 have not established that with you or in your
25 report. We had established that before.
[Page 609]
11:07
1 The question would be how you made sure
2 you covered all assets that were purchased for the
3 Capex claimed by Claimants?
4 MR WIECHEN: What we first did, as
5 I explained also in the course of my presentation,
6 is that we analysed the accounting records of
7 Laguardia, especially the fixed asset register. We
8 crosschecked those entries in the fixed asset
9 register with other documents like customs
10 documents, and achieved from an accounting point of
11 view reasonable certainty as regards the existence
12 of those assets based on the accounting records
13 THE PRESIDENT: Reasonable certainty they
14 had been purchased?
15 MR WIECHEN: They have been purchased.
16 THE PRESIDENT: But no expression of you
17 as to what has happened to them subsequently?
18 MR WIECHEN: I have not investigated what
19 has happened with these assets, so this is not my
20 expertise. I look in the accounts and I have found
21 those assets in the accounting books.
22 THE PRESIDENT: It is not a critique.
23 I want to be very clear that you are testifying your
24 expert opinion as to the acquisition of assets You
25 don't know what happened to them subsequently, it
[Page 610]
11:08
1 was not part of your mandate to explore that. Is
2 that correct?
3 MR WIECHEN: This is correct.
4 MR KOPECKY: Is it also correct that you
5 did not include any evidence, any of those documents
6 just mentioned, with your expert report? You said
7 you reviewed them but they are not included with
8 your report.
9 MR WIECHEN: We filed the financial
10 statements of Laguardia. We filed the fixed asset
11 register, so all necessary accounting records.
12 MR KOPECKY: Mr Wiechen, are you aware
13 that the portion of the machinery owned by Laguardia
14 was contributed to another company, Laguardia
15 Agribusiness Ltd's share capital?
16 MR ASTUNO: Mr President, I thought we
17 just established --
18 MR KOPECKY: It is just a question.
19 I will put a document to him later on
20 THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you put the
21 document to him now?
22 MR KOPECKY: I want to know if he knows of
23 it before I show him the document
24 THE PRESIDENT: Frame the question very
25 neutrally, if you could.
[Page 611]
11:10
1 MR KOPECKY: Do you know whether a portion
2 of the machinery owned by Laguardia was contributed
3 to Laguardia Agrobusiness Ltd's share capital?
4 MR WIECHEN: At the present moment I do
5 not recall this alleged transaction
6 MR GLEASON: Can I ask what document? Is
7 it an exhibit in this case?
8 MR KOPECKY: Exhibit R-9.
9 THE PRESIDENT: Why don't we put it up and
10 show it? He is entitled to see it
11 MR KOPECKY: It is coming. (Displayed)
12 I appreciate you won't be able to read all of this,
13 but if we scroll through it and if we go to the list
14 of assets here, it mentions -- on the first page --
15 sprinklers, disc harrows, harvesters of certain
16 brands, truck-lift Volvo, and so on and so forth, so
17 a lot of machinery that was contributed by a foreign
18 invested enterprise, Laguardia Ltd, to Laguardia
19 Agrobusiness. I appreciate you cannot evaluate the
20 legal quality of this document. I wanted to ask
21 whether you were aware that this contribution took
22 place on 28 November 2012? Were you told that this
23 happened?
24 MR WIECHEN: As I see the date of
25 28 November 2012, I have not taken this document
[Page 612]
11:12
1 into consideration in my analysis because, as I also
2 explained at the very beginning, I performed an
3 ex ante analysis. That means taking into
4 consideration only information which was known and
5 knowable to me as an expert at the date of the alleged
6 breach of the respective agricultural lease
7 agreements.
8 MR KOPECKY: I would expect nothing else!
9 Were you aware that Laguardia SRL's
10 investment in this newly-found company, Laguardia
11 Agrobusiness, was sold to a third party on early 12-11
12 (Displayed). You are not invited to comment on this
13 from a legal point of view, but simply if you are
14 aware of the fact that Laguardia Agrobusiness
15 interest was sold on 12 July 2013?
16 MR WIECHEN: I recognise the document,
17 what is written there, but, again, it does not
18 pertain to the analysis I have performed. This is
19 something which in the valuation world we would
20 consider hindsight, using information which should
21 not have been used, having a specific valuation
22 date, and our valuation date was clearly defined.
23 MR KOPECKY: I understand and I am not
24 addressing that. I am addressing two questions on
25 this: how you inspected machines that were sold on
[Page 613]
11:13
1 in 2013 when preparing your report in what I presume
2 was 2016 and 2017? They were no longer, according
3 to this, with Claimants, so how did you inspect
4 them, or you state in paragraph 12 of your report?
5 MR WIECHEN: In my report I have not filed
6 a statement of completeness for machinery and
7 equipment. Even from the financial point of view,
8 financially on a company's own basis, I do not
9 recall to do a complete asset inventory for a
10 company. I do not recall to do it. I considered it for
11 the analysis I have performed sufficient evidence to
12 physically confirm the existence of certain
13 machinery and equipment which should have been used
14 within the operations of Mr Grot.
15 THE PRESIDENT: Could you just clarify on
16 paragraph 12 of your report, if you inspected the
17 equipment, you say "Deloitte team members". Is it
18 persons other than yourself?
19 MR WIECHEN: This is correct. We usually
20 work in teams. We had a project team of people.
21 There was a director of my team and manager of my
22 team physically in Moldova who identified the
23 assets.
24 THE PRESIDENT: But you have no first-hand
[Page 614]
11:15
1 direct personal knowledge. You did not participate
2 in --
3 MR WIECHEN: I was not in Moldova. I was
4 never in Moldova but it is not customary --
5 THE PRESIDENT: It is not a critique at
6 all. I am trying to ascertain what happened.
7 MR GLEASON: If there are questions about
8 the ownership of this equipment, these exhibits
9 could have easily been used to ask questions of
10 Mr Grot, who would have actually perhaps knowledge
11 of this. Mr Wiechen has no knowledge of this.
12 MR KOPECKY: I am not asking about the
13 ownership. I am asking about --
14 MR GLEASON: It is unclear what your line
15 of questioning is.
16 THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
17 MR KOPECKY: Thank you. I think the
18 President just took the words out of my mouth. That
19 means I know where my next question is.
20 Would you concur that the value of assets
21 sold in theory should be taken into account when
22 discussing the allegedly lost investment into those
23 assets?
24 MR WIECHEN: Could you please rephrase?
25 MR KOPECKY: When you sell assets, do you
[Page 615]
11:16
1 have to take the sale into account when you discuss
2 the loss of investment pertaining to those assets?
3 You have assets listed here and they may have been
4 sold. I am not saying you need to opine on whether
5 they have been, but had they been sold and had this
6 information been made available to you, you would
7 have taken it into account no doubt. Would it have
8 any impact on the valuation of the lost investment
9 concerning those assets?
10 MR WIECHEN: I think we are running again
11 into a legal issue here. If I just assume that I am
12 the owner of assets, if I have control over the
13 assets, I am the legal owner and I sell the assets
14 at a certain point in time I would probably sell
15 them most evidently at a loss because they have
16 depreciated, they are used, but I don't know what
17 THE PRESIDENT: I think we understand you
18 very clearly. Your report expresses your opinion as
19 to the value of the asset at the point the business
20 was going to start operating in 2010, what had been
21 acquired. You are not expressing any view as to who
22 owns what now or what was lost over the
23 period.
24 MR WIECHEN: And you have been very
25 clear about that.
[Page 616]
11:18
1 MR WIECHEN: Okay.
2 MR KOPECKY: I understand that in your new
3 updated report, and bear with me if I make a mistake
4 because I literally got it ten hours ago, you
5 limited the damages to a portion of the investment
6 to fixed assets, and that brings the number of
7 451,000 for the first year down to 402,000 Is that
8 correct?
9 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
10 MR KOPECKY: That was based on a detailed
11 review, as you said this morning?
12 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
13 MR KOPECKY: Can you tell me when that
14 detailed review happened?
15 MR WIECHEN: It was a couple of weeks ago
16 when we started preparing for the actual hearing?
17 MR KOPECKY: Anything more specific?
18 MR WIECHEN: No. I cannot tell you a
19 specific date.
20 MR KOPECKY: Did you do the review?
21 MR WIECHEN: I did the review together
22 with my team.
23 MR KOPECKY: My second of seven issues is
24 your reliance on the agricultural expert figures.
25 We already have that. You state in paragraph 51 of
[Page 617]
11:19
1 your original report that "within the information
2 gathering process for the purpose of the valuation
3 analysis using the income approach, I have relied
4 upon operating assumptions provided by management
5 and by the agricultural experts".
6 I would like you to point me -- and take
7 all the time you need -- to assumptions that were
8 taken from management and not from the agricultural
9 expert report in your original report? Because
10 I only see the agricultural report cited and not
11 management and, if management is cited, it is not
12 clear which information had been provided by it?
13 MR WIECHEN: Basically, as you can see, if
14 you take the agricultural report by itself, you
15 could have easily remodeled what we have done in the
16 Deloitte report. Basically we relied to the most
17 significant extent on the agricultural reports. We
18 also discussed with the local accountant and
19 administrator, but to achieve the highest level of
20 objectivity it is always better to talk to a neutral
21 party rather than to the management of the company,
22 which may be biased.
23 MR KOPECKY: Your reliance on the
24 agricultural expert report included the indirect
25 costs per hectare estimated by the agricultural
[Page 618]
11:20
1 experts as per paragraph 59 of your First Report.
2 That is the first sentence. Indirect costs. We
3 heard you were quite familiar with the agricultural
4 expert report. Do you have it in front of you.
5 MR ASTUNO: I am happy to provide him a
6 copy.
7 MR KOPECKY: Thank you. (Same handed)
8 Can you show us where in the report the
9 agricultural experts mention indirect costs? Take
10 all the time you need, literally.
11 Maybe as a small point of order, can he
12 also be given a clean copy of his report, because
13 his copy includes handwritten notes and we don't
14 like that.
15 MR ASTUNO: With all due respect, you are
16 now questioning. I was prepared for my examination
17 of the witness.
18 MR KOPECKY: I mean his report. The
19 PowerPoint slide has comments on it and I think we
20 established yesterday that that is not acceptable in
21 these proceedings.
22 THE PRESIDENT: I think we have a clean
23 copy, so if the secretary could hand that up and
24 replace it, that would be very good. (Handed)
25 MR ASTUNO: The only notation was CH-9.
[Page 619]
11:22
1 MR KOPECKY: Yes, of course. And maybe
2 the First Report as well, because I see notes there
3 as well. I know it is a hassle.
4 MR ASTUNO: Again, that was my version of
5 the report I was making notes on.
6 MR GLEASON: Do you happen to have a copy?
7 MR KOPECKY: We do.
8 (Documents handed to witness)
9 MR WIECHEN: So this is my report?
10 MR KOPECKY: Yes.
11 MR WIECHEN: But you are now referring to
12 the agricultural report which is still missing here
13 on my desk.
14 MR KOPECKY: You need that too? I have
15 that too. Just a second. (Same handed to witness)
16 The question was whether you could show us
17 where in the report the agricultural experts mention
18 indirect costs?
19 MR WIECHEN: Without staying here for the
20 next 20 minutes, I believe that you have not found
21 the reference to the indirect costs in the
22 agricultural report.
23 MR KOPECKY: Yes.
24 MR WIECHEN: But you also see that there
25 was a reference to Moldovan National Statistics
[Page 620]
11:26
1 which have been used. The information provided by the
2 agricultural experts and by us have another source,
3 basically the Moldovan National Statistics.
4 MR KOPECKY: You have agreed, it does not
5 mention indirect costs? Because you referenced the
6 report. You didn't reference the sources. You
7 referenced the report. You didn't say that you
8 reviewed those sources yourself, you say you
9 reviewed the report and used the indirect costs.
10 You didn't say that within your report you
11 looked at these other sources which they used?
12 MR WIECHEN: I acknowledged a formal
13 inconsistency as we said and also discussed, we
14 worked closely together with the agricultural
15 experts, so when it came up that is an omission in
16 the report, right. Yes.
17 MR KOPECKY: Thank you. To the third of
18 my seven issues on the performance margins. We just
19 established that you relied on the agricultural
20 expert report, and used it as an input for a
21 substantial part of the income statement including
22 the revenues, direct costs and, as we have now
23 established, indirect costs. Did you perform any
24 benchmarking to the real existing
[Page 621]
11:28
1 businesses?
2 MR WIECHEN: I rather doubt that they are
3 real existing, perfectly comparable entities to
4 Laguardia.
5 MR KOPECKY: Not perfectly comparable.
6 Any, I understand that Mr Peer's may not be
7 perfectly comparable, but they are still any, and
8 I am asking whether you provided any?
9 MR WIECHEN: I still believe that if you
10 refer to the headline companies as mentioned in our
11 report merely to the cost of capital and the
12 entities which Mr Peer used for his very extensive
13 benchmarking analysis, I can conclude that I do
14 not consider these companies comparable to
15 Laguardia.
16 MR KOPECKY: I don't disagree with that,
17 but you said that, I disagree with the statement
18 but I do not disagree that you said that and it is
19 on record, but you did not compare any companies
20 yourself? Ever? Because you stated earlier that
21 you were using them for deriving working capital
22 just being direct, and you consider those companies
23 usable for this purpose, but not for profit margins?
24 I wonder how that works together? Because you are
25 using Mr Peer's companies for something, not for
[Page 622]
11:29
1 anything else, and you yourself have not done any
2 comparison.
3 MR WIECHEN: Yes. At the end of the day,
4 if you do two valuations, using averages of
5 benchmarks, the last resort in many, many times
6 the method of last resort if you don't have anything
7 else or something which brings more evidential
8 material to you, you sometimes need to rely on data
9 from guideline companies which are not really
10 comparable. This is what we also have done for the
11 cost of capital.
12 I would like to underscore the fact that,
13 due to the late filing of Mr Peer's report, we did
14 not have time to look for other alternative methods
15 for calculating the cost of capital. This is why
16 we, for simplicity reasons, used the working capital
17 data from Mr Peer's report.
18 MR KOPECKY: But you would agree that it
19 is inconsistent to use these companies for one
20 aspect and not for another?
21 MR WIECHEN: No, I don't agree with this
22 statement.
23 MR FORTIER: What is your answer to the
24 question, though? You criticised Mr Peer's
25 benchmarking selection, correct, as we saw earlier?
[Page 623]
11:30
1 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
2 MR FORTIER: But did you do yourself any
3 benchmarking? Did you see the performance of
4 real existing businesses? Do that benchmarking
5 exercise?
6 MR WIECHEN: What we did, for example,
7 for the cost of capital calculation. We are looking
8 for -- but we had no other choice rather than to look
9 for other publicly-listed entities operating in the
10 agricultural sector, and this was the best we found.
11 We also looked, when doing our valuation analysis,
12 at certain financial key parameters of those
13 companies but, as they are not comparable, they do
14 not help us.
15 This peer or benchmarking analysis does
16 not somehow influence any of Mr Peer's calculations.
17 It is definitely a useful tool you would use in case
18 of having many established businesses in a very
19 established industries on a very developed market --
20 I am a big proponent of the market approach of
21 benchmarking -- when those data are available, but
22 in Moldova you cannot even extract financial
23 statements from the commercial registry. They do
24 not even need to file them. In Romania at least
[Page 624]
11:32
1 I could have relied on these sources, but the basis
2 of information was not perfect.
3 MR FORTIER: I understand. In fact,
4 because of reasons you have given, you did not do
5 this benchmarking analysis?
6 MR WIECHEN: We did not put it in the
7 report, but it was part of our working analysis, but
8 it does not help. I think that is --
9 MR FORTIER: I understand that. Thank you
10 for your answer.
11 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Can I ask one
12 question, perhaps? I do not know whether it is a
13 consistent question even, but you said at the
14 beginning that you used the DCF method because you
15 compared Laguardia's exercise with Mr Grot's
16 businesses that he had in Poland. Isn't that also
17 not a kind of benchmarking? Because the Polish
18 environment is completely different.
19 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
20 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Is it benchmarking to
21 a certain extent, even if the capital owner is
22 perhaps identical?
23 MR WIECHEN: No. The analysis of
24 Mr Grot's operations in Poland was basically for me
25 sufficient evidence to verify Mr Grot's capability
[Page 625]
11:33
1 of running farming businesses. If you have an owner
2 or an investor or a project owner who is really
3 knowledgeable in an industry, you can derive a
4 conclusion that this person would most probably also
5 run good businesses in other locations rather than
6 in the location where he has already achieved the
7 results.
8 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: So you didn't use the
9 data of the Polish farm?
10 MR WIECHEN: No. It was purely for me to
11 obtain assurance as regards the quality of Mr Grot's
12 management capabilities.
13 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Thank you.
14 MR KOPECKY: To the fourth of my seven
15 issues, which concerns Capex and depreciation. You
16 told us earlier that you had a list of assets, and
17 you would allow us to calculate or calculate
18 these depreciation for the fixed assets of
19 Laguardia, but you have not calculated depreciation
20 for fixed assets of Laguardia.
21 MR WIECHEN: No. We calculated
22 depreciation of fixed assets.
23 MR KOPECKY: Fixed assets as well?
24 MR WIECHEN: Fixed assets, yes.
25 MR KOPECKY: So if we look at table 7 in
[Page 626]
11:35
1 your report, page 19 and 18, paragraph 62, your
2 depreciation estimate table 7(a), (b), (c) and there
3 if you look at depreciation it is quite a low
4 number, if you add them up it is never more
5 than a, and forgive my math, 20,000 per
6 year. If we look at what we had earlier, namely
7 fixed assets of 861,000, this would mean depreciation
8 time of over 40 years, 40 years depreciation
9 time. My question is, is this a reasonable time to
10 expect for those assets?
11 MR WIECHEN: No. There's probably one
12 misunderstanding here. If you look in our DCF
13 calculation you will not see a direct Capex and a
14 significant amount at the beginning of the
15 projection period. What we assumed is that the
16 existing equipment was already in place. On this
17 basis we calculated the depreciation based on
18 agricultural guides for depreciation, and what we
19 assumed in our model -- and this makes sense to
20 me -- is to assume only maintenance depreciation.
21 So just to keep the assets, ongoing as they are,
22 because we had a limited lifetime, or assumed a
23 limited lifetime of the business for only four
24 years.
25 What we would usually do in a business
[Page 627]
11:36
1 valuation with a going concern, the business was
2 running to eternity or infinity, you would assume
3 that with costs at the very beginning, you would
4 depreciate the Capex at the very beginning, and
5 should the business terminate at a certain point in
6 time, you would sell the equipment at the residual
7 value. This is something we have deliberately not
8 done because the assets were already in place and we
9 considered as depreciation only maintenance
10 expenditure, so additional Capex for new machines,
11 no new plant or whatever you use on a farm.
12 MR KOPECKY: No renewal? Nothing?
13 MR WIECHEN: No renewal. Maintenance.
14 MR KOPECKY: The fifth of my seven
15 questions concerns working capital. I would like
16 you to confirm what you said in paragraph 67 of your
17 report, namely that the alleged business was
18 purely equity financed. If you look at
19 paragraph 61, page 18, it says, "Assuming Mr Grot
20 would have run the business relying solely
21 upon equity". You confirm that? That is the
22 assumption? Equity only?
23 MR WIECHEN: Yes, this was the situation as of
24 the date of the alleged breaches. So it was just
25 equity, what Mr Grot invested into this company.
[Page 628]
11:39
1 MR KOPECKY: Could you confirm that you
2 also use the assumption stated in paragraph 53 of
3 your report, namely that the entire production was
4 assumed to be entirely sold at harvest time? I am
5 going through the points and that was one of our
6 corrections which does not hold true, which we
7 corrected in the updated version in the presentation
8 of today. This does not hold true.
9 MR KOPECKY: I wanted to confirm that
10 contradiction. So the new report is correct?
11 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
12 MR KOPECKY: And there the capital
13 calculations take into account that Laguardia would
14 operate largely by use of its own companies?
15 MR WIECHEN: I can confirm that for
16 simplicity reasons we took the KPMG data, Mr Peer's
17 data, on working capital to calculate our working
18 capital.
19 MR KOPECKY: How did you reflect those new
20 assumptions in your working capital calculations?
21 MR WIECHEN: Basically we were applying
22 textbook formulas for deriving the balances of trade
23 receivables, inventories and trade payables, and we
24 had the days outstanding from Mr Peer's report, and
25 did accordingly a correct calculation of working
[Page 629]
11:41
1 capital, which is at the very beginning a cash
2 outflow and then the cash impact only of the changes
3 in working capital for the rest of the projection
4 period.
5 MR KOPECKY: If I may take you to table 12
6 of your report, page 31 and 32(a) and (b), WACC
7 estimation, and there, Mr Wiechen, you used a
8 debt-equity ratio of comparable companies at
9 25.9 per cent. I am trying to total debt-related
10 equity-related so that it is a comparable. Then the
11 ratio assumed is 25.9. I understand that some of
12 that has been superseded by the presentation that we
13 got ten and a half hours ago and I just wonder when
14 you wrote your First Report, you assumed fully
15 equity financed undertaking, so your observations
16 here on page 31 do not match your assumptions, do
17 they, because it would be zero?
18 MR WIECHEN: No, no. It is a different
19 story. The assumption I made in the text that at
20 the current business of Mr Grot was purely financed,
21 right? So what is going to be in the future I don't
22 know. A reasonable investor for sure would have no
23 problem getting this equity financing because bank
24 financing is readily available even in Moldova. The
25 costs of debt financing are much lower than equity
[Page 630]
11:43
1 financing, so a reasonable investor would put
2 additional debt into the company to minimise the
3 cost of capital, so then we arrive at an optimal
4 capital structure which is basically one hundred
5 percent in agreement with the standard of our
6 market value which has been applied throughout our
7 analysis.
8 MR KOPECKY: I am really confused now.
9 You say that you worked with the assumption that it
10 was fully equity financed, yet you calculate WACC
11 based on a debt to equity ratio of 25.9. How does
12 that match? Maybe it is just the insurance that I do
13 not understand how can you use both assumptions in
14 one report?
15 MR WIECHEN: They are two assumptions
16 which do not pertain together. The first assumption
17 about the equity financing of Mr Grot was that
18 everything which was brought into this company
19 through one of Mr Grot's subsidiaries and by himself
20 was completely entirely equity financed. If you
21 would run this business reasonably, I would pretty
22 much assume that you would also take into account
23 debt financing because it is much cheaper than
24 equity financing. It is just logical, if my cost of
25 capital decrease, my company value increases. A
[Page 631]
11:44
1 reasonable investor would do this step.
2 I want to emphasise this, because what we
3 have done here is a business valuation and we are
4 omitting in many, many arguments I have seen certain
5 principles at the very beginning and this is a
6 standard market value and fair market value is an
7 indisputably the right standard of value. It is not
8 an investment value from the perspective of Mr Grot
9 MR KOPECKY: That is my point. You have
10 assumed something else, then you assumed already
11 something else, then you assumed already then,
12 because if he equity finances it and your forward look
13 is debt to equity 25.9 financed, it doesn't go
14 together, does it? We have the facts from 2010 and
15 2011 as of the valuation date and there was no debt,
16 yes, but to me in the business in the future would
17 be reasonable to change the capital structure
18 according to an optimum.
19 MR KOPECKY: You were told that this would
20 happen?
21 MR WIECHEN: No. I think this is
22 reasonable to believe.
23 Just one comment I would like to make to
24 the Tribunal: I believe these discussion as regards
[Page 632]
11:45
1 the cost of capital, equity or WACC is somehow a
2 discussion which is very subjective. I would like
3 to underscore that I am doing business valuations
4 for 15 years and there is no right or wrong.
5 valuation is and will still be for some time now
6 a disputable excise. There is no right or wrong.
7 THE PRESIDENT: An art, not a science.
8 MR WIECHEN: Exactly, yes.
9 MR FORTIER: Not like the law!
10 MR KOPECKY: Indeed. That is where
11 I stop. Thank you, Mr Wiechen.
12 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Kopecky.
13 I think we will give you a chance to come back and
14 then the Tribunal will have a few questions.
15 Is that the end of your cross?
16 Re-examination by Claimants
17 MR ASTUNO: Thank you, Mr Wiechen, hello
18 again. I would like to start by making a note for
19 the record actually. There were several conclusory
20 remarks made by Mr Kopecky during the previous
21 witness examination that indicated conclusions as to
22 some of the Claimants' evidence.
23 THE PRESIDENT: We have got that point.
24 You really don't need to waste your time on that.
25 We have really understood as a Tribunal what
[Page 633]
11:49
1 Mr Wiechen is saying.
2 MR ASTUNO: Thank you, Mr President.
3 There were discussions, Mr Wiechen, about
4 how you validated your calculations for the initial
5 costs, namely equipment and vehicles, and I now open
6 up appendix 4 to your report. Do these exhibits
7 clarify --
8 THE PRESIDENT: Which pages?
9 MR ASTUNO: Page 32 of the January 2017
10 report. Can you describe briefly what these
11 exhibits mean, particularly exhibit 1 and 2, and
12 whether this was the source of the calculations you
13 made as to initial costs.
14 MR WIECHEN: I confirm that these have
15 been the sources for the calculation of the initial
16 investment costs.
17 MR ASTUNO: For the benefit of the parties
18 and the Tribunal, I want to scroll down very quickly
19 here. Can you explain or clarify that there is quite
20 a large volume of documentation that you were
21 provided?
22 MR WIECHEN: Indeed. In print.
23 MR ASTUNO: And these were provided to you
24 by who, again?
25 MR WIECHEN: By the company, Laguardia.
[Page 634]
11:52
1 By the CFO, Mr Tcaci, who was the previous
2 administrator.
3 MR ASTUNO: Were you in contact with their
4 accountant?
5 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
6 MR ASTUNO: This voluminous amount of
7 material was the source of your calculations for the
8 initial costs, including vehicles and equipment?
9 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
10 MR ASTUNO: Just two follow up points.
11 One, I want to emphasise again, or allow you to
12 emphasise again, why you did not do a
13 benchmarking analysis in the country of Moldova?
14 MR WIECHEN: Because it is a very specific
15 country, agriculture is in general a very, very
16 specific business.
17 MR ASTUNO: Would you explain, then, why
18 a pure DCF calculation is again the most appropriate
19 methodology to in this case?
20 MR WIECHEN: Yes, I confirm that.
21 MR ASTUNO: Would that once again
22 highlight why Mr Peer's comparison to other
23 countries and companies operating in other countries
24 would be an unreliable comparison?
25 MR WIECHEN: I think this benchmarking
[Page 635]
11:53
1 analysis is useless because we are not talking about
2 comparable companies, otherwise I would have
3 included it in my report as well, because we also
4 had the data.
5 MR ASTUNO: Thank you. One final question
6 regarding Professor Knieper's point regarding your
7 evaluation of the Polish country records. Your
8 evaluation of those records did not in any way
9 impact your calculation of the DCF inputs. Is that
10 right?
11 MR WIECHEN: No.
12 MR ASTUNO: It just was evidence of why,
13 again, a forward-looking damages analysis would be
14 appropriate here?
15 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
16 MR ASTUNO: Did Mr Peer also apply a
17 forward-looking lost profits analysis?
18 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
19 MR ASTUNO: Thank you. Nothing further.
20 Questions by the Tribunal
21 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I have a very short
22 question. Simply to know, you calculated the damages
23 going until August 2014. Were you told that the
24 client to use this year and not go into the question
25 of whether the leases were still valid? Or was that
[Page 636]
11:54
1 not --
2 MR WIECHEN: Let's say a reasonability
3 assessment as regards the projection period is also
4 part of our work, but, again, it is a legal issue to
5 decide upon the duration of the lease agreements
6 We have seen the agreements, we knew it was a three
7 plus one. You could speculate as regards the
8 probability of even renewing the lease agreements
9 after the four years, so what we have done was to
10 stay conservative with the four years and not
11 somehow inflating a potential business value The
12 more you go into the future, the more uncertainty
13 appears. One of the main purposes of our DCF
14 analysis was to obtain reasonable certainty as
15 regards the loss of business value
16 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That is clear, but you
17 made your own judgment on the issueof whether these
18 lease contracts were valid for four years or three
19 years? It was your own evaluation? You were not
20 asked to simply accept the four years, but you said
21 we look into the lease agreements and then we see it
22 was four years.
23 MR WIECHEN: No, for me it was reasonable
24 to believe that these leases would have been
25 extended for one year, three plus one, but at the
[Page 637]
11:56
1 end of the day this is an assumption which basically
2 we reconfirmed also with counsel, because these are
3 legal as aspects, I cannot really comment on that,
4 but to me as a professional, not being a lawyer,
5 I am not a specialist, it sounded reasonable to
6 assume four years because it is very, very
7 conservative, taking into consideration potential
8 renewal after four years.
9 THE PRESIDENT: We now will move to
10 Mr Peer, but probably the sensible thing is to have
11 a short lunch break. How long do you expect on
12 direct?
13 MR KOPECKY: 30 minutes.
14 THE PRESIDENT: We are going to get into
15 time difficulties. With that you can expect that
16 the cross will grow exponentially. We have read
17 everything, we have had his report, and I would
18 invite both parties to be really efficient in their
19 questioning if we want to finish in a reasonable
20 time. We have all the time in the world for tonight
21 but we do have court reporters who have limits and I
22 think we will stretch their patience, so I think the
23 Tribunal simply invites you to be as efficient as
24 you can, as you have been with Mr Wiechen, on the
25 questioning.
[Page 638]
11:57
1 MR GLEASON: I think both sides would
2 appreciate some time to prepare for closings.
3 THE PRESIDENT: It is in your hands. The
4 longer you use with Mr Peer, the less you will have
5 for preparation; it is as simple as that.
6 We know from life that the longer a direct
7 is, the longer the cross is going to be, so it is
8 really in your hands. It may be in the end, having
9 regard to the needs of our court reporters, there is
10 no time for preparation of the closing. You are
11 here, you stand up, you make your arguments and that
12 is how it goes. I am not saying we are going to
13 impose that on you, but it is in your hands.
14 I have from Mr Fortier a suggestion.
15 Would you prefer to start now and get the
16 exam-in-chief done and you can then break for lunch
17 and we will then proceed?
18 MR KOPECKY: No. An hour lunch with their
19 expert between direct and cross?
20 THE PRESIDENT: That has been happening
21 over the last couple of days.
22 MR KOPECKY: With sequestration?
23 THE PRESIDENT: Yes. We will now start
24 with Mr Peer. And in the meantime, Mr Wiechen, you
25 are to have no communication with anybody. You may
[Page 639]
12:00
1 walk around, but no communication.
2 MICHAEL PEER
3 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Peer, welcome.
4 I welcome you. I am Philippe Sands, chair of this
5 Tribunal. To my right is Mr Fortier and to my left
6 Professor Knieper. Do you have an expert
7 declaration in front of you?
8 MR PEER: I do.
9 THE PRESIDENT: Could you read it, please?
10 (Declaration read)
11 Mr Kopecky?
12 Examination by Respondent
13 MR KOPECKY: Mr Peer, please go ahead.
14 MR PEER: Thank you. Let me start by
15 apologising for having to issue an erratum. It is
16 not my normal process. I have done it about three
17 times in the last ten years of doing this work and
18 I do apologise for all the difficulties and extra
19 work that costs and causes.
20 I have received an updated report from
21 Deloitte late yesterday afternoon, and a third
22 version at some time a little after midnight, so the
23 sands are shifting under my feet as I tried to
24 prepare this report and this presentation. I will
25 take Professor Sands' comments on board and try and
[Page 640]
12:04
1 be as quick and as succinct as I can, but I am going to
2 try and adapt as much as I can to accommodate some
3 of the changes.
4 Deloitte has pointed out one error in my
5 report that was not dealt with by my errata, and
6 I will deal with that, and they have also noted one
7 error that came into my errata, and again I do
8 apologise for that. We have been under significant
9 pressure and to produce all of these documents,
10 and it is an excuse, not a reason.
11 THE PRESIDENT: If I had only made three
12 errors in ten years, I would be thrilled!
13 MR PEER: Three errors that I was asked to
14 correct!
15 Let me start with a high level view of
16 what this claim is.
17 This claim is actually a primary interest
18 on what are relatively small actual alleged damages.
19 The reasons for that I will get into a little bit
20 later, but let me look at the two categories of
21 alleged damages here. The first is that there is an
22 alleged loss of an initial investment of some
23 currently 800,000 USD now that some of the
24 investments that were made post the alleged breach
25 have been dropped off the claim.
[Page 641]
12:04
1 I have two concerns with this claim. The
2 first is that these assets appear still to be owned
3 or under the control of the Claimants. As we have
4 just heard, Deloitte was able to inspect these
5 assets and therefore presumably there was some
6 control to allow access to be able to inspect the
7 assets. I am aware that this is a disputed issue but in
8 terms of whether these assets are lost, I am not
9 clear on that at this point in time.
10 The second issue I have here is that these
11 assets were required to generate the cashflows that
12 form the second part of the damages claim, and
13 therefore while these assets can be claimed for if
14 they have been lost, and what should be claimed for
15 is actually the loss, so if there was a sale and
16 there were some proceeds, then only the difference
17 between the original investment value and the
18 proceeds that were obtained should be claimed for
19 with some adjustment for time value of money and
20 things like that, but these should not be claimed in
21 conjunction with the lost cashflows, because these
22 assets were required to generate those lost
23 cashflows.
24 What should have happened is that this
25 investment should have been accounted for as an
[Page 642]
12:07
1 outflow of cash at the beginning of the period in
2 the discounted cash flow, and that the residual
3 value of these assets that could have been recouped
4 at the end of the three or four year period, as
5 appropriate, should have been included as a cash
6 inflow at the end of the discounted cash flow. They
7 should not be claimed by themselves independently.
8 I will leave it to you to inspect the
9 DCF calculation itself as to whether it is based on
10 sufficiently reliable information for you to base a
11 damages award on it, but what I want to focus on is
12 the reliance of Deloitte on the agricultural
13 experts' input.
14 We have had some discussion already today
15 about the lack of benchmarking by Deloitte and the
16 reasonability of the benchmarking that I performed.
17 The difficulty that I have here is that Deloitte
18 identified what it considered to be comparable
19 companies, it relied upon those companies in
20 determining various factors in its calculation and
21 yet it now tells us they are not sufficiently
22 comparable companies in order to compare the
23 profitability of those companies. I really don't
24 see how we can have it both ways. Either they are
25 comparable companies and we can consider them in all
[Page 643]
12:09
1 aspects of their operations to be comparable, or
2 they are not comparable and we can't use them and we
3 have to go and find some other approach and
4 methodology.
5 So, when I looked at the results of the
6 calculations prepared by Deloitte, it appeared to me
7 that the profitability of the projected
8 operations seemed to be significantly overstated,
9 and I will come back to that point in a moment.
10 (Slide 2)
11 The other big concern I have about the
12 reliance on the agricultural experts' report is the
13 granularity of that report. What we saw and what
14 I understand from the memory of yesterday and this
15 morning is that what the agricultural experts have
16 actually produced is an estimate of the average
17 yields that Mr Grot's operations would obtain over a
18 5-year period. That is not saying what it would be
19 in year 1, and in fact we have heard this morning
20 that it would take two to three years to
21 reconstitute the soil, and therefore the yields in
22 years 1, 2 and 3 would be lower than later on in the
23 period.
24 We have also heard that it is the
25 agricultural experts' expectation that, by the end
[Page 644]
12:11
1 of the 5-year period, Mr Grot's operations would
2 exceed the performance of the test centre by
3 20 per cent.
4 What I believe we are seeing is that, in
5 fact, the yields in years 1 and 2 would be below
6 that average that is being used to calculate the
7 profitability of Mr Grot's operations, and years 4
8 and 5 would be higher than that average, so over
9 the 5-year period they would average out to the
10 figures that have been set out in the agricultural
11 experts' report.
12 If that is the case, what that means is
13 that we don't know what the agricultural experts
14 believe the yields would be in the first few years
15 of the operations, or in fact any of the years of
16 the operation. We only know what they think it will
17 average out to over the five years.
18 From the DCF perspective, this is a very
19 difficult situation, because if we don't get the
20 yields in the first few years, we need additional
21 cash flow because we still have to pay for all the
22 seed fertilisers and pesticides that are needing to
23 be put onto the fields to reconstitute or
24 rehabilitate the land.
25 They were not generating the yields to
[Page 645]
12:13
1 recover that investment in the initial period, in
2 the first year or two, so this has an increase in
3 the working capital requirements, this has an impact
4 on the DCF calculation, and therefore at the moment
5 we need, I believe, based on what I have heard so
6 far, significantly greater granularity in terms of
7 the projections provided by the agricultural
8 experts.
9 I think this is backed up when we look at
10 what Mr Grot said, that Bio-Alianța was able to
11 harvest from the 140 ha that they planted with
12 winter wheat. He says they were able to get
13 200 tons of winter wheat from that 140 ha. That is
14 around 1.4 tons per ha versus the over 4 tons that
15 the agricultural experts estimate should have been
16 achievable.
17 The other issue here of course is that
18 these yields are expected to be averaging over a
19 5-year period. Now, the lease contracts were for
20 three plus one. The Deloitte calculations are over
21 a 4-year period, so it is not even certain that the
22 investment into the pesticides and fertilizers would
23 actually be recovered in the period that Mr Grot has
24 use of this land.
25 The other point I want to make here is
[Page 646]
12:14
1 that the Deloitte report uses different discounting
2 factors when the alleged date of breach is different
3 between February and March 2011, so a difference of
4 about one month between the two. That just
5 highlights the sensitivity of the
6 discounting and the DCF to monthly changes in the
7 cash flow. What really should be happening here
8 because of the way in which this business operates,
9 is you should be monthly modelling the cash
10 outflows and cash inflows of this business.
11 As I understand, this business there is an
12 element of cash coming in some time midsummer,
13 June/July time from the winter wheat, I believe that
14 is about 10 per cent of the overall cashflow, and
15 then the rest may come in according to the
16 assumption made by Deloittes when the rest of the
17 harvest is sold when it is harvested, which would be
18 August or September, possibly October, depending on
19 the crops. So this isn't a business where you have
20 a regular cash flow. I will come back to that in a
21 moment as well.
22 (Slide 3)
23 One point I want to address here is that
24 there has been a number of suggestions that I have
25 also performed a discounted cash flow calculation.
[Page 647]
12:14
1 I have made it very clear in my report that if
2 I don't specifically comment upon an element of the
3 Deloitte report it does not mean that I agree with
4 it. The fact is, I have included the Deloitte
5 methodology and calculation: I have not prepared my
6 own.
7 The other thing we have already discussed
8 is that Deloitte does not do any validation of its
9 model. We have heard today about that already.
10 There is a suggestion that the operations
11 in the south of Moldova that Mr Grot was operating
12 had a profitability of about 45 per cent gross
13 margin. I believe those are based on the 2010
14 financial statements that are presented in my
15 report; certainly at least that shows a gross margin
16 of about 45 per cent. I would point out that that
17 is on the combined business, but there is an element
18 of a consulting or services business in there, so
19 there are two divisions.
20 If you look solely at the growing
21 business, it has a gross margin of 23 per cent only,
22 and if you then provide for the indirect costs, that
23 drops down to slightly over 1 per cent, so I don't
24 believe that there is a historical 45 per cent gross
25 margin on this business.
[Page 648]
12:17
1 (Slide 5)
2 Coming back to the cashflows, as I said
3 there is no regular pattern here. What I believe
4 would have happened is there would have been cash
5 going out throughout the year and that cash would
6 only have been recouped on sale of the product, or
7 the harvest. While I presented in my report a
8 standard calculation of the working capital as noted
9 by Deloitte, I did not like that calculation because
10 I didn't think it was appropriate. I didn't think
11 that that actually modelled the cashflows that this
12 business was going to incur.
13 This business was going to have to put out
14 money throughout the year, and it was only going to
15 recoup that at year end, and that is why I also
16 don't believe it is appropriate to use midyear
17 discounting as Deloitte has done, because there was
18 no possibility that this company would be able to
19 pay out cash dividends to its shareholders except
20 at year end. So what we are trying to value here is
21 not a company, as referred to many times by Lars in
22 his testimony, but we are actually trying to
23 quantify damages, and there is a significant
24 difference there. This is the amount of money that
25 Mr Grot and his associated entities would have
[Page 649]
12:19
1 received from this operation, and therefore that is
2 what we need to try and discount and actually model.
3 I have taken on board some of Deloitte's
4 comments about my working capital calculation.
5 I had previously had about 1.9 million as the
6 working capital requirement. I have revised my
7 calculation. I believe that would now be closer to
8 1.4 million.
9 But I go back to the point that I have
10 been accused of not fully understanding the ex ante
11 approach. I can assure you that I fully grasp the
12 ex ante approach. My difficulty is that there is no
13 contemporaneous business plan prepared by Mr Grot or
14 management of Laguardia on the record.
15 What we have is a business projection
16 prepared using information from the date of the
17 alleged breach, prepared by the agricultural
18 experts, and I find it very difficult to both assume
19 that Mr Grot would be able to invest probably in
20 excess of 2 million USD into a farming operation in
21 Moldova with no business plan, or that he would get
22 financing for that from a financial institution
23 without presenting a business plan, but, secondly,
24 that the effective business plan we now have has
25 been prepared in 2017, although trying to use
[Page 650]
12:20
1 expectations as at the date of the alleged breach,
2 but prepared by people who were not holding those
3 expectations at the time. This is not a business
4 plan that has been prepared by Mr Grot, this is a
5 business plan effectively prepared by the
6 agricultural experts who were not involved in the
7 business at that point in time.
8 (Slide 6)
9 Moving on, I am not sure, now, who has
10 prepared the projections of the prices and of the
11 costs that this business would incur. I know that
12 the agricultural experts provided the values that are
13 in USD, but I also note that the Deloitte
14 presentation, certainly the one that I received
15 yesterday, very clearly said that they had received
16 the values from the agricultural experts in Moldovan
17 lei, and that Deloitte had then applied an inflation
18 rate to it and then applied a foreign exchange rate
19 to those inflated values.
20 What they applied in the way of the
21 foreign exchange rate is an historical rate as at
22 the date of the alleged breach. I believe that is a
23 fundamental methodology error. The foreign exchange
24 rates that ought to have been applied to the prices
25 in years after 2011 should have been the foreign
[Page 651]
12:22
1 exchange rate in those years. Unfortunately those
2 are not available in an ex ante approach and
3 therefore the whole approach cannot be used.
4 What I believe should have been done is
5 that the calculations should have been prepared in
6 Moldovan lei, that those results should have been
7 discounted using an appropriate discount rate to the
8 date of the alleged breach, at which point they
9 could be converted using a known exchange rate to
10 USD, and provided interest could be applied to that
11 USD figure, again using an appropriate interest rate
12 that would be linked to the USD that it denominated
13 in.
14 I want to make it clear here that these
15 prices are inflation indexed prices. They are not
16 based on some market expectation as to future
17 prices, so they are not derived from future trading
18 commodities and things like that in the various
19 products.
20 Obviously I was also provided the
21 additional estimates by the agricultural experts as
22 to what the costs would have been had the yields
23 that I used been the appropriate yields. I pointed
24 out in my original report that I had no basis on
25 which to adjust the costs. It was a black box to
[Page 652]
12:24
1 me. I wasn't able to go into that and modify
2 things. What I have now been provided is what the
3 agricultural experts believe the costs would have
4 been to generate the yields that I selected and used
5 in my calculations.
6 I note that the original calculations
7 where there was going to be pesticides and
8 fertilizers used generated an EBIT margin of some
9 7 per cent. The figures that I have now been
10 provided generate an EBIT margin closer to
11 50 per cent. I do not know why, I cannot understand
12 how that can be the case, and therefore I have not
13 proceeded any further with those calculations
14 because I don't understand how they fit together.
15 They don't seem reasonable to me. I have not
16 completed any further calculations using those
17 updated figures.
18 There has been a lot of discussion here
19 about Capex versus maintenance. I think it is fair
20 to say that I don't agree with the approach that
21 Deloitte has set out. I believe that you do need to
22 provide for Capex in this calculation, and I don't
23 believe that merely providing for maintenance of the
24 assets is sufficient. There should be a provision
25 for Capex and capital replacement in this process.
[Page 653]
12:26
1 (Slide 7)
2 The other concern I have here is that,
3 I understand the secret source of Mr Grot here, and
4 why he is going to be more successful than any of
5 the other farmers, is that he is going to deploy
6 technology. I understand that technology comes from
7 two sources, one is equipment and the other is
8 deployment of fertilizers and pesticides, or plant
9 protection. I use the term "pesticides". I like
10 most of the people in the room I am not a farmer.
11 I understand there are some other plant protection
12 devices beyond pesticides, but I am not sure exactly
13 what those are.
14 When I look at what the capital
15 expenditures would be for this business, given that
16 it was supposed to be a technology-based business,
17 I am somewhat surprised to see the very low figures
18 when I compare them again to -- and subject to the
19 criticism of Deloitte of their chosen comparable
20 companies, I have looked at their comparable
21 companies, I have seen how much Capex they are
22 expending, I have looked at what Deloitte believes
23 should be the Capex, or should be the maintenance as
24 I understand it now, and I see that this is
25 exceptionally low compared to the other companies.
[Page 654]
12:27
1 Given that this is the primary basis of the higher
2 yields, I struggle with that.
3 Deloitte did point out an error in my
4 errata in respect of my Capex. They are quite
5 right, there was a mathematical error there. The
6 outcome of that is insignificant. It simply
7 increases the negativity of the cashflows so it
8 doesn't have an impact on the damages.
9 One point that is obviously the
10 depreciation that Deloitte uses is not disclosed
11 separately in the agricultural experts' report. As
12 I say, it is a bit of a black box. There is a
13 mechanised cost that includes wear and tear,
14 which I understand to be depreciation, but it is not
15 set out anywhere separately. Again, I struggle as
16 I think the Tribunal has indicated through one of
17 its questions, to understand what is in those
18 mechanical costs and how to consider those.
19 (Slide 8)
20 If we turn to the pre-award interest, we
21 have discussed already the issue of how the discount
22 rate was arrived at. I have no particular issues
23 with the methodology. What I do have are some
24 concerns about individual and specific issues in
25 respect of this case.
[Page 655]
12:29
1 The first is obviously the assumption that
2 there was to be equity financing only. We have now
3 heard that there was an un-disclosed assumption that
4 that equity financing would be foregone and that
5 there would be a standard industry norm of
6 debt-equity ratios.
7 That causes a problem because there is no
8 provision within Deloitte's discounted cash flow
9 calculation to meet those debt facilities. If they were
10 going to say there were debts, they need to provide
11 for those. Alternatively, we stick with the
12 assumption that there is equity only and that is
13 obviously maximises the contribution to Mr Grot and his
14 related companies, but with that comes a consequence
15 and that consequence is that we do not here evaluate
16 business, we value cashflows that are alleged to be
17 the source of damages, and therefore we need to take
18 into account Mr Grot's decision to wholly finance
19 his business through equity.
20 Again, Deloitte has correctly pointed out
21 that in the change in debt to equity to full equity
22 financing would change the beta within the WACC.
23 That has a less than 1 per cent impact on the
24 ultimate discount rate that I used, but yes, that is
25 correct, it would need to be taken into account.
[Page 656]
12:30
1 I note that (Slide 9) Deloitte has said
2 that it does not feel there is a need to assume any
3 additional risk in relation to the cashflows that it
4 has projected. I note that deep in its appendices
5 of its original report Deloitte did state that it
6 considered whether an additional risk factor needed
7 to be taken into account, and because it considered
8 the agricultural experts' projections to be
9 conservative, it felt there was no need for that
10 additional risk.
11 This is where we get into the application
12 of the pre-award interest. Deloitte equates the
13 WACC to being the appropriate interest rate.
14 I believe that is an inappropriate approach in that
15 it ignores the cost of financing of this
16 business is the same as the cost of investing in the
17 business, and obviously debt financing is
18 significantly less costly than equity, and we have
19 heard that already.
20 My perspective is that you, as a Tribunal,
21 are going to set an award at a point in time. There
22 is no risk to the Claimants as to the amount of the
23 award at that point in time. Therefore, they have
24 not borne the investment risk to that point, so they
25 have not invested some money ten years ago and had
[Page 657]
12:32
1 the chance of it disappearing entirely. As at the date of
2 your award, so they have borne a sum of money as at
3 the date of your award, so they have borne the risk in
4 between those two dates, the date of the alleged
5 breach and the award date, and therefore the only
6 risk that they need to be compensated for is the
7 risk-free rate of return or the time value of money.
8 I believe that since this is calculated in
9 USD the appropriate risk-free rate is associated
10 with the USD which is the treasury bills, and my
11 preference is for a one-year treasury bill because
12 if you go beyond that, you get into additional
13 interest for liquidity, which would not be the
14 case here.
15 (Slide 9)
16 Just to wrap up, there is some recently
17 submitted evidence that suggests that there was
18 underreporting of revenues in Moldova, or yields
19 rather. I shouldn't say "revenue". The source
20 itself makes it very clear that this is on the basis
21 of a survey of some small farms, not any of the
22 large farms, and we have heard this morning that
23 small patches, small farms, have higher yields than
24 large farms, so I don't believe that this report in
25 any way substantiates a rumour that there is
[Page 658]
12:34
1 underreporting of yields by the farmers in Moldova.
2 There has been a lot of discussion about a
3 supposed tax that I have imposed upon loss-making
4 operations that I have predicted or projected.
5 Nothing could be further from the truth.
6 What I have done is I have calculated a
7 tax shield and I have added it back to the cashflows
8 from the loss-making operation. I have done so on
9 the assumption that the two business divisions
10 within Laguardia would be profitable and would be
11 able to benefit from the losses generated by the
12 agricultural business or the produce growing
13 business.
14 The last point is I understand that the
15 Claimants have asked for the award to be paid
16 directly to Mr Grot or the Laguardia US-based
17 entity, so both of these are US-based entities. I
18 don't believe that it would be appropriate, based
19 on the information and calculation before you right
20 now, to do so. The reason is that the damages and
21 the cashflows have been calculated at the Moldovan
22 level. If you were then to pay that out of the
23 directly to a US entity you would circumvent any of
24 the tax and other legal legislation that would
25 govern the payment between the Moldovan entity and
[Page 659]
12:35
1 the US legal entity.
2 That ends my presentation.
3 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Peer, thank you very
4 much for your efficiency. I think we will now break
5 for 45 minutes for lunch. I am just going to read
6 into the record document R-3, a compilation of the
7 expert reports, Mr Peer. Just open. R-H-2 is the
8 errata to the expert report dated 13 November 2017
9 also by Mr Peer. It is the errata to the report of
10 13 November, but the document is dated 12 December.
11 The errata to the original report is of 13 November.
12 MR PEER: You are sequestered for the
13 luncheon. You can talk to Mr Wiechen, if you want,
14 but I hope you will not talk to anyone else. We
15 will see you back here at quarter past two to carry
16 on for cross-examination by Claimants, and there may
17 be some re-direct and after that the Tribunal would
18 like to put some questions to you and we may have
19 questions for you both.
20 Thank you.
21 (Luncheon adjournment from 1.37 pm to 2.16 pm)
22 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Astuno, over to you.
23 Cross-examination by Claimant
24 MR ASTUNO: Mr Peer, we would like to ask
25 you a few questions referring to your presentation,
[Page 660]
13:19
1 first. I note that you began your presentation
2 earlier discussing this notion of equipment that
3 still purportedly is owned by Claimants, is that
4 correct?
5 MR PEER: I recall saying that the
6 equipment is in dispute as to its ownership but that
7 the claim for it could only be for the actual loss
8 of that equipment.
9 MR ASTUNO: So you agree it is a question
10 that does not have a clear answer. Do you agree?
11 MR PEER: I have no opinion as to the
12 ownership of it.
13 MR ASTUNO: But nevertheless you state
14 here that approximately 83 per cent is still owned?
15 The second to last sentence of your presentation.
16 THE PRESIDENT: What page of the
17 presentation?
18 MR ASTUNO: The first page.
19 MR PEER: Slide 2 of my presentation.
20 Those are the calculations that I have seen in the
21 financial statements. Now I appreciate that there
22 has been some movement since then. I don't
23 know who owns the equipment.
24 MR ASTUNO: Movement and transfers. Could
25 movement and transfers likely impact that
[Page 661]
13:21
1 calculation of 887,000? Is that possible, in other
2 words? Is it possible that movements and transfers
3 would mean that this number is not a reliable
4 number?
5 MR PEER: It may well be that that is not
6 a reliable number. I revert to my point that the
7 issue here is more that the claim can't be for those
8 assets until they have been lost
9 MR ASTUNO: Under of course, they are no
10 longer in the control of my client?
11 MR PEER: Again, if they have been lost
12 then they can be claimed for, except to the extent
13 that they cannot be claimed in conjunction with the
14 DCF calculation.
15 MR ASTUNO: This approximation, this
16 calculation, was largely a guesstimate that
17 corporation document that Mr Kopecky put up with the
18 transfer to, regarding Laguardia Agrobusiness. Do
19 you recall that document?
20 MR PEER: I do.
21 MR ASTUNO: When you made this
22 approximation, did you assume that Mr Grot was the
23 sole owner of Laguardia Agrobusiness?
24 MR PEER: I did.
25 MR ASTUNO: If that assumption was proven
[Page 662]
13:19
1 to be incorrect, that would be yet another reason
2 why this approximation is unreliable. Is that true?
3 MR PEER: If there has been an ownership
4 transfer, I am not aware of it.
5 MR ASTUNO: I understand that point
6 generally but my question was specifically as it
7 pertains to that transfer to Laguardia Agrobusiness.
8 MR PEER: I am speaking specifically of
9 that. Mr Grot was not the one hundred per cent owner
10 of the Laguardia Agrobusiness, that would be another
11 reason why this number is unreliable. Would you
12 agree with that assessment?
13 MR PEER: Again, the issue here is what is
14 the damage to Mr Grot? If he has sold that company
15 then he will have been compensated for the assets.
16 MR ASTUNO: I am speaking specifically to
17 the transfer to the Laguardia Agrobusiness. Just to
18 confirm, you assumed when you made this
19 approximation that Mr Grot the one hundred per cent
20 owner of Laguardia Agrobusiness?
21 MR PEER: That was my premise of the
22 calculation.
23 MR ASTUNO: That is fine. There was
24 mention of multiple business divisions in your
25 report and one of the primary reasons for that
[Page 663]
13:20
1 assessment of yours pertained to a 2010 servicing
2 agreement. Do you recall reference to this
3 agreement?
4 MR PEER: I do not. The premise of that
5 is actually the detail in the financial statements
6 that were provided to me as an attachment to the
7 Deloitte report, where it actually shows a
8 segmentation of the revenue earned by the business.
9 MR ASTUNO: Those financial statements
10 that you are referring to -- that is table 2 of your report,
11 is that correct?
12 MR PEER: That is correct.
13 MR ASTUNO: The financial statements you
14 are referring to are years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014
15 is that correct?
16 MR PEER: 2010 as well.
17 MR ASTUNO: We start at 2010, but when you
18 are looking at revenue generated from the sale of
19 merchandise, that begins in 2011. Is that right?
20 MR PEER: The merchandise is 2011. Sales is
21 2010.
22 MR ASTUNO: Let me just go back to that
23 merchandise point. Do you agree that any revenue
24 that was attained from the sale of merchandise
25 occurred after the valuation date?
[Page 664]
13:21
1 breach date assumed by Deloitte, yes.
2 MR ASTUNO: Also the valuation date of
3 your revised DCF calculation. Is that correct?
4 MR PEER: Again, all I have is the annual
5 financials so --
6 MR ASTUNO: Mr Peer, you prepared a
7 revised --
8 MR PEER: Let me finish my answer. The
9 assumed valuation date, or the alleged breach date,
10 is the beginning of 2011, February or March. I have
11 no idea when the sales for all of 2011.
12 I will take your point, if you wish to put
13 it to me, that that business did not start operating
14 until after the alleged breach in 2011, but I have
15 no knowledge of that.
16 MR ASTUNO: So you would agree that all of
17 that information from after the date of taking, as
18 you phrased it, would be information you can get post
19 this point? Information that we now know to be true at
20 this point in time?
21 MR PEER: Again, I don't use the term of
22 the taking. You are putting words in my mouth
23 there and I will revert that I don't know whether
24 that business started before or after.
[Page 665]
13:23
1 MR ASTUNO: But, as of 2010, there was no
2 revenue input for the sale of merchandise. Is that
3 correct?
4 MR PEER: There was none declared in the
5 financial statements, correct.
6 MR ASTUNO: Going back to the idea of
7 Laguardia acting as a servicer, you have assumed
8 that there was a servicer at the relevant time from 2010,
9 when you look at the revenue arrangements.
10 Haven't Laguardia was not attaining revenue from
11 the sale of agricultural products?
12 MR PEER: Well, it certainly separates
13 in the financial statements from the activity that
14 it declares for the sale of agricultural production.
15 MR ASTUNO: If you were to learn or if you
16 were to be told that there might have been some
17 confusion as to what that term exactly meant, and
18 again that term would be "servicing", if you were to
19 be told that that term "servicing" did actually
20 equal the sale of agricultural products, would that
21 change your assessment?
22 MR PEER: Well, if the financial
23 statements that have been produced are incorrect,
24 then if there are corrections to them, I will
25 reflect that in my calculations, certainly.
[Page 666]
13:23
1 MR ASTUNO: That correction, to be clear,
2 would be one of terminology. It would not be one of
3 actual revenue number.
4 MR PEER: Well, the financial statements
5 very clearly have a segmentation. If that
6 segmentation is incorrect, the financial statements
7 themselves would have to be corrected.
8 MR ASTUNO: We are only talking about the
9 correction of the term "servicing". We are not
10 talking about the correction of the actual number.
11 Is that right?
12 MR PEER: Again, no, because the figure is
13 beside the term, so if the term is incorrect, then
14 the figure would be -- it is a chicken and egg --
15 you put the number beside what you think is the
16 terms of revenue. If you are saying that has now
17 been incorrectly classified, then the financial
18 statement might be updated.
19 MR ASTUNO: Moving on, there was reference
20 in your presentation to the alleged 200 tons of
21 winter wheat that were sold in 2010. Do you recall
22 that?
23 MR PEER: I do. It is on slide 3 of my
24 presentation.
25 MR ASTUNO: You use that as a point of
[Page 667]
13:24
1 comparative data to Laguardia's projected
2 profitability. Is that right?
3 MR PEER: Not particularly. What I have
4 put it in here for is that obviously we have heard
5 and, as I understand it, there is a growth in the
6 yield over a 5-year period, and the premise is that
7 the starting point would be lower than the average,
8 and that seems to be supported by the fact that the
9 winter wheat was only 1.4, which is significantly
10 lower than the 5-year average that is predicted by
11 the agricultural experts.
12 MR ASTUNO: You have assumed that it is
13 what was produced was only 200 tons. To make that
14 calculation and that statement, you have assumed
15 that only 200 tons of winter wheat were produced on
16 140 ha that year?
17 MR PEER: That is the estimate provided by
18 Mr Grot. I have no basis on which to consider that
19 to be inaccurate.
20 MR ASTUNO: That was an estimate that you
21 found in Mr Grot's witness statement. Is that
22 correct?
23 MR PEER: That is correct.
24 MR ASTUNO: When would the sale of that
25 winter wheat have occurred?
[Page 668]
13:26
1 MR PEER: My understanding is that it
2 would have occurred some time in the middle of the
3 summer. June.
4 MR ASTUNO: Of what year?
5 MR PEER: If it had sown in 2010, it would
6 have been 2011.
7 MR ASTUNO: You are aware that in 2011
8 there was a serious dispute on these lands. You are
9 aware of that fact?
10 MR PEER: I am aware of that.
11 MR ASTUNO: Would you also agree that that
12 dispute, and the nature of that dispute that was
13 occurring on that land at that time between
14 Bio-Alianța, the government and Mr Grot's company,
15 might have impacted the productivity of those lands?
16 MR PEER: I have no ability to comment on
17 that.
18 MR ASTUNO: Do you generally agree with
19 the statement that an asset that is in dispute might
20 very well not be as productive or profitable as an
21 asset that is not in dispute?
22 MR PEER: Again, I can't generalise in
23 that manner.
24 MR ASTUNO: Do you recognise the fact that
25 the same source of data for 200 tons of winter wheat
[Page 669]
13:27
1 also contains information that would indicate that
2 the productivity of those lands could be seriously
3 impaired?
4 MR PEER: Again, I don't know whether the
5 productivity was impaired or not. I know that that
6 is what was stated to be harvested.
7 MR ASTUNO: You did read in that statement
8 that there was a serious dispute at the time on
9 these lands. Is that right?
10 MR PEER: I understand there was a dispute
11 regarding the lands, yes.
12 MR ASTUNO: There were repeated assertions
13 by you that Laguardia lacked a business plan for its
14 operations as of 2010. You recall making those
15 assertions. Is that right?
16 MR PEER: My assertion is that there is no
17 business plan on the record. Your assertion
18 is that there is no business plan on the record?
19 MR PEER: The starting point of the
20 damages calculation that Deloitte prepared ought to
21 have been a contemporaneous business plan. Because
22 one was not provided to Deloitte, I assume there is
23 none available. I also am not aware of any business
24 plan having been submitted and been made available.
[Page 670]
13:28
1 MR ASTUNO: But in all fairness you don't
2 exactly know what Deloitte requested of my client,
3 just like you don't know what Respondent requested
4 from Claimant regarding this business plan. Is that
5 right?
6 MR PEER: No, I do not.
7 MR ASTUNO: So you would concede that
8 there is likely a business plan, but it is just not
9 on the record?
10 THE PRESIDENT: I think he has been pretty
11 clear in what he says.
12 MR ASTUNO: I now want to move on to what
13 in Claimants' mind is the most fundamental issue
14 that you have with your report, and that is your
15 source of information as to the cost structure of
16 Laguardia, and your source of information as to the
17 projected yields of Laguardia.
18 You earlier mentioned that you felt as
19 though you were in a black box. Is that not the
20 case that you were in a black box as to your ability
21 to project Laguardia's cost structure? Is that
22 right?
23 MR PEER: That is correct. I did not know
24 how the agricultural experts had arrived at their
25 cost structure, so I could not modify it based on
[Page 671]
13:29
1 the modifications I made to the projected yields.
2 MR ASTUNO: But at the same time you were
3 in a black box as to projecting yields. Is that
4 right?
5 MR PEER: The yield projections were
6 fairly straightforward and transparent in terms of
7 how the agricultural experts had prepared it. They
8 had said that they had considered the production
9 capacity at the test centre. It was only during the
10 testimony yesterday that I understood more about
11 what that projection actually was, ie, it was a
12 5-year average, not an expectation for each year.
13 But yes, I believe that I had more transparency as
14 to what they had actually projected in terms of the
15 yields.
16 MR ASTUNO: Do you feel now on the basis
17 of what you learned throughout these proceedings so
18 far that you have more transparency on the direct
19 correlation that costs and yields have to one
20 another in the agricultural industry?
21 MR PEER: I don't. I have a revised set
22 of figures, but I do not know how those figures were
23 derived.
24 MR ASTUNO: Do you know generally how
25 revenue figures correlate to costs in the
[Page 672]
13:31
1 agricultural industry?
2 MR PEER: Again, I am somewhat bemused at
3 the moment because the new figures that we received
4 yesterday...
5 MR ASTUNO: I am not asking about that.
6 MR PEER: I am not asking about that.
7 yesterday from the agricultural experts suggest a
8 greater profit margin if you do not apply pesticides
9 and fertilizers. Therefore I am confused as to how
10 this relationship works.
11 MR ASTUNO: You were confused about how
12 this relationship works, but you still nevertheless
13 revised yield projections in this case. Is that
14 correct?
15 MR PEER: I did revise the yield
16 projections, yes.
17 MR ASTUNO: You are by no means, neither
18 am I, of course, but you are not an expert in
19 agriculture. Is that right?
20 MR PEER: I am not an expert in
21 agriculture.
22 MR ASTUNO: Despite none of us in the room
23 perhaps right now being experts in agriculture --
24 MR FORTIER: Mr Grot.
25 MR ASTUNO: How can I forget? My
[Page 673]
13:32
1 forgiveness, Mr Grot! Would you agree that what a
2 farmer decides to spend in terms of his cost inputs
3 directly affects what he can expect to receive in
4 yields?
5 MR PEER: I would expect that there is
6 going to be some sort of correlation. That is the
7 economics of it.
8 MR ASTUNO: But there is no correlation
9 done in your report?
10 MR PEER: As I said, I was unable to make
11 that correlation and therefore unable to adjust the
12 costs, and I am very straightforward about that.
13 MR ASTUNO: Adjust the yields?
14 MR PEER: I wasn't able to adjust the
15 costs and I have been very forthright about that in
16 my report.
17 MR ASTUNO: Would you agree that an
18 agricultural company that spends money on
19 fertilizers, plant protectants and modern equipment
20 would expect to achieve greater than average yields
21 than a company that does not?
22 MR PEER: I don't know.
23 MR ASTUNO: But without knowing, and I can
24 understand that you don't know because you are not
25 an expert, you still nevertheless valued Laguardia
[Page 674]
13:33
1 MR PEER: I do not value Laguardia.
2 MR ASTUNO: But you created a revised
3 discounted cash flow valuation for Laguardia.
4 MR PEER: I prepared a revised
5 discounted cash flow from which a
6 approximation of the damages to Mr Grot. I have not
7 valued Laguardia.
8 MR ASTUNO: You revised the projected
9 revenues of Laguardia. Would you agree to that
10 statement?
11 MR PEER: I did revise the projected
12 revenues, yes.
13 MR ASTUNO: Despite not being an expert in
14 the industry and just agreeing that there could be a
15 correlation between costs and revenue?
16 MR PEER: Without being an agricultural
17 expert, yes.
18 MR ASTUNO: If you don't mind me asking,
19 did you ask your client if you could have the
20 opportunity to collaborate with a local agricultural
21 expert?
22 MR PEER: I produced my report in under
23 seven days. I did not have time to ask many
24 questions.
25 MR ASTUNO: I am impressed you were able
[Page 675]
13:34
1 to produce that in under seven days. Do you think
2 the credibility and reliability of your report would
3 have been enhanced had you had the opportunity to
4 collaborate with a local expert?
5 MR PEER: I think that it would have been
6 useful, yes, to have some discussions with a local
7 agricultural expert.
8 MR ASTUNO: In other words, it would have
9 been more reliable?
10 MR PEER: I don't know whether it would
11 have been more reliable. It depends on what I did
12 with the information I was given by them, but
13 I think it would have been useful to corroborate
14 with them.
15 MR ASTUNO: It would have been more
16 useful? You just agreed to that.
17 MR PEER: It would have been more useful
18 for me, yes.
19 MR ASTUNO: I want to discuss the
20 reference to the guideline companies that Deloitte
21 and Mr Wiechen prepared. That reference to the
22 guideline companies did not impact the calculation
23 of projected revenue and costs, is that right?
24 MR PEER: Are you meaning the comparable
25 companies?
[Page 676]
13:35
1 MR ASTUNO: Right. Exactly. I can bring
2 them up.
3 MR PEER: It is all right. It is just a
4 terminology. As long as we are talking about the
5 same thing here.
6 MR ASTUNO: Obviously the Tribunal has
7 seen this already, but the analysis that Deloitte
8 did of these comparable companies, isn't it true
9 that that had no impact on their projection of
10 Laguardia's revenue and costs?
11 MR PEER: That is my projection of
12 whether these companies are considered to be comparable
13 companies, then they ought to have considered
14 whether the profitability of these companies was
15 similar to what they were projecting.
16 There is a difference, of
17 course, to being useful for the cost of capital
18 input, that calculation, versus a profitability
19 assessment. Would you agree?
20 MR PEER: I don't. Either these companies
21 are comparable and you can then use them to estimate
22 what you think the numbers ought to be for your
23 subject company, or these companies are not
24 comparable, and therefore they are not usable.
25 I don't believe that you can pick and choose and say
[Page 677]
13:36
1 they are comparable for one purpose but not for
2 others.
3 MR ASTUNO: But you have compared the
4 estimated profitability of Laguardia to the
5 profitability of these companies, haven't you?
6 MR PEER: I have done that, yes.
7 MR ASTUNO: And you just said that that
8 would not be useful, or was I misinterpreting your
9 statement?
10 MR PEER: I don't believe these to be
11 comparable companies in all aspects, or
12 they don't consider them to be comparable companies.
13 I do not believe they are comparable for the purposes of determining
14 what the working capital ought to be, they are
15 comparable for determining what the beta ought to
16 be, they are comparable for determining what the
17 debt to equity ratio ought to be, but they are not
18 comparable for profitability.
19 I don't believe that that is
20 cherrypicking that can be allowed.
21 MR ASTUNO: Any comparison that you made
22 of Laguardia to these companies as it pertains to
23 profitability would not be credible, then. Is that
24 right?
[Page 678]
13:37
1 MR PEER: Well, it is only credible if
2 they are comparable companies. Deloitte has
3 considered them to be comparable companies and
4 I relied upon that assessment.
5 MR ASTUNO: Notwithstanding, exactly how
6 that comparable analysis was done, you do concede
7 that none of those companies operate in the Moldovan
8 agricultural sector. Is that right?
9 MR PEER: I believe that has been the
10 evidence put forward to the Tribunal today, yes.
11 MR ASTUNO: In fact, none of those
12 companies even operate in Moldova?
13 MR PEER: I am not sure of that.
14 I believe they may have operated there as well as
15 elsewhere, but I leave it to you if you want to put
16 it to me that they didn't operate there.
17 MR ASTUNO: Mr Peer, do you believe that
18 information that is obtained to match the unique
19 company's specific details of a company is important
20 when you evaluate that company's projected revenue?
21 MR PEER: Indeed. If you are assessing
22 the value of the company, you need to consider the
23 specific circumstances of the company.
24 MR ASTUNO: So, for instance, if a company
25 was more of a modern, technologically sophisticated
[Page 679]
13:38
1 company, that would be something that you would take
2 into consideration. Is that right?
3 MR PEER: Yes, one of the factors you would
4 consider is what impact that being modern and
5 technologically sophisticated had on its cashflows,
6 as that is ultimately what we are looking at.
7 MR ASTUNO: Mr President, there are a
8 number of other accounting issues that I could
9 present to the expert on. I have some
10 homework to do. I believe it might be the best use of
11 our time now for Claimants to end their
12 cross-examination of Mr Peer. I would ask at this
13 point for any specific references to the calculation
14 of accounting inputs, we stand by the record and we
15 stand by our expert report.
16 THE PRESIDENT: That is certainly
17 understood. Thank you very much. We hand back to
18 Mr Kopecky for any re-direct.
19 Re-examination by Respondent
20 MR KOPECKY: Just one question. In
21 Appendix E to your report did you project yields?
22 MR PEER: No. In Appendix E I project the
23 actual revenue from the fields, not the yield
24 itself.
25 MR KOPECKY: So a revenue is different
[Page 680]
13:41
1 from a yield?
2 MR PEER: It is different from yields.
3 MR KOPECKY: Thank you.
4 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Because, the difference
5 are not that big, but what is the difference
6 between yield and revenue? I am sorry to ask these
7 stupid questions but I simply don't know.
8 MR PEER: The reason I didn't project the
9 yields is that the yields and the price work
10 together to generate the revenue, and I projected
11 revenue rather than yields themselves because I was
12 accepting of the fact that there is an interaction
13 between the two.
14 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
15 We now ask Mr Lars Wiechen
16 to come and join Mr Peer.
17 LARS WIECHEN and MICHAEL PEER
18 Questions by the Tribunal
19 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I will try to form the
20 question to the best of my intelligence, not being
21 an expert in the field you are in, but at the same
22 time coming from a full of admiration when
23 I listen to people who talk about an ex ante
24 approach of the past as if it were the future, and
25 that is really fantastic. I am not cynical at all,
[Page 681]
13:43
1 I am full of admiration, because I have problems
2 predicting the future until Sunday, including my
3 revenues. Well, until Sunday I am quite certain,
4 but beyond that, I don't know.
5 There is some seriousness in my remark
6 because I think many of the questions we have
7 discussed here are due to the facts that in my
8 knowledge this Laguardia never really took off the
9 ground to become an established business, or have a
10 mature activity in farming leased land in Moldova.
11 Now, there are different methods to come
12 to damage appreciations, and an income-based method
13 that you seem to agree upon, the DCF method.
14 I resume in my understanding that there has been
15 taken as part of this whole parcel -- some
16 production in the south of Moldova done by Laguardia
17 before it moved to the north, and then perhaps --
18 which I had not really looked into -- the other
19 business by Laguardia which had nothing to do
20 with this farming business, but for the rest no
21 activity.
22 Then, of course, an income-based approach
23 like the DCF becomes extremely speculative, because
24 you have to -- I was close to saying you have to
[Page 682]
13:42
1 dream up everything -- of course you don't dream up
2 everything because you are scientific, you are
3 educated, so you have literature, so you have
4 figures and WACCs and all these kind of things, but
5 for a simple man like me it is income over a certain
6 period of time.
7 If there were no other possibility to come
8 to some kind of estimate of damages, I would say
9 okay, we have to live with this uncertainty, but
10 there are other possibilities to come to damage
11 appreciation. My question is why did you both agree
12 on a DCF, which means income-based evaluation of
13 damages when there is also a possibility to assess
14 damages based on transaction, a comparable
15 property evaluation? Because we have assets, we
16 have financial statements, we have this. Why
17 did you choose under these circumstances of
18 uncertainty and non-maturity of business the DCF
19 method?
20 I ask both of you, of course, but it is
21 better to start with the Claimants' expert.
22 MR WIECHEN: Maybe to clarify from the
23 very beginning, what we performed was a business
24 valuation of a business which indeed had a very
[Page 683]
13:44
1 short history. But the value of the business is
2 determined on the future earnings generation
3 capability of the business. If you establish the
4 value of the business you have to look into the
5 future. You have to forecast the future. You have
6 to make certain assumptions about what is going to
7 happen in the future. This is the essence of all
8 business valuations. Professor Knieper, believe me
9 I have done in the last five years at least 150 of
10 those.
11 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I believe you
12 completely!
13 MR WIECHEN: And due to the fact that the
14 entire investment was lost, so there is actually no
15 business any more, the company is currently under
16 insolvency proceedings and judicial administration,
17 so basically Mr Grot entirely lost the business in
18 factually at the date of revocation of the
19 respective lease agreements.
20 To come back to your initial question,
21 yes, I agree, we have a degree of uncertainty, we
22 have in all business valuations, and as an evaluator
23 it is one of your tasks to reduce the
24 complexity and uncertainty of future events based on
25 the most reliable information you can get. This is,
[Page 684]
13:48
1 for example, the reason why we worked closely
2 together with the agricultural experts, first of
3 all, because I am not an agricultural expert, and
4 secondly, to work with someone who knows the
5 business, who knows the specifics of the Moldovan
6 agricultural environment, and who can assist us in
7 making reasonable assumptions as regards future
8 yields and future cost structures. Future contracts.
9 And help us to come up with a reliable estimate for
10 the value of the business as of the date of the
11 alleged breaches of contract.
12 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Before I get your,
13 answer, to come back a little bit on what you said,
14 you state the revocation of the leases. We heard
15 from the legal experts yesterday that these leases
16 were not revoked by deletion from the registry. We
17 also heard today there were all these assets still
18 there. There was no expropriation of assets of any
19 kind. You say that the investment was completely
20 lost. Is that a fair assumption of what happened?
21 MR WIECHEN: This was one of my working
22 assumptions, but I cannot opine on any legal
23 aspects.
24 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That was information
25 given to you by the client and you worked on this
[Page 685]
13:49
1 assumption?
2 MR WIECHEN: Yes.
3 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Then you say in all
4 evaluation you have this uncertainty. Is that so?
5 Let us assume that an agricultural firm like
6 Laguardia had cultivated whatever for ten years in
7 the future and then you make an evaluation into the
8 future. I would say perfect -- I would not even ask
9 these questions, but there is not there, so there
10 is a different degree of uncertainty. I think an
11 income-based evaluation where no income had been
12 generated is disproportionately high to an evaluation of an
13 activity where you had a mature business activity.
14 Would you agree with that?
15 MR WIECHEN: Coming back to your example,
16 if you have a history of several years of an
17 operating business, yes, indeed, this historical
18 financial analysis of a company is one of the main
19 ingredients in any business evaluation, but it gives
20 you a picture of what has happened in the past.
21 What has happened in the past is for sure you use this
22 information to project the future and having a
23 smaller period of historical information would to a
24 certain extent increase the degree of uncertainty
[Page 686]
13:51
1 for the prospective financial information.
2 However, as I said also previously in
3 direct and cross-examination, Mr Grot in this case
4 already proved his capabilities of running
5 agricultural businesses in Poland, so this at least
6 gives me credibility as regards the management
7 capabilities and that Mr Grot is an expert in
8 agriculture. And, secondly, we have seen that
9 Laguardia, if you look into the 2010 figures, had
10 a very profitable business in Stefan Voda. This
11 gave me, let's say, sufficient credibility to
12 legitimise the future profitability of
13 Laguardia.
14 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Mr Peer?
15 MR PEER: First, I will try to correct you
16 though. It is an assertion by Claimants' counsel
17 that I have agreed to the use of the DCF. I have
18 not.
19 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That was in the
20 opening remarks of Claimants that you had agreed to
21 base your works on the DCF method?
22 MR PEER: Exactly. It is an assertion of
23 Claimants' counsel. I have not agreed to the DCF
24 calculation because I share your view that there is
25 an insufficient basis on which to make that DCF
[Page 687]
13:52
1 calculation. I think there is a big difference
2 between what we are doing here, which is valuing
3 damages, and you are awarding a sum of money to
4 somebody where the valuation of a business.
5 In the valuation of a business you have
6 two parties who can negotiate and the parties can
7 walk away from each other if they don't agree on
8 what the future cashflows of that business are and
9 what the value of those further cashflows are in
10 today's terms. Here, it is impossible. You
11 are going to award a sum of money that must be
12 between the parties, so there needs to be, in my
13 opinion, a greater level of certainty as to how you
14 make that calculation, and in my opening I gave
15 it to you as to whether you feel there is a
16 sufficient basis and sufficient support for the
17 calculation that is before you. I will leave it
18 at that.
19 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Thank you.
20 MR FORTIER: I think everyone is agreed
21 that this is a very unusual situation. Mr Grot
22 really did not get his business off the ground, and
23 you accept that, and that he had a machinery which
24 was going to be used to carry on his work as a
25 farmer. He had a history of successful ventures in
[Page 688]
| 1 | Poland. He had done pretty well in Stefan Voda, as | 13:55 |
| 2 | was mentioned by one of you a short while ago, and | |
| 3 | he had acquired these leases and then, however you | |
| 4 | characterise it, his dream, which by then was more | |
| 5 | than a dream, he had machinery on the ground, he had | |
| 6 | paper which was worth in his mind, I think we can | |
| 7 | recognise that it was worth money, it was certainly | |
| 8 | part of his investment, and all this came to nought. | |
| 9 | I am not going to venture into the realm | |
| 10 | of a Bilateral Investment Treaty and whether any | |
| 11 | article in the treaty was breached, because his | |
| 12 | dream evaporated in some very strange ways, as | |
| 13 | I think we articulated a couple of days ago. | |
| 14 | I am assuming, and I appreciate Mr Peer | |
| 15 | saying "I leave it to you". Of course it is up to | |
| 16 | us, we are the adjudicators, but we need help, and | |
| 17 | I am looking at the persons, the experts, whom | |
| 18 | I think can help -- I speak for myself obviously but | |
| 19 | I know my colleagues pretty well and I think we are | |
| 20 | all wrestling with the same -- and again I am not | |
| 21 | talking breaches of the BIT right now, I am talking | |
| 22 | about Mr Grot made an investment, he had a plan, he | |
| 23 | may not have written, as was said this morning, a | |
| 24 | business plan as such with people versed in numbers | |
| 25 | like yourselves who could have prepared a lovely, |
[Page 689]
| 1 | beautiful business plan that we would have | 13:58 |
| 2 | understood, but he had something of value which -- | |
| 3 | and I don't intend a pun when I say this -- went up | |
| 4 | in smoke. Again, we have to decide what was the | |
| 5 | value that his business had. | |
| 6 | It is not as if he owned a refinery and | |
| 7 | the refinery was expropriated by the state and you | |
| 8 | have some very expensive economists and experts who | |
| 9 | come and give a valuation, and very often, as | |
| 10 | arbitrators, we have to pin the tail on the donkey | |
| 11 | and decide how much it is worth because you guys and | |
| 12 | girls, the experts, don't always agree. | |
| 13 | Here I have a sense -- I have listened to | |
| 14 | you, I am looking at you -- that you are very | |
| 15 | reasonable people, that you would like to help us. | |
| 16 | All this is a lead-up to the question of whether it | |
| 17 | is a DCF or comparable sales, one after the other, | |
| 18 | can you tell us, first of all, whether Mr Grot's | |
| 19 | business had value and how much was that value? | |
| 20 | Mr Peer, you go so far as to say it is | |
| 21 | nil. I read it. I don't accept that, and I don't | |
| 22 | think you do either, having been with us for a few | |
| 23 | hours. I think you acknowledge that Mr Grot was an | |
| 24 | entrepreneur in a country called Moldova. We are | |
| 25 | not in Austria, we are not in Germany, we are not in |
[Page 690]
| 1 | Great Britain, we are not in Canada. Moldova is | 14:00 |
| 2 | what it is, probably a beautiful country. I was | |
| 3 | trying to convince my colleagues the other night | |
| 4 | that we should go and visit Moldova in order to | |
| 5 | satisfy our -- | |
| 6 | THE PRESIDENT: And we were convinced. | |
| 7 | MR FORTIER: I was making progress! | |
| 8 | So I know you want to help us. You are | |
| 9 | vastly experienced. I do not know if you have been | |
| 10 | here since Monday morning. Have you been here since | |
| 11 | Monday morning? | |
| 12 | MR WIECHEN: No. | |
| 13 | MR PEER: I was here for Monday morning | |
| 14 | and then I have stepped out for the intervening time | |
| 15 | until this morning. | |
| 16 | MR FORTIER: So you heard some of the | |
| 17 | evidence of Mr Grot? | |
| 18 | MR PEER: No, I only listened to | |
| 19 | Claimants' opening. | |
| 20 | MR FORTIER: It is unfortunate that you | |
| 21 | did not have the benefit of Mr Grot and Mr Beril, | |
| 22 | the only two factual witnesses. Because, you see, | |
| 23 | one of the problems we have -- and we have many -- | |
| 24 | is that the lawyers from Moldova in their wisdom -- | |
| 25 | and they are very wise -- their game plan, their |
[Page 691]
| 1 | strategy was "we don't produce any witness from | 14:02 |
| 2 | Moldova. Nobody". In fact, we asked counsel at one | |
| 3 | point on Monday a question where he said "my | |
| 4 | understanding was I could not really get an answer | |
| 5 | from my clients in Moldova", so that puts us in a | |
| 6 | very difficult situation. | |
| 7 | I speak for myself at the moment, but | |
| 8 | I would love to have seen chairs of witnesses from | |
| 9 | Moldova rather than empty chairs and theories and | |
| 10 | cross-examination. What comes with | |
| 11 | cross-examination of course is trying to belittle | |
| 12 | the evidence of the Claimant. | |
| 13 | How can you help us put a number, whether | |
| 14 | it is a lei number or a dollar number, on the dream, | |
| 15 | which was more than a dream? There were some hard | |
| 16 | papers, some leases, which vanished as quickly as | |
| 17 | they saw the light of day, which is why I wish you | |
| 18 | had been here when Mr Grot testified. | |
| 19 | How can you help us put a dollar value? | |
| 20 | Whether or not the Respondent is responsible, that | |
| 21 | is not what I am asking you to do -- we will do | |
| 22 | that -- but how can you help us put a dollar value | |
| 23 | on what Mr Grot lost? The business that he lost? | |
| 24 | MR PEER: Perhaps if I can start on that? | |
| 25 | MR FORTIER: Yes, if you would. |
[Page 692]
| 1 | MR PEER: You are correct that I don't | 14:04 |
| 2 | believe that the cashflows from the business were | |
| 3 | going to be negative, because Mr Grot would not have | |
| 4 | continued in that vein. He would have made changes. | |
| 5 | They are not negative in my calculation because I could | |
| 6 | adjust the costs that were associated with the | |
| 7 | lower yields. | |
| 8 | I have been given updated figures that | |
| 9 | don't make sense to me because they generate results | |
| 10 | that are nonsensical to me, so I am not in a | |
| 11 | position to give you what you think would be | |
| 12 | sufficiently reliable cash flow projections for you | |
| 13 | to prepare a damages calculation and to award | |
| 14 | damages. | |
| 15 | I think from my perspective the figures | |
| 16 | that are generated by the Deloitte calculations are | |
| 17 | unrealistically profitable. If I look solely at | |
| 18 | what was happening in Stefan Voda, this was a | |
| 19 | normally profitable business, 50 per cent, and | |
| 20 | the suggestion that it was going to be a | |
| 21 | 35 per cent profitable business does not sit with | |
| 22 | me. | |
| 23 | We could, if you were to instruct us, | |
| 24 | continue to work together to try to come up with | |
| 25 | some sort of DCF, a calculation that would be |
[Page 693]
| 1 | sufficiently reliable for you, but I think that | 14:06 |
| 2 | the alternative, if you believe that there has been | |
| 3 | a breach and you believe that the state is | |
| 4 | responsible for that breach, would be to award some | |
| 5 | form of return of the invested capital. | |
| 6 | Now there currently are on the record at | |
| 7 | around 800,000, but those would have to be lost | |
| 8 | costs and there is a dispute as to whether Mr Grot | |
| 9 | continues to own those assets or whether those | |
| 10 | assets have been disposed of and therefore whether | |
| 11 | there is some compensation that Mr Grot has already | |
| 12 | received from the disposal of the assets. | |
| 13 | Again, as far as I am aware, there is insufficient | |
| 14 | evidence before you in order to award damages based | |
| 15 | on an investment. | |
| 16 | MR FORTIER: Thank you, Mr Peer. And you, | |
| 17 | Mr Wiechen? Thank you. I just want to | |
| 18 | make an errata to what Mr Peer said. If you simply | |
| 19 | look at the financial statements of Laguardia, the | |
| 20 | 2010 net income margin was 31 per cent, not close | |
| 21 | to zero. Secondly, Mr Peer would have to be able to | |
| 22 | make a DCF calculation based on the report of the | |
| 23 | agricultural experts, and then perform his own DCF | |
| 24 | ||
| 25 |
[Page 694]
| 1 | calculation because he had all the information as | 14:07 |
| 2 | regards yields, prices, direct, indirect, operating | |
| 3 | costs. We have a breakdown of kilograms, | |
| 4 | fertilizers suggested to be used on the fields, so | |
| 5 | the data that could have been done by the | |
| 6 | Respondents' expert. | |
| 7 | Secondly, honestly I have done my best. | |
| 8 | Out of all my experience of 16 years of business | |
| 9 | evaluations, it is very rare that I -- to come | |
| 10 | up with a reliable value of the business Mr Grot | |
| 11 | lost with this investment. I did not exaggerate, | |
| 12 | I am a responsible expert. I was conservative on | |
| 13 | almost all of my assumptions. I believe that if we | |
| 14 | define the damages as loss of business value, I | |
| 15 | believe that Mr Grot has lost approximately | |
| 16 | 2.7 million USD in 2011. | |
| 17 | MR PEER: May I respond to that very | |
| 18 | briefly? I don't believe there is sufficient detail | |
| 19 | within the agricultural experts' reports to prepare | |
| 20 | a reliable DCF. I don't believe that I could have | |
| 21 | adjusted and created a DCF based on that | |
| 22 | information. | |
| 23 | MR FORTIER: You looked at it carefully? | |
| 24 | I don't believe I could have adjusted it any | |
| 25 |
[Page 695]
| 1 | more than I have. I maintain that it isn't | 14:09 |
| 2 | sufficiently granular because it assumes an average | |
| 3 | yield over five years, rather than yield by year and | |
| 4 | so forth, and costs associated with that. | |
| 5 | MR FORTIER: But here again it is the best | |
| 6 | we have. Moldova has not produced an expert and | |
| 7 | agronomist who would have attacked the agricultural | |
| 8 | experts produced by the Claimants. | |
| 9 | MR PEER: I understand that, but I also | |
| 10 | understand burden of proof. | |
| 11 | MR FORTIER: That proof is that is not | |
| 12 | contradicted. You mean the level of proof, but | |
| 13 | that is it they say. | |
| 14 | MR WIECHEN: I heard Mr Peer say well, | |
| 15 | maybe the two of us could retire and come up with a | |
| 16 | report and a recommendation that could be or | |
| 17 | do you think it is hopeless, or | |
| 18 | do you think that you could sit down and produce | |
| 19 | some smoke that would come out of the chimney? | |
| 20 | MR WIECHEN: What are you referring to? | |
| 21 | Excuse me, please, to stand with Mr Peer and | |
| 22 | rediscuss and try and find an objective way? | |
| 23 | MR FORTIER: Yes. | |
| 24 | MR WIECHEN: Both of us presented | |
| 25 | objective ways. Again, you have all my input that |
[Page 696]
| 1 | I can bring to the case. | 14:12 |
| 2 | MR FORTIER: You do, and you have based | |
| 3 | your report on the expert report of the agricultural | |
| 4 | witnesses we've heard this morning. | |
| 5 | On the other hand we have a learned | |
| 6 | accountant from a very well known firm, KPMG, who | |
| 7 | says, "on the basis of what I have seen it is nil". | |
| 8 | I am using the singular, we had a lot of those | |
| 9 | "I", "we" -- Mr Grot and the other two Claimants | |
| 10 | have lost their business that had value, and it is | |
| 11 | unfortunate that the two of you, who strike me as | |
| 12 | being very reasonable and knowledgeable accountants | |
| 13 | which we are not. As you heard from | |
| 14 | Professor Knieper and the Chairman, lawyers always | |
| 15 | have some issues with numbers. In this case it is | |
| 16 | not a question of comparing numbers because | |
| 17 | Mr Wiechen's number is contrasted to a nil. | |
| 18 | I will end my unusual line of questioning | |
| 19 | by saying what I said at the outset, that it is an | |
| 20 | unusual case, and I wish the two of you together | |
| 21 | would help us together on the quantum of damages. Thank | |
| 22 | you, Mr Chairman. | |
| 23 | THE PRESIDENT: Very briefly, I hope, a | |
| 24 | couple of questions. | |
| 25 |
[Page 697]
| 1 | First, to both of you: would you have been | 14:13 |
| 2 | materially assisted in your tasks if there had been | |
| 3 | in existence, and available to you, a business plan | |
| 4 | that had been prepared prior to this investment | |
| 5 | having been made which accorded with the kinds of | |
| 6 | quality standards you would expect? | |
| 7 | MR WIECHEN: Basically what we have done | |
| 8 | in our exercise, we constructed a business plan, | |
| 9 | based on which business plan. | |
| 10 | MR PEER: That wasn't my question. | |
| 11 | MR WIECHEN: If there had been a business | |
| 12 | plan prepared by Mr Grot, or by some consultants to | |
| 13 | Mr Grot, indeed that would have been information | |
| 14 | that we would have thoroughly analysed. | |
| 15 | However, given the standard of value and | |
| 16 | the context, I would have preferred to make my own | |
| 17 | estimates together with independent agricultural | |
| 18 | experts not to get biased by a business plan which | |
| 19 | was delivered by the Claimant. | |
| 20 | THE PRESIDENT: Would you not assume that | |
| 21 | a Claimant, going through a due diligence exercise | |
| 22 | before making an investment of this size and of this | |
| 23 | nature that a claimant would have put some time and | |
| 24 | thought into working out how to make such an | |
| 25 | expenditure of monies? |
[Page 698]
| 1 | I suppose what I am saying is would you | 14:16 |
| 2 | not have assumed that an investor who prepared a | |
| 3 | business plan is an investor that may be perceived | |
| 4 | as having done some due diligence and had worked | |
| 5 | out in a reflective way what his real prospects | |
| 6 | were, and an investor who has not does not fall into | |
| 7 | that category of investor? | |
| 8 | MR WIECHEN: I am convinced that Mr Grot | |
| 9 | made his own considerations and for sure he had a | |
| 10 | business plan in place, but not a formally | |
| 11 | documented business plan with 80 pages explaining | |
| 12 | all these separate line items. | |
| 13 | THE PRESIDENT: I didn't say anything | |
| 14 | about 80 pages. I just said a piece of paper that | |
| 15 | sets out a back-of-the-envelope plan for the | |
| 16 | invasion of Iraq type of thing -- or not! | |
| 17 | Just a piece of paper, which could be one | |
| 18 | page, two or three pages, which just says: right, | |
| 19 | this is what I'm going to do and this is why I think | |
| 20 | it can work. Would that have helped you? I am | |
| 21 | hearing you say that it would have helped you but it | |
| 22 | wouldn't have bound you? | |
| 23 | MR WIECHEN: It would have helped me at | |
| 24 | the outset of my deliberations and work to be | |
| 25 | performed, but anyway to really bring up a fair |
[Page 699]
| 1 | value to the business I would have relied | 14:17 |
| 2 | predominantly on independent specialised information | |
| 3 | like I have done in this exercise. | |
| 4 | THE PRESIDENT: Mr Peer? | |
| 5 | MR PEER: With your caveats of a quality | |
| 6 | standard to it, absolutely I think it would have | |
| 7 | been very helpful to understand what Mr Grot was | |
| 8 | intending to do at the time in a contemporaneous | |
| 9 | manner, rather than what an agricultural expert | |
| 10 | perceives he ought to have done after the fact. | |
| 11 | MR FORTIER: I want to follow on from | |
| 12 | the Father's question, and I know Mr Kopecky does | |
| 13 | not like it when it is not strictly proper for him to | |
| 14 | express that view, it is not a critique at all, but | |
| 15 | to invite you to carry on the exercise that Mr | |
| 16 | Fortier did, but on the basis of certain | |
| 17 | assumptions that are nothing more than | |
| 18 | assumptions. They are just for the purpose of | |
| 19 | that exercise. | |
| 20 | Assume that amount of hardware was brought | |
| 21 | in, about 900,000 USD. Assume that leases were | |
| 22 | obtained which allowed 2830 ha to be farmed for four | |
| 23 | years. | |
| 24 | PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Three plus one. | |
| 25 |
[Page 700]
| 1 | MR FORTIER: Up to four years. We | 14:19 |
| 2 | agree. | |
| 3 | THE PRESIDENT: Assume those leases | |
| 4 | then, for whatever reason, right or wrong, and like | |
| 5 | Mr Fortier and Mr Knieper, I am making no | |
| 6 | assumptions as to whether there was a violation of | |
| 7 | the BIT, purely for the exercise of accounting | |
| 8 | purposes, that the leases were somehow interfered | |
| 9 | with, under whatever, disappeared, as a consequence | |
| 10 | of which he is not able to engage in the farming | |
| 11 | activity, but he maintains full control of all the | |
| 12 | capital assets, the equipment, the caterpillars, the | |
| 13 | John Deere, and so on and so forth. And, a further | |
| 14 | assumption, there may be alternative farmlands | |
| 15 | available around, or not too far away. And, a | |
| 16 | further assumption, I am just trying to caveat that | |
| 17 | this is not my view that this is or is not what | |
| 18 | happened, but there were no other reasons for him to | |
| 19 | require to leave in an expeditious manner, quit the | |
| 20 | country. | |
| 21 | In other words, what has essentially been | |
| 22 | "taken", and I use that not in a legal sense, what | |
| 23 | has disappeared is the ability to farm up to 2830 ha | |
| 24 | for a period of up to four years, possibly three | |
| 25 | plus one. |
[Page 701]
| 1 | uncertainties with regards to yields, benefits or | 14:21 |
| 2 | not provided by any protection methodologies, what | |
| 3 | alternative means to DCF exist to value that loss | |
| 4 | of four years of farming the leases? Let's assume you | |
| 5 | are prohibited from using DCF. How would you value | |
| 6 | for us that loss? | |
| 7 | MR PEER: From my perspective I would then | |
| 8 | look at the cost of replacing those leases, because | |
| 9 | that is what he has already demonstrated that he | |
| 10 | how has to re-incur, and I would look at the cost of | |
| 11 | his investment sitting idle for the period of time | |
| 12 | that it takes him to replace those leases. | |
| 13 | THE PRESIDENT: What about the time and | |
| 14 | energy he has expended in preparing the whole | |
| 15 | project and having it delayed by one year, or two | |
| 16 | years or three years? | |
| 17 | MR PEER: As I say, you would allow for | |
| 18 | the replacement of the work that he has done to get | |
| 19 | to that point, so the cost of getting those leases | |
| 20 | replaced, and whether you value his time in that | |
| 21 | process is something you can discuss, or whether it | |
| 22 | is simply the cost that he pays lawyers, et cetera, | |
| 23 | to replace them, and also the cost of the equipment | |
| 24 | that he has sitting there idle, you would allow for | |
| 25 | an interest or a depreciation or something on that |
[Page 702]
| 1 | investment while it sits idle until such time as he | 14:22 |
| 2 | is able to use it again. | |
| 3 | THE PRESIDENT: Mr Wiechen, how would you | |
| 4 | go about doing it if you were not allowed to use | |
| 5 | DCF? | |
| 6 | MR WIECHEN: I would not have accepted an | |
| 7 | engagement of damage calculation. | |
| 8 | THE PRESIDENT: Let me help you briefly. | |
| 9 | I am not talking about my view. Every case is | |
| 10 | particular or specific, but I am reading on my | |
| 11 | screen a paragraph out of a BIT award case called | |
| 12 | Bear Creek in which I sat and on which the Tribunal | |
| 13 | was unanimous in its view, although not unanimous in | |
| 14 | all other issues. | |
| 15 | The project remained too speculative and | |
| 16 | uncertain to allow such a method to be utilised. | |
| 17 | Instead, the Tribunal concluded that the measure of | |
| 18 | damages was the one made by reference to the amounts | |
| 19 | actually invested by Claimant". | |
| 20 | Let us assume the Tribunal approaches you | |
| 21 | in this case and the Tribunal says to you that is just | |
| 22 | too speculative. Are you saying that truly you | |
| 23 | can't do it? | |
| 24 | MR WIECHEN: No, I do not think this would be a | |
| 25 | method of last resort which I do not consider would |
[Page 703]
| 1 | compensate the Claimant in an appropriate manner if | 14:23 |
| 2 | you find liability in this case. It would | |
| 3 | definitely understate the damages in this case. | |
| 4 | THE PRESIDENT: So how would you do it? | |
| 5 | Assume you can't do DCF, there must be alternative | |
| 6 | means available, whether it is a version of | |
| 7 | Mr Peer's approach, how would you go about valuing | |
| 8 | it if you had been told the Tribunal considers it to | |
| 9 | be too speculative? | |
| 10 | MR WIECHEN: In our specific case or in a | |
| 11 | general case? | |
| 12 | THE PRESIDENT: On the hypothetical facts | |
| 13 | that I have given you. We are telling you this is | |
| 14 | what has happened, this is what has gone wrong, this | |
| 15 | is what is lost, you can't use DCF. Tell us how | |
| 16 | much should we give Mr Grot? | |
| 17 | MR WIECHEN: I would not determine a fair | |
| 18 | amount. Basically I agree, if you just look at | |
| 19 | valuation theory, and sometimes if you don't have | |
| 20 | anything else you go back to costs, but initial | |
| 21 | costs or investments do not tell you anything about | |
| 22 | the real value of a business, because the value of a | |
| 23 | business is determined by its capability of | |
| 24 | generating future cashflows. | |
| 25 | THE PRESIDENT: I have been doing ICSID |
[Page 704]
| 1 | cases for about 35 years, so I have spent a lot of | 14:25 |
| 2 | time reflecting on this. One of the things that one | |
| 3 | learns is that it is possible to envisage situations | |
| 4 | in which an investor in a particular country starts | |
| 5 | to make very significant amounts of return on the | |
| 6 | initial investment, precisely because the investor | |
| 7 | is willing to take the risk, to not go into the UK, | |
| 8 | not go into the United States, but actually go to | |
| 9 | what the ICSID system was intended to do, to create | |
| 10 | incentives and take risks to go into places which | |
| 11 | are not traditional places, perhaps to invest, and | |
| 12 | that is an honourable and a valuable thing to do and | |
| 13 | I think we all accept that. | |
| 14 | But of course the downside of it is that | |
| 15 | it is risky. There is a sort of balancing | |
| 16 | exercise to do. On the one hand, the risk of | |
| 17 | success is the profits are tremendous compared to | |
| 18 | safer, saner, more usual types of places, but if it | |
| 19 | goes belly-up the pain is going to be greater, and | |
| 20 | it raises a question which one could imagine that | |
| 21 | one way of perceiving the ICSID system is the one | |
| 22 | question to what extent does it provide what in | |
| 23 | English cricketing terms would be called "a | |
| 24 | long-stop guarantee"? What is the function of | |
| 25 | ICSID? What is the function of a BIT? Is it to |
[Page 705]
| 1 | provide an absolute guarantee or is it to act | 14:28 |
| 2 | reasonably, in the circumstances in accordance with | |
| 3 | the assistance that people like you can give us to | |
| 4 | working out what has truly been lost? | |
| 5 | That is what I think our questions are | |
| 6 | really trying to work out in this country. You | |
| 7 | have said you couldn't do it but you don't think that | |
| 8 | would fairly value the loss that Mr Grot has | |
| 9 | suffered, and I understand that, but I want to push | |
| 10 | you a little bit further. | |
| 11 | Can you take a variation of Mr Peer's | |
| 12 | approach which would lead to a result that you think | |
| 13 | is right in the circumstances but which does not | |
| 14 | make use of DCF? | |
| 15 | MR WIECHEN: If we are bound to historical | |
| 16 | investment costs -- the value of the equipment, the | |
| 17 | value of start-up force, of other small investments | |
| 18 | made to adding up all these numbers -- what we | |
| 19 | cannot neglect is such a kind of case is absolutely | |
| 20 | about the investment return. Nobody invests somewhere | |
| 21 | without expecting any return. If you are just going | |
| 22 | on the costs which actually occurred, we are | |
| 23 | depriving actually the investment from getting | |
| 24 | something on this investment. Nobody invests into | |
| 25 | Moldova and expects to receive the initial |
[Page 706]
| 1 | investment costs back. This does not make sense | 14:28 |
| 2 | economically. | |
| 3 | THE PRESIDENT: The person who invests in | |
| 4 | Moldova knows that it is a more risky business than | |
| 5 | investing in potentially some other places, so they | |
| 6 | might agree with you that there is some more | |
| 7 | and you can't presumably expect to reimburse him as | |
| 8 | one would in a place where the investment is less | |
| 9 | risky. There has to be some means to take that into | |
| 10 | account. | |
| 11 | I suppose the question I am asking you is | |
| 12 | is there a way to do it? Is there a way to | |
| 13 | compensate the initiative a potential investor like | |
| 14 | Mr Grot has taken absent DCF? That is what I am | |
| 15 | trying to explore. You are saying no. Mr Peer is | |
| 16 | saying sort of. Please feel free to come back, | |
| 17 | Mr Peer, at any point. | |
| 18 | I don't want to push you on this because | |
| 19 | I am having trouble assuming that there is no other | |
| 20 | way apart from DCF. I understand that as a finance | |
| 21 | accounting person there is a security in taking that | |
| 22 | approach, but I am saying let's think out of the | |
| 23 | box and think through the facts of a case like this, | |
| 24 | where a reasonable, decent investor takes a punt in | |
| 25 | a risky environment, but it is speculative to the |
[Page 707]
| 1 | point that a reasonable Tribunal may say it is too | 14:29 |
| 2 | speculative for us to be able to use that | |
| 3 | methodology. I am just inviting you to reflect how does | |
| 4 | a tribunal do justice? | |
| 5 | MR PEER: The scenario you have given us | |
| 6 | is not that the investment is lost, the scenario you | |
| 7 | have given us is that there is a delay in commencing | |
| 8 | the operations. | |
| 9 | The investment is not lost. | |
| 10 | THE PRESIDENT: I am giving you a scenario | |
| 11 | in which the investment is lost but there are | |
| 12 | alternative new investments that could be made and | |
| 13 | are available. In other words, the totality of the | |
| 14 | total investment. I am not saying this is what has | |
| 15 | happened. We have evidentiary matters on Mr Grot's | |
| 16 | behalf that he needed to leave the country and we | |
| 17 | will have to deal with that. I am pushing you on | |
| 18 | this issue of let's assume there was an alternative | |
| 19 | where all this equipment, all this energy and all | |
| 20 | this idealism could be put to. | |
| 21 | MR PEER: I think it is important to note | |
| 22 | that the investment vis-à-vis the leases you are | |
| 23 | telling us is lost, but the equipment itself is not | |
| 24 | lost. | |
| 25 | THE PRESIDENT: There is no allegation |
[Page 708]
| 1 | that the equipment has been lost. The equipment has | 14:30 |
| 2 | I have lost and the equipment disappears, the leases | |
| 3 | are lost and the equipment has gone. As Mr Fortier | |
| 4 | says, this is one of those really curious cases | |
| 5 | where the leases have gone but the equipment remains. | |
| 6 | That is why, Mr Peer. Precisely. I wonder if that | |
| 7 | helps Lars in his thinking? | |
| 8 | PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Could I ask a | |
| 9 | question? Mr Wiechen, you agree with me there are | |
| 10 | several methods of calculating damages? This is | |
| 11 | definitely not the only method to do it. | |
| 12 | MR WIECHEN: It depends on the specific | |
| 13 | case but in general, yes, I agree there are various | |
| 14 | methods to calculate damages, yes. | |
| 15 | PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I would say under any | |
| 16 | circumstances there are alternatives? I do | |
| 17 | think there are cases where there is no alternative. I do | |
| 18 | little reading and because it is so complicated | |
| 19 | but I have never read in a book on these kind of | |
| 20 | evaluation of damages that the person says the only | |
| 21 | way to come to a fair damage evaluation is the DCF. | |
| 22 | I have never read that. You may say it is so. | |
| 23 | MR WIECHEN: It is for sure the most | |
| 24 | credible way to determine damages in this specific | |
| 25 | case. |
[Page 709]
| 1 | PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I want to go to the | 14:32 |
| 2 | next point. We have a document, an informative | |
| 3 | document, which had been introduced by Claimants. | |
| 4 | These are the draft articles on responsibility of | |
| 5 | states for international wrongful acts. You have | |
| 6 | used this document for attribution, but there is | |
| 7 | also a chapter on the calculation of damages in this | |
| 8 | very useful document, and I will read you only one | |
| 9 | sentence which goes in the direction of what we have | |
| 10 | just heard on this case. It is in the comment, | |
| 11 | page 103-104. There is a lengthy discussion on | |
| 12 | different methods of evaluation of damages, and of | |
| 13 | course this is already dated because it is from | |
| 14 | 2008, this document, and they say there are | |
| 15 | different methods. There is one where you start | |
| 16 | from the net book value, and then there are -- and | |
| 17 | that is what I have in mind -- it says that it is | |
| 18 | not a going concern, they say, a DCF method would be | |
| 19 | "a range of inherently speculative elements some of | |
| 20 | which have a significant impact about the outcome, | |
| 21 | like discount rates, currency fluctuations, interest, | |
| 22 | inflation figures, commodity prices, interest | |
| 23 | rates", and that they are all speculations about the | |
| 24 | future. That is why they say, "this has led | |
| 25 | tribunals to adopt a cautious approach to the use of |
[Page 710]
| 1 | the method. Hence, although income-based methods | 14:34 |
| 2 | have been accepted in principle, there has been a | |
| 3 | decided preference by tribunals for an asset-based | |
| 4 | method". | |
| 5 | I insist "by tribunals" because you are | |
| 6 | here to help us, as Mr Fortier says, but the | |
| 7 | decision as to what method will be used, if we come | |
| 8 | to damages, is with the Tribunal and not with the | |
| 9 | expert. | |
| 10 | If an expert says "if you tell me that we | |
| 11 | will not use DCF, I am going home", I would | |
| 12 | find that too convenient. I am sorry, but you | |
| 13 | understood the joke. We come from the same region. | |
| 14 | MR WIECHEN: Yes, 100 kilometres. | |
| 15 | PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That is the question. | |
| 16 | There are alternative methods, and the very | |
| 17 | convincing way of Professor Sacer was to try it out and | |
| 18 | give us alternatives, and then we decide what is | |
| 19 | right, if we come to this decision. | |
| 20 | MR WIECHEN: It doesn't make sense to | |
| 21 | express my opinion again but I can just give two | |
| 22 | opportunities, either DCF, which may be too | |
| 23 | speculative, or the net book value. But if you are | |
| 24 | talking about net book value, this is an accounting | |
| 25 | figure, and this again brings us back to the initial |
[Page 711]
| 1 | investment costs. | 14:35 |
| 2 | PROFESSOR KNIEPER: The Tribunal has to | |
| 3 | decide which of the alternatives to choose, not the | |
| 4 | expert. You understand? That is why we need help. | |
| 5 | To have a sound basis for a decision, and this help | |
| 6 | must come from both of you. | |
| 7 | THE PRESIDENT: The problem is it is not | |
| 8 | that we are not giving you another opportunity to | |
| 9 | express your view. If you yourselves in our position. | |
| 10 | If you tell us there is no other way, we put you in | |
| 11 | a box which says well, he is not being very helpful, | |
| 12 | so we will go to the other one, frankly because we | |
| 13 | are looking for help, and an expert who tells us | |
| 14 | there is only one way creates a difficulty for us | |
| 15 | because we know from our experience between us of | |
| 16 | probably over a hundred years of doing these cases | |
| 17 | that there are often other ways. | |
| 18 | We have heard from Mr Peer, so one last | |
| 19 | opportunity for you to be persuaded by your | |
| 20 | neighbour from 100 kilometres away. Feel free to | |
| 21 | say no, that is not your thing, you do not want to | |
| 22 | do that. | |
| 23 | MR WIECHEN: I apologise for maybe not | |
| 24 | being helpful to you, but I stick to my prior | |
| 25 | statements. |
[Page 712]
| 1 | THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. | 14:37 |
| 2 | I have no more questions. I think it is fair to | |
| 3 | give the parties a brief opportunity to come back. | |
| 4 | Perhaps the way to do it is to each of their | |
| 5 | respective experts to give them a final chance. | |
| 6 | Claimant first? | |
| 7 | MR ASTUNO: Thank you, Mr President. May | |
| 8 | we confer? | |
| 9 | THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. (Pause) | |
| 10 | Re-examination by Claimant. | |
| 11 | MR ASTUNO: Mr Wiechen, and if Mr Peer | |
| 12 | wants to comment as well, I would appreciate his | |
| 13 | views on this question. There is obviously a lot of | |
| 14 | discussion about the speculative nature of | |
| 15 | projections. It is a discussion that is ongoing, | |
| 16 | however, that given he was operating in a | |
| 17 | commodities industry, agriculture specifically, that | |
| 18 | there is a more reliable set of data and information | |
| 19 | and it is easier to predict future possible outcomes | |
| 20 | in this industry than it would be for other | |
| 21 | industries where outcomes, let's say, have much more | |
| 22 | variance in price and profitability? | |
| 23 | MR WIECHEN: I think each valuation in | |
| 24 | various industries has somehow certain specifics and | |
| 25 | certain complexities. I cannot confirm that any |
[Page 713]
| 1 | sector is, let's say, easier or more difficult to | 14:39 |
| 2 | project, so every industry has certain specifics, | |
| 3 | the market is, let's say, the agricultural | |
| 4 | you forecast commodities prices it is easier to do | |
| 5 | than it would be to, say, forecast Bitcoin as | |
| 6 | an example by today's standards, or some | |
| 7 | technological industry that has less years behind it | |
| 8 | and more volatility? | |
| 9 | MR WIECHEN: I would say one factor which | |
| 10 | may be referred to your, let's say, in the agricultural | |
| 11 | sector, is the market by itself. I think one of the | |
| 12 | less risky parts in valuing agricultural companies | |
| 13 | is basically the market because there is always the | |
| 14 | market for agricultural products, so there is no | |
| 15 | threat that the company will face a certain point | |
| 16 | in time for no more lack of demand which may be the | |
| 17 | case for a technology firm. | |
| 18 | MR PEER: If I might comment on that, | |
| 19 | I think you are referring to your reference earlier | |
| 20 | that this is a desked commodity industry or | |
| 21 | sector. I think that was the terminology you used? | |
| 22 | MR ASTUNO: Yes. | |
| 23 | MR PEER: I am not sure that that is what | |
| 24 | we are dealing with here, because there is a great | |
| 25 | deal of volatility in the prices for this sector. |
[Page 714]
| 1 | The price of grain is driven by supply and demand. | 14:43 |
| 2 | We are dealing with mother nature. We don't know | |
| 3 | what is going to happen in a given year. | |
| 4 | The prices we have used here are not | |
| 5 | futures. If we were dealing with futures, I might | |
| 6 | agree with you that there is some more | |
| 7 | predictability to the pricing structure, but that is | |
| 8 | not the basis on which we have prepared this | |
| 9 | calculation, or that Deloitte has prepared this | |
| 10 | calculation. | |
| 11 | MR ASTUNO: I would like to ask a question | |
| 12 | regarding the organised plan of action that Mr Grot | |
| 13 | in our view clearly had. The fact that over 2800 ha | |
| 14 | of land were leased for that specific case has been | |
| 15 | procured, specific equipment has been procured that | |
| 16 | is directly related to those crops, certain people | |
| 17 | have been hired with levels of expertise that are | |
| 18 | specifically tailored to the crops at issue and the | |
| 19 | farming practices at issue, looking at all of that | |
| 20 | together, just in that time period, the first half | |
| 21 | of 2010, does that not indicate that Mr Grot was | |
| 22 | organised in his plan of action? | |
| 23 | MR WIECHEN: I think I have to repeat | |
| 24 | myself. I think Mr Grot is a very reasonable | |
| 25 | investor with a great track record in Poland, and |
[Page 715]
| 1 | some successful operations in southeastern Moldova. | 14:44 |
| 2 | There has not been a very formalised business plan | |
| 3 | but, sure, I put certain credibility on these | |
| 4 | operations and I am satisfied with what I have seen | |
| 5 | and delivered by Mr Grot. | |
| 6 | MR ASTUNO: That is all we have. | |
| 7 | Mr President. Thank you. | |
| 8 | THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. | |
| 9 | Mr Kopecky? Any concluding questions for | |
| 10 | Mr Peer? | |
| 11 | MR KOPECKY: No, thank you. | |
| 12 | THE PRESIDENT: Very good. I really do | |
| 13 | want to express our deep appreciation to both of you | |
| 14 | for all the work you have done. We do recognise | |
| 15 | both of you have a much as completely independent | |
| 16 | experts who have done a tremendous service to this | |
| 17 | Tribunal and that is what this system is about. | |
| 18 | I know my colleagues, just from the lunchtime | |
| 19 | conversation, have very much appreciated both of | |
| 20 | your reports and both sets of counsel for making you | |
| 21 | available to us. We have found it extremely helpful | |
| 22 | from both of you, and I want to thank you. | |
| 23 | You are excused. If you are desperate to hear more you are | |
| 24 | welcome to stay, or to explore Vienna. | |
| 25 |
[Page 716]
| 1 | We will now move to closing arguments. | 14:46 |
| 2 | It is 3.46 pm, and we can go as long as | |
| 3 | you want. I think there is a desire to wrap up | |
| 4 | within a reasonable period. You are each allowed up | |
| 5 | to 60 minutes. | |
| 6 | Counsel, how long would you like now as a | |
| 7 | break to gather your thoughts? We have had a very | |
| 8 | interesting exchange now and we would benefit from | |
| 9 | your having a little moment to work out the | |
| 10 | exchanges that have taken place and thinking through | |
| 11 | your final words to us. | |
| 12 | Let me speaking personally, but I | |
| 13 | would reiterate that this is the moment where less | |
| 14 | is more. We are completely on top of the | |
| 15 | dossier. We do not need to have a repetition of | |
| 16 | anything that we have heard. What we really want | |
| 17 | from each of you is to reflect on the totality of | |
| 18 | what has happened on these three days, and with your | |
| 19 | respective brilliant advocacies, which can be very | |
| 20 | short -- it doesn't need to be very long -- persuade | |
| 21 | us in one direction or the other direction. It is | |
| 22 | the crystallisation of the essential issues, | |
| 23 | presented as persuasively as you can to us, what | |
| 24 | this case is really about, why respectively you are | |
| 25 | right and the other side is wrong and why we should |
[Page 717]
| 1 | lean in one direction rather than the other. | 14:47 |
| 2 | That is not something that takes a huge | |
| 3 | amount of time. To the extent that we are limited | |
| 4 | by time at all, my instinct is for you to have a | |
| 5 | little longer to reflect on what you want to say and | |
| 6 | is a matter for you. | |
| 7 | Claimant first: how long do you feel you | |
| 8 | need for your closing? (Pause) | |
| 9 | While you are doing it, we have | |
| 10 | not heard from you on any aspect relating to | |
| 11 | Post-Hearing Briefs and you may also want to | |
| 12 | reflect on that. It may be you want short, or | |
| 13 | very long. We have our own views on it but we want | |
| 14 | to listen to you. | |
| 15 | We would mention in POG, given | |
| 16 | the late filing of Mr Peer's report, that the | |
| 17 | Tribunal mentioned that it deemed it necessary we | |
| 18 | would have the opportunity to file a Post-Hearing | |
| 19 | Brief. There has obviously been quite a dramatic | |
| 20 | exchange on damages questions in the last hour. | |
| 21 | Especially insofar as it pertains to the valuation | |
| 22 | models that Mr Wiechen did not provide. We would | |
| 23 | want to reserve that right, then, because it appears | |
| 24 | ||
| 25 |
[Page 718]
| 1 | that there might be some other questions that the | 14:49 |
| 2 | Tribunal -- | |
| 3 | THE PRESIDENT: Would you like an | |
| 4 | opportunity to file something in writing, without | |
| 5 | prejudice to how long it may be or what the timings | |
| 6 | would be? | |
| 7 | MR ASTUNO: Yes, we want to preserve that | |
| 8 | right. | |
| 9 | THE PRESIDENT: No, not preserve the | |
| 10 | right. Do you want to do it? I am putting you on | |
| 11 | the spot. Because it will help you for now -- maybe | |
| 12 | you want a moment to reflect on it. | |
| 13 | PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Reflect on the | |
| 14 | closings and then part of this reflection is | |
| 15 | Post-Hearing Briefs. | |
| 16 | MR ASTUNO: Thank you, Professor. | |
| 17 | THE PRESIDENT: Respondent? | |
| 18 | MR KOPECKY: I don't know what to say yet | |
| 19 | because nothing has been said, but Respondent's | |
| 20 | position would be that what was filed today was a | |
| 21 | new report and the happiness of DCF was effectively | |
| 22 | what Mr Peer set out in his first report. So there | |
| 23 | was this opportunity. Something was filed today | |
| 24 | which Mr Peer worked on all night, which everybody | |
| 25 | here appreciates, so I would be very careful with |
[Page 719]
| 1 | yet another submission on quantum which would | 14:50 |
| 2 | provide yet another method of damage calculation, | |
| 3 | because, as is clear to everybody, we operate on a | |
| 4 | budget, so to ask Mr Peer to just get more time to | |
| 5 | actually answer that may take far longer than would | |
| 6 | be appropriate or necessary in this case. But there | |
| 7 | were new facts, new reports of Claimants. I would like to | |
| 8 | put that on record, that there was an opportunity | |
| 9 | correct, it was given by the Tribunal, and something | |
| 10 | was filed. | |
| 11 | MR ASTUNO: Just for the record, they were | |
| 12 | presentations. Mr Wiechen has not prepared a | |
| 13 | fundamentally new valuation methodology or | |
| 14 | approach. There were slighted variables within the | |
| 15 | DCF calculation that were modified, but at this | |
| 16 | post I think it is important to reflect, and | |
| 17 | the Tribunal has given us this opportunity and | |
| 18 | therefore we will come back in due course. | |
| 19 | THE PRESIDENT: But what time do you want | |
| 20 | to start your closing? It is 4 o'clock. Shall we | |
| 21 | say 4.30 pm? | |
| 22 | MR ASTUNO: That is fine. | |
| 23 | THE PRESIDENT: For the Claimant, and then | |
| 24 | Respondent will follow straight on, and you each | |
| 25 |
[Page 720]
| 1 | have up to an hour, subject to the dispositions you | 14:52 |
| 2 | have heard, but you are entitled to up to that | |
| 3 | amount of time, and if you feel you need it you will | |
| 4 | not be punished in any way for doing it. It really | |
| 5 | is your call as to what you want to do. | |
| 6 | (Short break from 3.52 pm to 4.24 pm) | |
| 7 | THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready? Claimant is | |
| 8 | ready. Respondent is ready? Mr Gleason? | |
| 9 | Closing submission by Claimant. | |
| 10 | MR GLEASON: First, we would like to thank | |
| 11 | everybody for the time and attention that they have | |
| 12 | given to this matter. We would again like to thank | |
| 13 | thanks to Schönherr for opening their doors and | |
| 14 | welcoming us here for this proceeding. We thank the | |
| 15 | Tribunal for its time and for being so patient and | |
| 16 | tolerant of our perhaps American style of presenting | |
| 17 | our case. We appreciate your tolerance on that. | |
| 18 | Again, many thanks to everybody. It has been very | |
| 19 | interesting over the last two days. | |
| 20 | This is not a case about a boardroom or | |
| 21 | some large business with multiple business divisions | |
| 22 | or a complex business structure. This is a case | |
| 23 | about a man, a farmer, a family actually with a | |
| 24 | relatively simple business structure which, by all | |
| 25 | accounts, should have been a success. We heard from |
[Page 721]
| 1 | the agricultural experts this morning, the only | 16:33 |
| 2 | people who we have heard from other than fact | |
| 3 | witnesses who know about Moldovan agriculture, they | |
| 4 | said this morning this was a good idea. Mr Grot | |
| 5 | should have made a lot of money. So what happened? | |
| 6 | Why wasn't that the case? | |
| 7 | Well, unfortunately, as has been the | |
| 8 | subject of much of the discussion, his operations | |
| 9 | were fully destroyed by a series of acts and | |
| 10 | omissions that were for the benefit of a local | |
| 11 | third party. These acts were all, at a minimum, | |
| 12 | under the colour of authority. The record is clear | |
| 13 | on this point. | |
| 14 | Now we are going to talk about four | |
| 15 | points. We took your advice to heart, we haven't | |
| 16 | prepared a presentation or a PowerPoint. We just | |
| 17 | have four points we would like to make. | |
| 18 | We are going to discuss attribution. | |
| 19 | We are going to discuss the process of | |
| 20 | lease execution. | |
| 21 | We will talk about the realistic options | |
| 22 | for local remedies. | |
| 23 | And, naturally, we will discuss the | |
| 24 | quantum. | |
| 25 | I will take the first three issues and |
[Page 722]
| 1 | then I will hand it over to Mr Astuno for the final | 16:35 |
| 2 | issue. | |
| 3 | I would like to begin with attribution. | |
| 4 | As the opening laid out in greater detail, | |
| 5 | this case concerns a series of attributable acts and | |
| 6 | omissions which actually led to the destruction of | |
| 7 | ICS Laguardia SRL. These acts and omissions, as | |
| 8 | stated in the opening, stand on the record. In | |
| 9 | fact, they have been bolstered by the testimony and | |
| 10 | evidence that we have discussed over the last three | |
| 11 | days. I am not going to readdress every single one | |
| 12 | of the acts of concern, but on the whole, long-term | |
| 13 | of state conduct, but I will attempt to highlight | |
| 14 | those acts and omissions which were the subject of | |
| 15 | the Tribunal's questions. | |
| 16 | I would like to first look at the lease | |
| 17 | termination notifications which were signed and | |
| 18 | stamped by the mayors. We talked about this a lot. | |
| 19 | In fact, Roger Gladei stated that this was "an | |
| 20 | unqualified act of public authority". But it was | |
| 21 | strange. In fact, everybody who talked about these | |
| 22 | lease termination notifications said at a bare | |
| 23 | minimum that they were strange, or unusual, or | |
| 24 | curious. And the law is very clear. The mayors had | |
| 25 | absolutely no authority to be involved in this |
[Page 723]
| 1 | private matter. | 16:36 |
| 2 | Professor Rusu said that he had never seen | |
| 3 | anything like this in his life. Mr Gladei indicated | |
| 4 | that these termination notifications, which were by | |
| 5 | a public official, demonstrated an intent to do | |
| 6 | something for a certain case. In this case that | |
| 7 | something was to terminate the lease rights of | |
| 8 | Laguardia SRL for the benefit of a local third party | |
| 9 | competitor. This is also confirmed by the witness | |
| 10 | records, for example, the statement of Ms Ivanes, it | |
| 11 | is also confirmed by the conversations Mr Grot had | |
| 12 | with President Zelenenco of the Floresti district, | |
| 13 | as well as Vice-President Rusu. | |
| 14 | Multiple witnesses acknowledged this | |
| 15 | pattern of events, the termination, and then the | |
| 16 | subsequent dispositions, indicate that something | |
| 17 | else was going on here. | |
| 18 | The timing is very interesting. This is | |
| 19 | happened just before spring planting season. | |
| 20 | We also learnt from Mr Grot that he had | |
| 21 | learned from the customs authorities that the local | |
| 22 | third party, Bio-Alianta, had recently acquired and | |
| 23 | imported identical farming equipment. Thus, the | |
| 24 | terminations occurred, the disposition were issued, | |
| 25 | and the competitors' leases were signed and then |
[Page 724]
| 1 | registered almost immediately. The record is clear | 16:37 |
| 2 | what the something else was. | |
| 3 | I would like to move on and talk about the | |
| 4 | dispositions a little bit more. | |
| 5 | There is no question that registration of | |
| 6 | leases is an act of public authority. There is also | |
| 7 | no question that the dispositions were issued as an | |
| 8 | exercise of public authority, but irregularities | |
| 9 | abound. | |
| 10 | Let's start with Roger Gladei's | |
| 11 | presentation. It was perhaps a point I am not sure | |
| 12 | if it was noted in great detail by the Tribunal, but | |
| 13 | the Claimants find it interesting that Roger Gladei | |
| 14 | actually started his presentation by showing that | |
| 15 | there were two versions of the dispositions in each | |
| 16 | village. There was one which was presumably used by | |
| 17 | Bio-Alianta to obtain ex parte injunctions, and we | |
| 18 | believe, although the record is not clear on | |
| 19 | notification, which I will get to, we believe that | |
| 20 | these are the ex parte injunctions that Laguardia | |
| 21 | ultimately received at the bear minimum, through the | |
| 22 | court proceedings concerning the injunctions, and | |
| 23 | there was also another one which was sent as part of | |
| 24 | a request made in the context of this arbitration; | |
| 25 | in other words, a request was made for these |
[Page 725]
| 1 | dispositions to be sent to the legal expert for | 16:39 |
| 2 | analysis, and the formatting of that disposition was | |
| 3 | actually different than the dispositions that | |
| 4 | Laguardia had in its possession. It is strange. | |
| 5 | There are differences between these documents, which | |
| 6 | is very curious, taking into consideration the | |
| 7 | issues concerning proper notification of these | |
| 8 | documents to Laguardia SRL. | |
| 9 | So I would like to turn to that | |
| 10 | notification issue. There are two problems with | |
| 11 | notification, as discussed by the Tribunal. There | |
| 12 | is no evidence that any of the landowners were ever | |
| 13 | provided with these disposition, and as was | |
| 14 | discussed at greater detail, there is no evidence | |
| 15 | that these dispositions were ever properly | |
| 16 | communicated to Laguardia SRL. | |
| 17 | We know that Laguardia SRL did not become | |
| 18 | aware of these dispositions until they were used | |
| 19 | against him in ex parte injunction proceedings, | |
| 20 | which were filed again by that local third party | |
| 21 | competitor, Bio-Alianta. | |
| 22 | So not only was Laguardia prejudiced by | |
| 23 | these dispositions, but so were the landowners. In | |
| 24 | fact, the dispositions perhaps never even became | |
| 25 | effective, because as far as the record shows they |
[Page 726]
| 1 | were never properly communicated to anybody who was | 16:40 |
| 2 | affected by these dispositions, yet somehow these | |
| 3 | dispositions were used to deprive Laguardia of its | |
| 4 | rights. | |
| 5 | We will come back to this lack of | |
| 6 | notification and how it impeded Laguardia's ability | |
| 7 | to seek effective local remedies shortly. | |
| 8 | But I'm not done with the dispositions. | |
| 9 | I would like to talk about some of the content | |
| 10 | issues related to the dispositions. The hundreds of | |
| 11 | plots of lands, agricultural lands, are not | |
| 12 | described in any way by these dispositions. The | |
| 13 | owners of all these lands are not identified by | |
| 14 | these dispositions, and this is just frankly an | |
| 15 | unacceptable level of uncertainty for a mayoral act | |
| 16 | which has individual character and prejudiced | |
| 17 | hundreds and hundreds of people. This is especially | |
| 18 | considering that the mayor had no problem issuing | |
| 19 | hundreds of illegal lease termination notifications | |
| 20 | individually addressed to landowners on a single | |
| 21 | day. | |
| 22 | I would also like to point out that the | |
| 23 | mayors assisted the local third party competitor | |
| 24 | Bio-Alianta in various additional ways. We talked a | |
| 25 | little bit about how the mayor stood alongside, the |
[Page 727]
| 1 | Mayor of Cosernita at a minimum, Bio-Alianta, how | 16:41 |
| 2 | the mayors blocked access of Laguardia to the | |
| 3 | fields, how the Mayor of Cosernita threatened | |
| 4 | Laguardia's employees, et cetera. | |
| 5 | Then we also heard from Mr Gladei that | |
| 6 | this went far beyond their normal roles as mayors, | |
| 7 | that this was not appropriate, not what normal | |
| 8 | mayors do. We also know that these mayors supported | |
| 9 | the Bio-Alianta civil lawsuits by filing witness | |
| 10 | statements, for example, in support of ex parte | |
| 11 | injunctions. We know that the mayors refused to | |
| 12 | issue leases, to return the leases and give copies | |
| 13 | of the dispositions to Laguardia so that it could | |
| 14 | adjudicate its rights. We also know that even when | |
| 15 | ex parte injunctions were lifted, mayors, at least | |
| 16 | the Mayor of Cosernita, failed to honour the court | |
| 17 | decision which lifted the injunction. | |
| 18 | There were other actors involved here. | |
| 19 | This case is not just about mayors and we will talk | |
| 20 | about those other actors in just a minute. But | |
| 21 | I just want to stop and acknowledge the role of | |
| 22 | mayors in Moldovan villages. In the written | |
| 23 | pleadings prior to this hearing, we heard about how | |
| 24 | Claimants attempted to inflate the role of the | |
| 25 | mayor. We have already discussed how it is Moldovan |
[Page 728]
| 1 | law which says that mayors have a right of legal | 16:43 |
| 2 | obligations including to uphold international treaty | |
| 3 | obligations, but perhaps it was Professor Rusu who | |
| 4 | said that "mayors are second only to the church" | |
| 5 | meaning that mayors do have a significant level of | |
| 6 | authority, but also serious cultural authority. In | |
| 7 | other words, when mayors instruct lower level | |
| 8 | officials, and perhaps even landowners to do | |
| 9 | something, they might just do it. | |
| 10 | But, like I said, this is not only about | |
| 11 | the mayors. There were higher level officials involved | |
| 12 | as well. It is clear. Mr Rusu and Mr Zelenenco, the | |
| 13 | Vice-President of the Floresti | |
| 14 | district, admitted that they had received | |
| 15 | instructions from above about what to do. | |
| 16 | Mr Grot himself, and Nina Ivanes admitted as much as | |
| 17 | well, and again Nina Ivanes is the Mayor of | |
| 18 | Varvareuca to remind everybody. | |
| 19 | We also heard about when Mr Grot's | |
| 20 | colleague or contact, Valeriu Beril, set up a | |
| 21 | meeting with a national official and a bribe was | |
| 22 | solicited. We heard about it, it is in the record, | |
| 23 | concerning the failure of prosecutors to take | |
| 24 | Mr Grot's complaint seriously. We also know about | |
| 25 | the co-ordination of the prosecutor and Bio-Alianta |
[Page 729]
| 1 | in the third village, which was not discussed in | 16:44 |
| 2 | great detail at this hearing, but of course in the | |
| 3 | village of Rosietici, we know about the failure | |
| 4 | of police to investigate when requested. | |
| 5 | I could go on, but I am not going to. The | |
| 6 | record is very clear on these points. The written | |
| 7 | submissions do further. The Tribunal has | |
| 8 | adequate information from them to make a | |
| 9 | decision concerning attribution. I want to remind | |
| 10 | the Tribunal one more time that this case is not | |
| 11 | only about dispositions, but it is about a pattern | |
| 12 | of state conduct. | |
| 13 | I would like to move on to my second point | |
| 14 | and that is concerning the process of lease | |
| 15 | execution. | |
| 16 | There was significant conversation | |
| 17 | concerning whether the local cadastrals were acting | |
| 18 | in a public context or in a private context during | |
| 19 | the process of lease execution prior to the | |
| 20 | registration of the leases, but during the lease | |
| 21 | execution process, principally in the fall of 2010. | |
| 22 | Let's start with what the experts said. | |
| 23 | About this process, Roger Gladei said that the | |
| 24 | cadastral agent in his free time has a private | |
| 25 | agreement with Laguardia to separately assist |
[Page 730]
| 1 | Laguardia in the lease execution process, then that | 16:45 |
| 2 | would be a private act. | |
| 3 | However, the experts agree that if there | |
| 4 | was an instruction or pressure from a superior | |
| 5 | official, it would be a different case entirely. So | |
| 6 | what do we have here in this case? | |
| 7 | We first heard from Mr Grot, and he was at | |
| 8 | the city halls, he was there, he was present, and | |
| 9 | saw Mr Zelenenco and Mr Rusu instruct the mayors to | |
| 10 | assist Laguardia SRL with the process of lease | |
| 11 | execution. In addition to, of course, the subsequent | |
| 12 | registration. This was a public act in the city | |
| 13 | hall during working hours in a purely public | |
| 14 | context. | |
| 15 | Then we heard Mr Rusu, Mr Zelenenco, and the mayors | |
| 16 | tell Mr Grot that everything is going fine. They | |
| 17 | tell him to begin farming. Everything was going | |
| 18 | well. They were begging him to start, so he | |
| 19 | started. | |
| 20 | From September 2010 until December 2010, | |
| 21 | Mr Grot was receiving assurances from the highest | |
| 22 | level officials in Floresti, as well as the local | |
| 23 | mayors, that the lease execution process, along with | |
| 24 | the registration process, was proceeding as planned. | |
| 25 | You heard Mr Grot say that he was |
[Page 731]
| 1 | receiving these assurances. This provided a higher | 16:47 |
| 2 | level of assurance that perhaps would normally be | |
| 3 | expected in a country like Moldova. Perhaps it was | |
| 4 | an unusual situation, but it appeared to be secure, | |
| 5 | and perhaps less risky than normal situations. | |
| 6 | But there is another question that | |
| 7 | was talked about by the Tribunal, and it concerns | |
| 8 | the registration fees which were paid by Mr Grot, and whether the | |
| 9 | fee which was paid by Mr Grot affect | |
| 10 | these assurances in the context of turning what was | |
| 11 | otherwise a public act into a private act. | |
| 12 | Now, as a qualification, this question | |
| 13 | from Claimants' perspective should only be relevant | |
| 14 | for leases which were alleged to not validly | |
| 15 | concluded, which is around -- the demonstrative that | |
| 16 | Claimants presented showed 36 per cent | |
| 17 | of the leases. That is the qualification Claimants | |
| 18 | would like to make concerning this argument. | |
| 19 | But you heard Mr Grot. He | |
| 20 | said that he only paid a registration fee, and it is | |
| 21 | very clear and uncontroverted from the remainder of | |
| 22 | the record that any fee he paid was invoiced from | |
| 23 | the mayor's office and wired directly to the mayor's | |
| 24 | office and no other payments were made. So, in | |
| 25 | other words, any payment made was made in a public |
[Page 732]
| 1 | context. | 16:48 |
| 2 | You have also heard about Mr Grot's | |
| 3 | character from Mr Beril, as well as described in | |
| 4 | many of the written witness statements. He is an | |
| 5 | honest man and his very candid testimony in front of | |
| 6 | this Tribunal shows that. It was evidenced also in | |
| 7 | the context of this case by how he reacted when a | |
| 8 | national government official requested a bribe to | |
| 9 | solve all of his problems in Floresti. At that time | |
| 10 | his business was under attack, it was under siege. | |
| 11 | He was being threatened. You heard him talk about | |
| 12 | that meeting. All he had to do was pay the official | |
| 13 | and perhaps there would have been a solution. He | |
| 14 | refused. | |
| 15 | To summarise on this point, the entire act | |
| 16 | of facilitating the execution of the lease | |
| 17 | agreements by public cadastral agents was a public | |
| 18 | act. It was directed by higher level authorities; | |
| 19 | it was done in the context of a local mayor's | |
| 20 | office; it was at the office, presumably during | |
| 21 | business hours, and definitely directly related to | |
| 22 | cadastral activity; no special agreement was in | |
| 23 | place. Again, it was a public act. | |
| 24 | I would like to move on to my third point | |
| 25 | before I pass over to Mr Astuno, and that is |
[Page 733]
| 1 | concerning the realistic options for local remedies. | 16:49 |
| 2 | The legal experts suggested that there were actually | |
| 3 | three options for resolving this situation, so we | |
| 4 | need to examine these three options and see if any | |
| 5 | of these options would have actually led to any sort | |
| 6 | of meaningful resolution for Mr Grot and the | |
| 7 | Claimants. | |
| 8 | The three options which were identified | |
| 9 | appear to be the administrative courts, the | |
| 10 | State Chancellery, and actually going to the public | |
| 11 | authority such as the police. We also need to look | |
| 12 | at this in the context of the severity and urgency | |
| 13 | of the situation. We cannot forget that this is a | |
| 14 | farming investment and that time is a very essential | |
| 15 | ingredient to any farming project. | |
| 16 | Now, in Mr Gladei's view, as a | |
| 17 | practitioner of Moldovan law, and as agreed by | |
| 18 | Professor Rusu, the administrative courts would have | |
| 19 | taken some time, at a minimum a year. That is | |
| 20 | perhaps in Mr Gladei's estimation a best case | |
| 21 | scenario. | |
| 22 | Then we need to take into consideration | |
| 23 | the appeal procedure which would have been required | |
| 24 | to obtain a binding decision. It is very reasonable | |
| 25 | to believe that the mayors would have appealed. In |
[Page 734]
| 1 | fact, they did appeal in this case concerning | 16:51 |
| 2 | Disposition 1-A when the later State Chancellery | |
| 3 | case was in fact brought. | |
| 4 | Again, this is a time-sensitive farming | |
| 5 | situation, so keep in mind that if it takes one year | |
| 6 | to go through the Administrative Court procedure and | |
| 7 | obtain a judgment which is final and binding, | |
| 8 | because it is not appealed, given the context of the | |
| 9 | situation that means that two farming seasons would | |
| 10 | have already been lost. Mr Grot would have been | |
| 11 | able to bring the lawsuit when he was properly | |
| 12 | notified of the dispositions. We will get to that | |
| 13 | in one second. Let's imagine for the sake of | |
| 14 | argument that Mr Grot had been notified properly at | |
| 15 | some time in April 2011. | |
| 16 | Well, the 2010-2011 situation would not | |
| 17 | have been resolved, so farming season No. 1 had been | |
| 18 | lost and farming season No.2 would have been lost | |
| 19 | because as the case was being adjudicated the next | |
| 20 | planting season arises and Mr Grot and the Claimants | |
| 21 | are not able to complete or even conduct their | |
| 22 | activities in that context. | |
| 23 | But, in reality, this situation would have | |
| 24 | been exacerbated by the insufficient notice | |
| 25 | surrounding the dispositions as the ability to |
[Page 735]
| 1 | exercise his rights would have been blocked by this | 16:52 |
| 2 | delay concerning proper notification of | |
| 3 | dispositions. | |
| 4 | To summarise on the Administrative Court | |
| 5 | procedures, that really was not an effective option | |
| 6 | for Mr Grot and the Claimants. It would not have | |
| 7 | provided any sort of meaningful resolution, not only | |
| 8 | concerning the dispositions, but concerning the | |
| 9 | holistic attack on his investment in Floresti. | |
| 10 | Let's talk about the State Chancellery. | |
| 11 | Now we know that the State Chancellery ultimately | |
| 12 | did bring a proceeding challenging Disposition 1-A. | |
| 13 | Now, Mr Grot tried to get the State Chancellery to | |
| 14 | act on its own, but ultimately required some police | |
| 15 | assistance to get the process going. | |
| 16 | I want to make it clear, the Claimants | |
| 17 | have never said that nobody, no public official in | |
| 18 | Moldova was ever willing to help -- there were many | |
| 19 | officials in Moldova who acted within the context of | |
| 20 | their normal duties -- that wasn't enough to save | |
| 21 | the investment in this case. There was a police | |
| 22 | officer who made a request to the State Chancellery, | |
| 23 | after Mr Grot had requested police assistance on one | |
| 24 | occasion -- one occasion of many, I might add -- and | |
| 25 | the State Chancellery ultimately took up the cause |
[Page 736]
| 1 | and, as this Tribunal is very well aware, the | 16:54 |
| 2 | results of that State Chancellery challenge, | |
| 3 | Disposition 1-A, led to court judgments invalidating | |
| 4 | Disposition 1-A. | |
| 5 | But, again, the problem here is timing, | |
| 6 | because the successful result concerning | |
| 7 | Disposition 1-A -- remember, the proceedings started | |
| 8 | in, if my memory serves me, May of 2012, and | |
| 9 | ultimately was not resolved with a final binding | |
| 10 | decision until January of 2015 -- and at that point | |
| 11 | it was well past the expiration of the four-year | |
| 12 | lease terms. | |
| 13 | Perhaps, given this urgency, and the | |
| 14 | typical delays associated with going to court, not | |
| 15 | only in the Republic of Moldova, but in many | |
| 16 | countries, but specifically in this case in the | |
| 17 | Republic of Moldova, perhaps going to the public | |
| 18 | authorities was perhaps the best choice under this | |
| 19 | circumstance. | |
| 20 | Now Mr Grot did try to go to many public | |
| 21 | authorities as described in greater detail at | |
| 22 | section 7K of the Reply Memorial, and he was | |
| 23 | consistently ignored, and I am not going to go | |
| 24 | through all of those again. They have been | |
| 25 | sufficiently described in the written pleadings. |
[Page 737]
| 1 | Was it reasonable at this | 16:55 |
| 2 | point, December 2012, for Mr Grot to actually leave | |
| 3 | Moldova? That is the last question I would like to | |
| 4 | discuss. | |
| 5 | Keep in mind that Mr Grot at this point in | |
| 6 | time was terrified, and he had good reason to be | |
| 7 | terrified. He was threatened. A violent act had | |
| 8 | been carried out against him. He hired a bodyguard. | |
| 9 | Could Mr Grot have just gone and farmed somewhere | |
| 10 | else nearby right away? No, that wasn't a realistic | |
| 11 | option for him, or for the Claimants. | |
| 12 | You heard from him. He was almost in | |
| 13 | tears as he described how he just wanted to go back | |
| 14 | home to Colorado and see his young son. So really | |
| 15 | there was no local remedy to be found in the | |
| 16 | Moldovan court system, despite Respondent's | |
| 17 | arguments, it just wasn't a realistic option at | |
| 18 | least to obtain a remedy which would allow Mr Grot | |
| 19 | and the Claimants to preserve their investment in | |
| 20 | this case. | |
| 21 | Claimants would like to make as a final | |
| 22 | point on this issue that the arguments raised in | |
| 23 | opening concerning the erroneous factual assumptions | |
| 24 | that Respondent based its local remedies argument on | |
| 25 | stand, as does its position that there is actually |
[Page 738]
| 1 | no requirement legally under the BIT to seek local | 16:56 |
| 2 | remedy. And, again, the real situation, the reality | |
| 3 | was that that there no realistic option for local | |
| 4 | remedies that would have allowed Mr Grot to preserve | |
| 5 | his investment in this case. | |
| 6 | With that, I will conclude my remarks and | |
| 7 | I will let Mr Astuno continue. Thank you. | |
| 8 | THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Gleason. | |
| 9 | Mr Astuno? | |
| 10 | MR ASTUNO: Thank you to my colleague. | |
| 11 | Co-counsel, members of the Tribunal, to | |
| 12 | briefly summarise the quantum issues that have | |
| 13 | already been flushed out before us, I want to start | |
| 14 | by saying to value Laguardia at the time of its | |
| 15 | destruction one must first understand Mr Grot. | |
| 16 | Laguardia was, after all, Mr Zbigniew Grot. The | |
| 17 | business plan was him. | |
| 18 | I ask this Tribunal to look at his past | |
| 19 | profitability in Poland as of the year 2010, his | |
| 20 | present profitability in Moldova as of the year | |
| 21 | 2010, and, most importantly, above all, a certainty, | |
| 22 | certainly a likelihood of future profitability at | |
| 23 | the time that his investment was unlawfully taken | |
| 24 | from him. | |
| 25 | The Stefan Voda experience, albeit a |
[Page 739]
| 1 | short-lived one, speaks for itself. It was a | 16:59 |
| 2 | farming operation that, left to his own devices, a | |
| 3 | modest one moreover, 250 acres compared to 2830 ha | |
| 4 | under lease in the Floresti region, generated a | |
| 5 | profit of a margin of 40 per cent. Does that sample | |
| 6 | size, if you will, not indicate the potential, the | |
| 7 | likelihood at the very least, if not the certainty | |
| 8 | of its future success? | |
| 9 | Let us refer again, or think back to the | |
| 10 | testimony of Mr Beril, the former President of | |
| 11 | Moldova coming before us, in a very poignant | |
| 12 | testimony, I think we would all agree, mentioning | |
| 13 | that this land was fallow for three years. It was | |
| 14 | unthought of that it could be turned into | |
| 15 | productivity, and this is a country that is | |
| 16 | predominantly defined by its agricultural community | |
| 17 | in this part of the economy. | |
| 18 | Yet Mr Grot defied expectations beyond | |
| 19 | imagination. We heard that from the President of | |
| 20 | this district himself, who wasn't his friend; | |
| 21 | rather, he was someone who came to know and trust | |
| 22 | and believe in Mr Grot and could attest to his | |
| 23 | character, but most importantly, and for the | |
| 24 | purposes of the portion of the analysis I am now | |
| 25 | conducting, could attest to Laguardia's opportunity |
[Page 740]
| 1 | as to what lay ahead in the country of Moldova, and | 17:01 |
| 2 | that dream, as Mr Fortier described it, it certainly | |
| 3 | was a dream to make an investment, to make an impact | |
| 4 | for investment, to be successful, it became a | |
| 5 | reality at that point. It still was a dream, of | |
| 6 | course, and that dream would be living itself out | |
| 7 | this very moment had the intervention not occurred, | |
| 8 | but let us also recognise that it was a reality if | |
| 9 | we would look at the actual data, if we look at the | |
| 10 | numbers. It was a reality of success, the profits, | |
| 11 | the history of Mr Grot's past operations. | |
| 12 | Never once was there a year where | |
| 13 | he didn't turn a profit, and on that basis we look | |
| 14 | at the two quantum reports before us. One truly is | |
| 15 | credible, backed up by locally validated data, and | |
| 16 | the other is an empty chair. The other is a report | |
| 17 | that sits on an empty chair and, despite the hard | |
| 18 | work of Mr Peer and his expertise, he admitted to us | |
| 19 | today that it is unworkable to value a business | |
| 20 | without any local input, without a specific | |
| 21 | understanding of the industry at issue, and his | |
| 22 | report then has to be entirely dismissed. | |
| 23 | We are looking, then, at another report | |
| 24 | that albeit was challenged in terms of the | |
| 25 | reliability and the history of profitability, but of |
[Page 741]
| 1 | the two I just implore this Tribunal to understand | 17:02 |
| 2 | it in terms of what is in front of it. Clearly one | |
| 3 | is more credible than the other, if not much more | |
| 4 | credible than the other and that is our valuation | |
| 5 | approach. | |
| 6 | I would end this discussion with a | |
| 7 | question. Why would it be reasonable to think that | |
| 8 | Mr Grot would have lost money for the first time in | |
| 9 | his farming career? | |
| 10 | Moving on to this discussion of if the | |
| 11 | future cashflows cannot be awarded, initial costs at | |
| 12 | a bare minimum would be reimbursed. To that point | |
| 13 | we would add that there cannot be an offset, there | |
| 14 | shouldn't even be a discussion of any sale of the | |
| 15 | equipment because there were negative earnings in | |
| 16 | every year when that equipment was being sold, and | |
| 17 | why were there negative earnings? If we look back | |
| 18 | at the financial statements that were tabulated by | |
| 19 | the Respondent's quantum expert in table 2 of his | |
| 20 | report, because he was paying back interest on the | |
| 21 | debt. He had obligations that resulted from the | |
| 22 | destruction of his investment and those liabilities | |
| 23 | exceeded any slight modest offset in revenue that | |
| 24 | would have been achieved through the sale of | |
| 25 | equipment. Sort of bare minimum then, and again |
[Page 742]
| 1 | I encourage this Tribunal to go back and look at the | 17:04 |
| 2 | actual financial statements for the years of 2011, | |
| 3 | 2012, 2013 and 2014. | |
| 4 | Laguardia's business model was negative, | |
| 5 | had negative earnings, and the mitigation efforts, | |
| 6 | albeit they were attempted, clearly were not | |
| 7 | successful and clearly cannot be taken into account | |
| 8 | to offset at a bare minimum the initial investment | |
| 9 | costs. | |
| 10 | Then we must talk about what could have | |
| 11 | been? What would have been the opportunity cost? | |
| 12 | Because to reimburse initial costs seven years later | |
| 13 | does not take into account seven years of an | |
| 14 | otherwise dream, that we I think can fairly say | |
| 15 | truly was a dream, being robbed from someone, | |
| 16 | someone who is a trusting man, someone who did | |
| 17 | nothing wrong, someone who only wanted to bring his | |
| 18 | expertise and make a valuable investment. | |
| 19 | On that basis we would stand by the | |
| 20 | interest rate, the pre-judgment interest rate that | |
| 21 | is put forth in our expert report, because it takes | |
| 22 | into account the expected return of someone like | |
| 23 | Mr Grot who would be willing to go to perhaps not | |
| 24 | the most likely of places, but nevertheless a place | |
| 25 | where the rule of law should be upheld and just |
[Page 743]
| 1 | compensation should be paid under the terms of the | 17:05 |
| 2 | treaty. | |
| 3 | With that we complete our quantum | |
| 4 | analysis. Thank you. | |
| 5 | THE PRESIDENT: And your closing | |
| 6 | submission, I take it? | |
| 7 | MR ASTUNO: And our closing submission. | |
| 8 | Thank you. | |
| 9 | THE PRESIDENT: Can I ask whether either | |
| 10 | of my colleagues have a question for you in relation | |
| 11 | to any of that? | |
| 12 | I just have one quick question since you | |
| 13 | touched on it. What is the situation today as | |
| 14 | regards any ownership, in whole or in part, that | |
| 15 | Mr Grot has of the equipment that was brought to | |
| 16 | Moldova back in 2010/2011? What is your position on | |
| 17 | that? | |
| 18 | MR ASTUNO: Mr President, we would begin | |
| 19 | to answer that question by acknowledging that when | |
| 20 | Mr Grot left his investment, when his leases were | |
| 21 | taken from him he lost control over the entirety of | |
| 22 | his investments, including his equipment, and any | |
| 23 | transactions that subsequently occurred again do not | |
| 24 | amount to liabilities that that company still faced. | |
| 25 | There is a separate ownership structure |
[Page 744]
| 1 | that was put in place. Although the name remains | 17:07 |
| 2 | the same, Laguardia today is insolvent, as I believe | |
| 3 | this Tribunal understands. Mr Grot's investment in | |
| 4 | that equipment was too lost and, at the very least, | |
| 5 | any sale of that merchandise again did not at all | |
| 6 | compensate for losses that that company continued to | |
| 7 | face. | |
| 8 | THE PRESIDENT: It is not quite what | |
| 9 | I asked, and it was, if I may say, a slightly opaque | |
| 10 | answer. We are just trying to work out what | |
| 11 | happened to the equipment. Is it owned by | |
| 12 | MR GLEASON: Unfortunately the situation | |
| 13 | is not entirely clear. That is the simple fact of | |
| 14 | the matter. Perhaps it could have been clarified | |
| 15 | had this issue been raised as an issue by Respondent | |
| 16 | prior to this hearing, and they had the chance to | |
| 17 | raise the issue with Mr Grot, so I don't want to | |
| 18 | speculate on the record concerning an issue which | |
| 19 | I am not entirely sure about, but I can tell you | |
| 20 | that Mr Grot is no longer an owner of the company | |
| 21 | Laguardia Agrobusiness to which the Respondent | |
| 22 | introduced an exhibit earlier today saying the | |
| 23 | equipment was put into this company. | |
| 24 | THE PRESIDENT: Is that accurate that the | |
| 25 | equipment was transferred to this company? |
[Page 745]
| 1 | MR GLEASON: Some of it. | 17:08 |
| 2 | THE PRESIDENT: How much of it? | |
| 3 | MR GLEASON: I could not tell you off the | |
| 4 | top of my head but I believe the record is clear on | |
| 5 | that point. The document that was submitted by | |
| 6 | Respondent today is a document that was provided by | |
| 7 | Claimants in document production. | |
| 8 | THE PRESIDENT: And that is not disputed. | |
| 9 | MR GLEASON: There is no dispute | |
| 10 | concerning the content of that document. | |
| 11 | THE PRESIDENT: And what happened then to | |
| 12 | Laguardia Agrobusiness? That was then sold in | |
| 13 | accordance with R-13? Is that also an accurate | |
| 14 | document? | |
| 15 | MR GLEASON: I don't remember off the top | |
| 16 | of my head what R-13 is. | |
| 17 | MR ASTUNO: What was the date, please? | |
| 18 | MR KOPECKY: 28 November 2012. | |
| 19 | THE PRESIDENT: Is that transfer? | |
| 20 | MR KOPECKY: Yes. That is the | |
| 21 | contribution in kind to Laguardia Agrobusiness. | |
| 22 | THE PRESIDENT: So are the contents of R-9 | |
| 23 | not disputed either in that equipment was | |
| 24 | transferred to Laguardia Agrobusiness? | |
| 25 | MR GLEASON: All I can say is the document |
[Page 746]
| 1 | speaks for itself. The fact remains that Mr Grot is | 17:10 |
| 2 | not at this point in time an owner of Laguardia | |
| 3 | Agrobusiness. I hesitate to tell you about my | |
| 4 | conversations with Mr Grot about this issue which | |
| 5 | happened in the context of an attorney-client | |
| 6 | relationship. | |
| 7 | THE PRESIDENT: I am not asking you about | |
| 8 | that. | |
| 9 | MR GLEASON: But the simple fact of the | |
| 10 | matter is that this question could have been easily | |
| 11 | resolved had they attempted to bring these documents | |
| 12 | to Mr Grot's attention rather than Mr Wiechen's | |
| 13 | attention. I am not sure why these exhibit which | |
| 14 | touch on a factual matter weren't brought -- | |
| 15 | THE PRESIDENT: Am I right in thinking | |
| 16 | that the equipment identified in R-9 was transferred | |
| 17 | to Laguardia Agrobusiness? That Mr Grot is no | |
| 18 | longer an owner of Laguardia Agrobusiness, and that | |
| 19 | in return a consideration was paid to him for the | |
| 20 | sale of Laguardia Agrobusiness (R-11). | |
| 21 | MR GLEASON: I would also mention that | |
| 22 | some of this equipment, and I don't have the exact | |
| 23 | details and it wasn't introduced on the record | |
| 24 | because again this is an issue that was raised very | |
| 25 | late in this proceeding, some of this equipment was |
[Page 747]
| 1 | seized at a certain point. | 17:11 |
| 2 | MR FORTIER: It has been raised so it has | |
| 3 | to be dealt with. | |
| 4 | MR GLEASON: Sure, and unfortunately the | |
| 5 | problem that I am having in dealing with this issue | |
| 6 | is that it was raised in a way that doesn't give us | |
| 7 | an adequate opportunity to find the answers to these | |
| 8 | questions. That is my problem here and that is why | |
| 9 | I do raise an objection to the fashion in which this | |
| 10 | information was brought into this proceeding. | |
| 11 | THE PRESIDENT: But you will understand | |
| 12 | that we as mere members of a Tribunal have somehow | |
| 13 | to work our way through the morass and do so | |
| 14 | accurately, so if we were by any chance to get to | |
| 15 | the point of a valuation we would need to have | |
| 16 | answers to these questions because it would not be | |
| 17 | right if either he continues to be the owner of this | |
| 18 | equipment for him to be compensated for its loss. | |
| 19 | Alternatively, if it were sold, for him to be | |
| 20 | compensated again for, if you like, a value for | |
| 21 | which presumably he received a consideration of some | |
| 22 | sort. | |
| 23 | MR GLEASON: Fair enough. May I confer | |
| 24 | for one moment with my colleague? | |
| 25 | MR KOPECKY: Maybe for the record, both |
[Page 748]
| 1 | exhibit were submitted with a counter seven months | 17:12 |
| 2 | ago exactly. | |
| 3 | THE PRESIDENT: It is before us. We are | |
| 4 | going to have to find a way to sort it out. | |
| 5 | MR ASTUNO: Mr President, believe me, we | |
| 6 | share your desire in absolutely understanding | |
| 7 | entirely the financial transparency of this | |
| 8 | equipment issue and we would ask for the right to | |
| 9 | submit at some point in the near future an audit, if | |
| 10 | you will, a summary of exactly what was sold for | |
| 11 | what, and we also would like to reserve the right in | |
| 12 | that moment to make any argument that, whatever | |
| 13 | compensation was received, still should be taken | |
| 14 | into account in light of unsuccessful mitigation | |
| 15 | efforts and other losses that Laguardia had incurred | |
| 16 | on its balance sheet. | |
| 17 | THE PRESIDENT: We will take note of that | |
| 18 | and we will decide in due course how to proceed, but | |
| 19 | thank you. I think that extinguishes my interest in | |
| 20 | that. | |
| 21 | MR GLEASON: Can I add one more point? | |
| 22 | Unfortunately there is, because of the nature in | |
| 23 | which Mr Grot had to flee from Moldova, there is | |
| 24 | uncertainty concerning a fair amount of the | |
| 25 | equipment, what happened to it. Some of it was |
[Page 749]
| 1 | again seized in Civil Court proceedings and never | 17:14 |
| 2 | returned, stolen in other fashions, et cetera, | |
| 3 | et cetera, so we would have to do some significant | |
| 4 | research to get to the bottom of those issues, but | |
| 5 | should the Tribunal find it necessary we would be | |
| 6 | happy to engage in those efforts. | |
| 7 | MR FORTIER: The individual Claimant, | |
| 8 | Mr Grot, is claiming moral damages. Is somebody | |
| 9 | going to brief us on the moral damages that you are | |
| 10 | claiming on behalf of Mr Grot? | |
| 11 | MR WELLS: It seems that the issue of | |
| 12 | moral damages in investor state arbitration, | |
| 13 | especially in ICSID cases, comes down to the | |
| 14 | question of can an individual claim those damages? | |
| 15 | There seems to be some deviation between whether an | |
| 16 | individual investor can claim them versus a company, | |
| 17 | the company itself should be awarded the | |
| 18 | compensation. So we have made, I would say two | |
| 19 | arguments: that it should either be awarded to | |
| 20 | Mr Grot, or Laguardia USA as the holding company, | |
| 21 | but they are alternative arguments. | |
| 22 | Would you like a submission on the facts | |
| 23 | related to the moral damages, or is it more | |
| 24 | MR FORTIER: I am familiar with the law, | |
| 25 | the Desert Line v Yemen decision in particular. I |
[Page 750]
| 1 | guess at this point I am interested in the facts, | 17:15 |
| 2 | because we didn't hear Mr Grot talk at all when he | |
| 3 | was giving evidence about -- we saw that he was very | |
| 4 | touched, these were not happy times that he spent in | |
| 5 | Moldova -- but there is very little evidence before | |
| 6 | us on which to rest a claim for moral damages. | |
| 7 | MR WELLS: In terms of the two pieces of | |
| 8 | evidence, and you are right, there is a lot of | |
| 9 | evidence that wasn't discussed in this hearing. For | |
| 10 | example, Mr Ursu Veaceslav, his witness statement, | |
| 11 | the bodyguard that Mr Grot hired, which is also | |
| 12 | evidence of how scared he was. | |
| 13 | If you take a look at that witness | |
| 14 | statement, you will see Mr Veaceslav talk about the | |
| 15 | effects of these actions in the country. He | |
| 16 | identified the timing, for example, of when Mr Grot | |
| 17 | was affected by the conduct, and additionally you | |
| 18 | can take a look at the witness statement of | |
| 19 | Dr Zbylski, that is Mr Grot's physician in Colorado | |
| 20 | Springs. | |
| 21 | I think one of the issues that was raised | |
| 22 | in Respondent's memorial related to the fact that | |
| 23 | Mr Grot had had in the past some serious problems | |
| 24 | with anxiety and depression, or he had some -- not | |
| 25 | serious problems -- but he had had problems in the |
[Page 751]
| 1 | past with those issues, and that the conduct of the | 17:17 |
| 2 | Respondent essentially increased those problems, so | |
| 3 | the depression and the anxiety increased. So we | |
| 4 | would turn the Tribunal's attention to those pieces | |
| 5 | of evidence. | |
| 6 | MR FORTIER: There were a number of | |
| 7 | witnesses who provided statements who were not | |
| 8 | examined. You know that they stand uncontradicted. | |
| 9 | We haven't heard anything about them. | |
| 10 | MR WELLS: They do stand uncontradicted, | |
| 11 | and we did submit -- which exhibit was? | |
| 12 | MR KOPECKY: But not uncontested. | |
| 13 | MR FORTIER: But you have not argued on | |
| 14 | the basis of any of these statements, any of the | |
| 15 | facts put on the record by those witnesses. | |
| 16 | MR WELLS: Those witness statements are in | |
| 17 | the record, though. | |
| 18 | MR FORTIER: Yes. | |
| 19 | MR WELLS: In terms of the short duration | |
| 20 | of these hearings, we would turn the Tribunal's | |
| 21 | attention to those pieces of evidence, yes. | |
| 22 | MR FORTIER: If, at the end of the day, we | |
| 23 | will order Post-Hearing Briefs -- which we will | |
| 24 | discuss later, as the Chairman said -- it will be in | |
| 25 | your interest to remind us of the evidence of those |
[Page 752]
| 1 | witnesses. | 17:19 |
| 2 | MR WELLS: Thank you. | |
| 3 | THE PRESIDENT: Very good. Thank you very | |
| 4 | much, Claimant. That completes your closing and | |
| 5 | your oral submissions. Thank you for your brevity | |
| 6 | and efficiency. Respondent? | |
| 7 | Closing Submission by Respondent. | |
| 8 | MR KOPECKY: Members of the Tribunal, | |
| 9 | esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, as I | |
| 10 | stated in my opening to which I refer and encourage | |
| 11 | the Tribunal to re-read, the issue here is whether | |
| 12 | the State is responsible for what happened to | |
| 13 | Mr Grot, not on supposition, not on speculation, but | |
| 14 | on facts and the evidence on record. | |
| 15 | The question is not if something now in | |
| 16 | retrospect appears strange; the question is whether | |
| 17 | the Republic of Moldova committed an internationally | |
| 18 | wrongful act; whether the BIT was breached. | |
| 19 | In my opening I stated the essential | |
| 20 | issues in dispute, and I agree with the Tribunal | |
| 21 | that there are really just a few and most have been | |
| 22 | resolved based on the record alone well before this | |
| 23 | hearing started. So I limit myself to the few | |
| 24 | issues that were left to be clarified at this | |
| 25 | hearing. |
[Page 753]
| 1 | But before I do this, let me say that | 17:21 |
| 2 | sitting here and looking at Mr Grot, it gives me no | |
| 3 | pleasure to do this. I agree with Claimants that | |
| 4 | this is not a cliche BIT case of some multinational | |
| 5 | going against a South American state for bonds, and | |
| 6 | we are all very aware of this. But it is a BIT case | |
| 7 | and it must be pleaded and decided like a BIT case, | |
| 8 | and therefore I will not tell you a story like we | |
| 9 | just heard. What I will say I will support with a | |
| 10 | direct reference to evidence: name, date, page, | |
| 11 | paragraph, exhibit page. | |
| 12 | To get to my first point, and I have ten, | |
| 13 | so we will try to be brief. | |
| 14 | The factual record. | |
| 15 | The witnesses heard in this hearing | |
| 16 | provided important background to truly understand | |
| 17 | certain events that transpired in those three | |
| 18 | villages. Mr Gladei testified yesterday that | |
| 19 | Moldova is a collectivistic society with a | |
| 20 | collectivistic past (Gladei, Day 2, 433:9). From | |
| 21 | Professor Rusu and Mr Grot we learnt that villagers | |
| 22 | are elderly (Rusu, Day 2, 410:16). | |
| 23 | Poor, primitive (Grot, Day 1, 213:14) and | |
| 24 | that the villagers are often cheated (Rusu, Day 2, | |
| 25 | 410:23). I apologise for these references -- |
[Page 754]
| 1 | THE PRESIDENT: Can I make a suggestion | 17:22 |
| 2 | that rather than have you read out all of the | |
| 3 | things, to save you the hassle, you can put it into | |
| 4 | the transcript as a footnote and that will save | |
| 5 | everyone a lot of time. | |
| 6 | MR KOPECKY: I will give it to the court | |
| 7 | reporter. | |
| 8 | THE PRESIDENT: And we can work it into | |
| 9 | the court record because that means at least that | |
| 10 | you do not have to read it. I do not think it makes | |
| 11 | any difference from the perspective of the | |
| 12 | Claimants. You didn't put in those references. If | |
| 13 | it is going to cause a problem, then carry on | |
| 14 | reading them into the record, but I was trying to be | |
| 15 | helpful here. If you want to read them into the | |
| 16 | record, that is your prerogative, but if it is going | |
| 17 | to cause a problem then let's carry on reading them | |
| 18 | in the record. | |
| 19 | MR GLEASON: The reason I object is just | |
| 20 | based on the characterisation of us just telling a | |
| 21 | story. It was based on the record. | |
| 22 | THE PRESIDENT: We are a grown-up | |
| 23 | Tribunal. It was simply trying to be helpful but | |
| 24 | why don't you carry on reading them into the record. | |
| 25 | MR GLEASON: We will defer to the |
[Page 755]
| 1 | Tribunal's wisdom on this point. | 17:23 |
| 2 | MR KOPECKY: I continue reading them into | |
| 3 | the record. I apologise for that. There are not | |
| 4 | that many. | |
| 5 | The mayor plays an important role in the | |
| 6 | community and this is not a role under a law. | |
| 7 | Mayors of small villages have very limited authority | |
| 8 | but as Professor Rusu explains, they enjoy the trust | |
| 9 | of the population second only to the church, as we | |
| 10 | heard (Rusu, Day 2, 408:19) and villagers rely on | |
| 11 | the mayors to solve their collective problems. | |
| 12 | At the same time, the mayors and the civil | |
| 13 | servants are insufficiently literate. As | |
| 14 | Professor Rusu testified, the mayor is not an expert | |
| 15 | in justice. The level of competence of these | |
| 16 | authorities is not that high (Rusu, Day 2, 332:8). | |
| 17 | And Professor Rusu also said the renal | |
| 18 | Registrar has only technical knowledge, technical | |
| 19 | expertise relating to the character (Rusu, Day 2, | |
| 20 | 332:11). | |
| 21 | Professor Rusu explained that for that | |
| 22 | reason City Hall decisions are often imperfect and | |
| 23 | contain reasonable errors (Rusu, Day 2, 407:15). | |
| 24 | That may look unusual for you as | |
| 25 | investors, for lawyers from advanced jurisdictions |
[Page 756]
| 1 | and maybe even for some Moldovan lawyers practicing | 17:25 |
| 2 | law in the capital, but not in a village of 300 | |
| 3 | souls. | |
| 4 | Yet that does not show a scheming plot, | |
| 5 | collusion or conspiracy, and much less does it show | |
| 6 | a pattern of state conduct. Indeed, as in their | |
| 7 | submission, Claimants in this hearing failed to | |
| 8 | prove any conspiracy of public authorities, which | |
| 9 | brings me to issue 2, namely that a conspiracy was | |
| 10 | confirmed. | |
| 11 | Mr Grot testified in paragraph 8 of his | |
| 12 | second witness statement that a conspiracy reached | |
| 13 | up to the highest levels of government. He claims | |
| 14 | to know this because Mr Beril told him. In | |
| 15 | mid-2011 the Prime Minister had become aware of | |
| 16 | what was going on and that nothing would be done to | |
| 17 | look into the matter, but Mr Filat did not | |
| 18 | corroborate this statement at the hearing, despite | |
| 19 | direct questioning and clarification requests | |
| 20 | (Beril, Day 1, 277:1,19, 278:10, and 279:1). | |
| 21 | Mr Beril merely stated that "I am | |
| 22 | convinced somewhat that [...] the Vice Minister of | |
| 23 | agriculture would have brought this to the attention | |
| 24 | of the Prime Minister (Beril, Day 1, 279:10). | |
| 25 | Mr Grot further testified in paragraph 7 |
[Page 757]
| 1 | of his second witness statement that it was very | 17:27 |
| 2 | clear that someone at a high level in the government | |
| 3 | had decided Bio-Alianta would take over these lands. | |
| 4 | At the hearing Mr Grot explained why this was so | |
| 5 | clear to him. It is Mr Grot's knowledge of speaking | |
| 6 | to people, doing some homework on the internet | |
| 7 | (Grot, Day 1, 247:16). But the agricultural | |
| 8 | experts, local Moldovans we had here clearly were no | |
| 9 | such people, whilst Mr Filat with Bio-Alianta, they | |
| 10 | did not state anything along those lines. | |
| 11 | Mr Grot's accusation with that company, even when | |
| 12 | repeatedly asked, and nor did Mr Beril, the first | |
| 13 | time we have asked about it (Beril, Day 1, | |
| 14 | 274:21 and 275:1). | |
| 15 | So certainly there is no direct evidence | |
| 16 | of conspiracy and neither can such conspiracy be | |
| 17 | inferred from any of the documents on record. That | |
| 18 | is my issue 3, the termination notices. | |
| 19 | The hearing indeed has permitted to clarify | |
| 20 | any questions surrounding the termination notices | |
| 21 | signed by Varvareuca landowners in February 2011 | |
| 22 | (C-94), but unlike Claimant stated in their | |
| 23 | opening, these notices were not addressed from the | |
| 24 | mayor to the villagers, they were addressed to one | |
| 25 | party, Laguardia, the one lessee. |
[Page 758]
| 1 | The question is why so many villagers | 17:27 |
| 2 | would seek termination of their leases with | |
| 3 | Laguardia at the same time in that manner? And | |
| 4 | Mr Fortier correctly called this a case of empty | |
| 5 | chairs, and thus I need not say that this is not | |
| 6 | counsel's strategy. | |
| 7 | What seems strange to us is we will | |
| 8 | explain taking into account the collectivistic | |
| 9 | background, the character of Moldovan society and | |
| 10 | the prominent factual role of the mayor. Villagers | |
| 11 | often need and seek support of the mayor in solving | |
| 12 | collective problems. In my opening this was | |
| 13 | speculation. Now we have multiple Moldovan | |
| 14 | witnesses corroborating this. | |
| 15 | The witness, Mr Beril, is the former | |
| 16 | President of the district of Stefan Voda, to correct | |
| 17 | the closing of Claimants, not the President of the | |
| 18 | entire country. He is a friend of Mr Grot's | |
| 19 | (Day 1, 285:1) and appearing as a witness he was | |
| 20 | asked to explain this, but he could only speculate. | |
| 21 | I think there is no other way (Beril, Day 1, 281:6). | |
| 22 | Mr Beril saw the termination notices for the first | |
| 23 | time (Beril, Day 1, 283:24). He was not in Floresti | |
| 24 | or otherwise involved in Claimant's operation at the | |
| 25 | time, (Beril, Day 1, 289:14) and he erroneously |
[Page 759]
| 1 | volunteers that the notices would be illegal just | 17:29 |
| 2 | because they were drafted in Russian, (Beril, Day 1, | |
| 3 | 281:15). He could only confirm that this was not | |
| 4 | the official document, (Day 1, 284:1). Indeed, | |
| 5 | it was a private notice for lessors to lessee, and | |
| 6 | the only correct reason that Mr Beril's | |
| 7 | "supposition is based" on is the value of the | |
| 8 | Professor Sands, Day 1, 281:5). | |
| 9 | Exhibit C-94, on the other hand, provides | |
| 10 | some background here. There were complaints by | |
| 11 | villagers unhappy at not being paid and their lands | |
| 12 | not being processed. Those villagers sought to sign | |
| 13 | or signed new leases with Bio-Alianta. They went to | |
| 14 | the mayor for advice, as is customary. She | |
| 15 | confirmed with the local council president, who told | |
| 16 | her that, first, the existing contracts would | |
| 17 | have to be terminated. That evidence Claimants | |
| 18 | put on record, and then the people signed these | |
| 19 | terminations. | |
| 20 | We do not know and do not want to further | |
| 21 | speculate who provided that Russian template, but it | |
| 22 | doesn't matter because we know that the people who | |
| 23 | approached the mayor and asked the mayor testified | |
| 24 | in court that otherwise the people would be rebel | |
| 25 | (C-94). |
[Page 760]
| 1 | and the notifications were put in one envelope | 17:30 |
| 2 | and sent to Laguardia to make sure that they all | |
| 3 | arrived, perhaps to save postage, a strange premise | |
| 4 | for us, I agree, but not for villagers living at or | |
| 5 | below the poverty line. | |
| 6 | The mayor's signature and stamp on these | |
| 7 | notifications did not have any legal implications. | |
| 8 | Mr Gladei, Claimants' expert, confirmed that it does | |
| 9 | not mean anything that the "mayor put his signature | |
| 10 | under any wording there" (Gladei, Day 2, 404:7) and | |
| 11 | Professor Rusu confirmed "the certification has no | |
| 12 | value" (Rusu, Day 2, 404:12). | |
| 13 | That is what the notices say, "for | |
| 14 | confirmation". A mayor is not a notary but who else | |
| 15 | to turn to in a village of 300 people? | |
| 16 | The next issue centres on an important | |
| 17 | clarification achieved in the course of the hearing | |
| 18 | regarding the differentiation between private and | |
| 19 | public domain. | |
| 20 | To issue No 4, the assistance by cadastral | |
| 21 | agents. | |
| 22 | Claimants reconfirmed in their opening | |
| 23 | Mr Grot's testimony of paragraph 14 of his first | |
| 24 | witness statement that the cadastral agents were | |
| 25 | paid a fee "in addition" to the registration fee |
[Page 761]
| 1 | (Grot, Day 1, 49:13) for helping "the landowner sign | 17:32 |
| 2 | a contract" (Grot, Day 1, 49:9). | |
| 3 | In their closing, however, Claimants | |
| 4 | referred to Mr Grot's amended testimony, that only | |
| 5 | the registration fee but no servicing fee was paid | |
| 6 | in their closing, but what is paid or not, the | |
| 7 | cadastral agents' assistance provided to Mr Grot is | |
| 8 | not attributable to Respondent. The legal experts | |
| 9 | clarified that and agreed that the cadastra may act | |
| 10 | in a private capacity to assist private parties in | |
| 11 | executing a contract (Rusu, Gladei, Day 2, | |
| 12 | 353:23-354:14) but that this is no exercise of public | |
| 13 | authority (Gladei, Day 2, 356:19). | |
| 14 | The second important example, my issue 5, | |
| 15 | the legal effect of the dispositions. | |
| 16 | Professor Rusu reconfirmed that registration serves | |
| 17 | a declaratory purpose and a purpose of publicity | |
| 18 | (Rusu, Day 2, 327:2-3) and primarily fiscal | |
| 19 | administration (Rusu, Day 2, 337:16). He reconfirmed | |
| 20 | that registration does not create nor affect the | |
| 21 | parties' rights (Prof Rusu, Day 2, 327:4). It does | |
| 22 | not affect the validity of the leases, and Mr Gladei | |
| 23 | concurs that an unregistered lease can remain valid | |
| 24 | (Gladei, Day 2, 351:15), and that the registration | |
| 25 | does not validate the otherwise invalid lease |
[Page 762]
| 1 | (Gladei, Day 2, 349:22), for instance, when it is | 17:33 |
| 2 | not signed (Gladei, Day 2, 349:7) and, in any event, | |
| 3 | irrespective of registration, non-opposability or | |
| 4 | unenforceability cannot be invoked by a party acting | |
| 5 | in bad faith (Rusu, Day 2, 328:1). | |
| 6 | Claimants, who had legal counsel, could | |
| 7 | enforce their rights against Bio-Alianta, despite | |
| 8 | the dispositions. Issue 6. | |
| 9 | Let's briefly summarise what we learnt | |
| 10 | about the dispositions, my issue 6. | |
| 11 | The leases held by Laguardia to Cosernita | |
| 12 | and Varvareuca City Hall were non-compliant | |
| 13 | (CEX 1), hundreds were not signed (R-14), many | |
| 14 | contained erasures (R-15 and R-16). Many leases | |
| 15 | were signed by persons other than the landowners | |
| 16 | (R-19) and, just for the record, Respondent does not | |
| 17 | agree with Claimants' calculation in CH-2, but it | |
| 18 | need not be redone; it is simply a matter of | |
| 19 | counting the pages. | |
| 20 | A mayor who, as confirmed by Mr Gladei, | |
| 21 | shall exercise control over the register of | |
| 22 | agricultural leases had to take measure to correct | |
| 23 | errors in the register (Gladei, Day 2, | |
| 24 | 439:6-440:16). | |
| 25 | Mr Gladei acknowledged that since the |
[Page 763]
| 1 | mayor's duty to control is not a right, the mayor | 17:35 |
| 2 | does not qualify as an "aggrieved person and | |
| 3 | therefore may not challenge the possible erroneous | |
| 4 | registration of leases in court (Gladei, Day 2, | |
| 5 | 437:24-441:4). | |
| 6 | That is why the mayors issue | |
| 7 | Disposition 1-A and 2, (C-31 and C-48) and to recall | |
| 8 | Disposition 2 was not based on the termination | |
| 9 | notices of the Varvareuca villagers. Disposition 2 | |
| 10 | was not based on the termination notices. | |
| 11 | Both dispositions provide for the refusal | |
| 12 | "after" the deletion of registration of Laguardia's | |
| 13 | leases. Both dispositions are complex acts which, | |
| 14 | according to Professor Rusu, are common in Moldova | |
| 15 | (Rusu, Day 2, 393:24). They are reasoned (in | |
| 16 | Romanian "motivata"). We have had a conversation | |
| 17 | about that) and they are based on a reasonable | |
| 18 | interpretation of the law (Rusu, Day 2, 332:13). | |
| 19 | It was simply not entirely clear under the | |
| 20 | law when exactly a refusal was still possible (Rusu, | |
| 21 | Day 2, 334:4). | |
| 22 | The dispositions concerned hundreds of | |
| 23 | people which they did not represent identity, but | |
| 24 | there is no need to address them all. As | |
| 25 | Professor Rusu explained, refusal of registration |
[Page 764]
| 1 | refers to the registration authority on the one | 17:36 |
| 2 | hand, and the lessee on the other (Rusu Day 2, | |
| 3 | 394:25-395:12) The lessee is the party obligated to | |
| 4 | register the lease agreement under Article 10(5) of | |
| 5 | the Law on Agricultural Lease. The Dispositions are | |
| 6 | therefore addressed to the lessee, without | |
| 7 | individualising each lessor. | |
| 8 | The Dispositions were brought to | |
| 9 | Laguardia's knowledge, which according to Mr Gladei | |
| 10 | is the applicable standard (Gladei, Day 2, | |
| 11 | 448:17-18). | |
| 12 | Once Laguardia became aware of the | |
| 13 | Dispositions, it had to act in an active way to | |
| 14 | defend its rights (Rusu, Day 2, 378:9). Mr Gladei | |
| 15 | further acknowledged that, in any event, regardless | |
| 16 | of how it was communicated, Disposition 1-A entered | |
| 17 | into force (Gladei, Day 2, 448:17-18). | |
| 18 | As Professor Rusu opined, there was no | |
| 19 | obligation to send the Dispositions to the | |
| 20 | Territorial Office of State Chancellery for review | |
| 21 | of legality. The Law on Agricultural Lease does not | |
| 22 | provide for such "delegation" of powers by the | |
| 23 | state. | |
| 24 | Mr Gladei further admitted that the notice | |
| 25 | of remedy in Dispositions, while brief, sufficed to |
[Page 765]
| 1 | permit Mr Grot, who had legal counsel at the time, | 17:38 |
| 2 | to duly challenge Dispositions (Gladei, Day 2, | |
| 3 | 441:19-443:4). | |
| 4 | One year after Disposition 1-A had been | |
| 5 | issued, it was reviewed by the Territorial Office of | |
| 6 | State Chancellery, and since the deadline for the | |
| 7 | challenge was missed, the State Chancellery was not | |
| 8 | obliged to review it. The review was triggered, as | |
| 9 | we saw, by the Police Commissariat of Floresti, even | |
| 10 | though, according to Professor Rusu, it was not on | |
| 11 | the list of triggers under the law. (Prof Rusu, Day | |
| 12 | 2, 388:16-17): "the police is not in this category". | |
| 13 | The Territorial Office of | |
| 14 | State Chancellery filed its Statement of Claim (on | |
| 15 | record as C-42) and by that time had found it | |
| 16 | unlawful. | |
| 17 | This was a strong signal to Claimants that | |
| 18 | Respondent was on their side. Indeed, both | |
| 19 | dispositions could have been annulled much sooner | |
| 20 | and with suspensive effect, if only Laguardia tried | |
| 21 | and challenged them in Administrative Court. | |
| 22 | Issue 7. I would like to address the | |
| 23 | injunctions and the available remedies. Two | |
| 24 | exhibits are particularly relevant regarding the | |
| 25 | Cosernita injunctions and the annulment thereof. |
[Page 766]
| 1 | The first is exhibit C-33. Bio-Alianta | 17:39 |
| 2 | sought an injunction in the ex parte proceedings. | |
| 3 | Bio-Alianta alleged that Laguardia's leases violated | |
| 4 | the law and on that basis a temporary injunction was | |
| 5 | granted -- a temporary injunction -- and it was soon | |
| 6 | to be lifted as shown in the second relevant | |
| 7 | exhibit, C-105. The Floresti District Court ruled | |
| 8 | in favour of Claimants and annulled the injunction | |
| 9 | in Cosernita. The pertinent facts and pleadings | |
| 10 | were summarised by the court. | |
| 11 | Those alone mention Disposition 1-A and | |
| 12 | the registration in the following way: counsel for | |
| 13 | Bio-Alianta had stated that, "lease contracts of the | |
| 14 | landowners were not registered at the Mayor's Office | |
| 15 | and by the Mayor's disposition their right was | |
| 16 | forbidden". We had that in re-direct. | |
| 17 | However, regardless of this, despite | |
| 18 | Disposition 1-A, the court ruled in favour of | |
| 19 | Claimants (cross-examination of Mr Gladei, Day 2, | |
| 20 | 446:18-448:20). In the opening I walked you through | |
| 21 | the entire reasoning of the court in its decision | |
| 22 | and from that it was apparent that only the civil | |
| 23 | law relationship under the leases was relevant for | |
| 24 | the court to annul the injunction -- only the civil | |
| 25 | law relationship -- and Mr Gladei yesterday |
[Page 767]
| 1 | confirmed that the courts' reasoning in that | 17:41 |
| 2 | decision did not mention Disposition 1-A or | |
| 3 | registration (Gladei, Day 2, 452:20). | |
| 4 | And that was only the first of many | |
| 5 | instances in which Respondent's court system | |
| 6 | supported Claimants, and indeed it is Respondent's | |
| 7 | courts that are competent to address Mr Grot's | |
| 8 | issues in Moldova. Mr Gladei confirmed: Disputes | |
| 9 | among private parties are to be solved in common law | |
| 10 | courts or former economic courts (Gladei, Day 2, | |
| 11 | 435:16-18). | |
| 12 | Furthermore, ex parte interim relief is | |
| 13 | available under Moldovan law, (Gladei, Day 2, | |
| 14 | 443:14) and, as the injunctions on the record show, | |
| 15 | (exhibit C-033, C-034) such relief, if requested, is | |
| 16 | issued efficiently and promptly annulled if | |
| 17 | requested unduly. | |
| 18 | Claimants simply failed to properly make | |
| 19 | use of the available remedies against landowners and | |
| 20 | their bad faith competitor. | |
| 21 | That brings me to issue No 8, which is | |
| 22 | that, sadly, regrettably instead of taking that | |
| 23 | stretched hand, Mr Grot chose to take another route. | |
| 24 | He did not continue legal proceedings in Moldova | |
| 25 | (Grot, Day 1, 257:24). As Mr Grot clarified, his |
[Page 768]
| 1 | "good lawyer", Mr Nagacevschi, advised him to | 17:42 |
| 2 | initiate investment arbitration instead (Grot, Day | |
| 3 | 1, 258:17) and so Mr Grot started preparing his BIT | |
| 4 | claim already in 2012. | |
| 5 | Mr Grot in his impression that he could | |
| 6 | not get justice in the courts of Moldova (Grot, Day | |
| 7 | 1, 260:13) and this impression, he explained, was | |
| 8 | based on "what Mr Grot's then lawyers told him at | |
| 9 | the time", "his lawyers" (Grot, Day 1, 260:17). | |
| 10 | And so Mr Grot left. With his eyes turned | |
| 11 | to ICSID, he abandoned his investment. He assigned | |
| 12 | certain rights. He confirmed that when he left he | |
| 13 | had no idea what would happen to his investment and | |
| 14 | that he was not interested to know (Grot, Day 1, | |
| 15 | 259:7). | |
| 16 | To sum up my previous eight points, | |
| 17 | Respondent is not responsible. | |
| 18 | Point 9, expert evidence. | |
| 19 | Claimants failed to establish the damage | |
| 20 | they claim to have incurred. When it comes to | |
| 21 | quantum, our reading of the experts' very helpful | |
| 22 | contributions is surely head refreshing. There are only | |
| 23 | a few points to be highlighted regarding the basis | |
| 24 | of Deloitte's approach. | |
| 25 | 1. Deloitte insists on DCF, although |
[Page 769]
| 1 | unsuitable in this case. | 17:43 |
| 2 | 2. Deloitte's report is based entirely on | |
| 3 | the agricultural reports of Dr Rurac and | |
| 4 | Dr Gumovschi, and that report was created in very | |
| 5 | close co-operation. | |
| 6 | As the agronomists stated, they worked | |
| 7 | with Deloitte on that collaboration (Rurac, Day 3, 31:1) | |
| 8 | and also Mr Wiechen confirmed that he was reasonably | |
| 9 | satisfied with this fruitful collaboration (Wiechen, | |
| 10 | Day 3, 20:2). | |
| 11 | As a result of that fruitful | |
| 12 | collaboration, Deloitte and Clemence counsel | |
| 13 | provided plenty of respective material (Gumovschi, | |
| 14 | Day 3, 492:18, 493:1) but no such material was given | |
| 15 | to Respondent or the Tribunal, and some was actually | |
| 16 | circulated at or during this hearing. | |
| 17 | As a result of this fruitful | |
| 18 | collaboration, it is unclear who truly provided, for | |
| 19 | example, the final USD prices in the agricultural | |
| 20 | report. The agronomists' testimony (Day 3, 498:25 - | |
| 21 | 499:6 and 499:16) directly contradicts today's slide | |
| 22 | 29 of Deloitte's presentation CH-9, a slide that was | |
| 23 | sent to us this morning very early this morning. | |
| 24 | As a result of that fruitful collaboration | |
| 25 | it is unclear who actually provided the data in the |
[Page 770]
| 1 | agricultural report. The agronomists confirmed that | 17:46 |
| 2 | they had provided all the numbers (Gumovschi, Rurac, | |
| 3 | Day 2, 492:18) yet they also admitted that the data | |
| 4 | in table 7 was provided by Rurac and Athena in | |
| 5 | Bucharest, a different country (Gumovschi, Rurac, | |
| 6 | Day 2, 507:7) and the data that came from Deloitte (Rurac, | |
| 7 | Day 3, 10:21) who in turn relied upon their data. | |
| 8 | Finally, as a result of that fruitful | |
| 9 | collaboration and experts, it is not clear who | |
| 10 | relied on whom. Deloitte insist that it is not an | |
| 11 | agricultural expert. The data in section 4 of | |
| 12 | Deloitte's report was taken from table 9 of the | |
| 13 | agricultural report. However, somehow Deloitte's | |
| 14 | report, that table, contains more information than | |
| 15 | the agricultural experts provided. | |
| 16 | Apart from this fruitful collaboration, we | |
| 17 | learnt three important things. First, we learnt | |
| 18 | that it would take two to three years to build up | |
| 19 | the land. Thus, if at all, Claimants could not | |
| 20 | possibly have achieved Visoca State Centre yields | |
| 21 | until at least year 3. Moreover, the agronomists | |
| 22 | confirmed their forecasts were applicable for the | |
| 23 | first 2-3 years, and in paragraph 31 of their report | |
| 24 | they explained such forecasts were the average of | |
| 25 | five years. |
[Page 771]
| 1 | Second, we learned that the smaller areas have | 17:47 |
| 2 | higher yields than larger areas. The statistics | |
| 3 | relied on regarding underperforming are for smaller | |
| 4 | fields only. Thus, there is no substance to the | |
| 5 | allegation that there is any underperforming. | |
| 6 | And third and finally, we learned that the | |
| 7 | agronomists never saw the equipment that they assume | |
| 8 | Laguardia would have used and they never visited the | |
| 9 | lands in question and, as Mr Rurac honestly | |
| 10 | admitted, they had no normative basis for their | |
| 11 | calculation there. | |
| 12 | To conclude, despite fruitful | |
| 13 | collaboration, Deloitte's calculations do not | |
| 14 | convince. | |
| 15 | That brings me to my conclusion, point 10. | |
| 16 | Members of the Tribunal, I really take absolutely no | |
| 17 | pleasure in repeating the fact that Claimants' | |
| 18 | investment was ill-set up and ill-managed. I wish | |
| 19 | that in 2010 and 2011 Mr Grot had good advisers and | |
| 20 | competent local lawyers. I wish that private parties | |
| 21 | with whom he had contracted acted in good faith, as | |
| 22 | Mr Grot, no doubt did. I wish that the many lawyers he had | |
| 23 | consulted and I wish that the many lawyers he had | |
| 24 | paid good money would have enforced his rights | |
| 25 | effectively. |
[Page 772]
| 1 | As has been put in the failure of Mr Grot's, the State | 17:48 |
| 2 | takes no pleasure in the failure of Mr Grot's | |
| 3 | investment, but pleasure is not the issue here. The | |
| 4 | issue here is whether the State can be blamed for | |
| 5 | it, not on speculation, not on speculation, but on | |
| 6 | hard facts and the evidence on record. | |
| 7 | Members of the Tribunal, the answer is no. | |
| 8 | Thank you. | |
| 9 | THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. | |
| 10 | I ask my colleagues whether they have any concluding | |
| 11 | questions to you. No from Mr Fortier. | |
| 12 | Professor Knieper? | |
| 13 | PROFESSOR KNIEPER: It is not really a | |
| 14 | question. Could you provide us with a list of these | |
| 15 | 1464 leases and how many they were? We only hear | |
| 16 | "many" or not many. | |
| 17 | MR KOPECKY: Respectfully, yes, because | |
| 18 | the leases is a four-page, you have the exhibit and | |
| 19 | divide the number of pages by four. | |
| 20 | MR FORTIER: To be fair, Mr Kopecky, to | |
| 21 | you, since I posed the question to the Claimants, | |
| 22 | what is your position on the moral damages in the | |
| 23 | event that the Tribunal gets to damages? | |
| 24 | I am looking at the statement of | |
| 25 | Dr Zbylski, Colorado Springs. That is witness |
[Page 773]
| 1 | statement CWS-11. "Mr Grot has described certain | 17:50 |
| 2 | events that occurred in Moldova, including physical | |
| 3 | threats to his person, illegal actions by Moldovan | |
| 4 | public officials, damage to his property, a death | |
| 5 | threat, which gives rise to anxiety problems of | |
| 6 | various degrees and I have prescribed such medication | |
| 7 | and his experience in Moldova has had that had a very | |
| 8 | substantial effect on his quality of life". | |
| 9 | MR KOPECKY: Mr Fortier, with all respect | |
| 10 | I would not like to brief on this note, so I am going | |
| 11 | to refer to section 32 of Respondent's Rejoinder. | |
| 12 | I would not like to discuss Mr Grot's personal | |
| 13 | feeling as that is not for me to do in a hearing. | |
| 14 | MR FORTIER: I understand. | |
| 15 | THE PRESIDENT: I do express on behalf of | |
| 16 | us all our gratitude for very interesting | |
| 17 | arguments, if I may say, very to the point, very | |
| 18 | efficient and very helpful in concentrating | |
| 19 | our minds on what you both respectively say, so | |
| 20 | thank you very much for that. I personally found | |
| 21 | that extremely useful on both sides and my | |
| 22 | colleagues are nodding their assent. | |
| 23 | That concludes, if you like, formal | |
| 24 | part of the proceedings. It remains to discuss what | |
| 25 | happens next. I would like to hear briefly from |
[Page 774]
| 1 | both parties on what ideally, if anything, they | 17:52 |
| 2 | would like to happen next. It may be that we don't | |
| 3 | decide it here and now because we will need an | |
| 4 | opportunity to discuss that. | |
| 5 | Is there a need for any further written | |
| 6 | submissions, if any, including the question of cost | |
| 7 | submissions. It would be helpful to hear from both | |
| 8 | parties on those aspects. I do not know. | |
| 9 | Mr Gleason, whether that is you who wanted to speak | |
| 10 | on behalf of the Claimants? | |
| 11 | MR GLEASON: I would like to confer with | |
| 12 | my colleagues. | |
| 13 | THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Let's take | |
| 14 | five minutes so both sides can confer amongst | |
| 15 | themselves. | |
| 16 | (Short break from 5.53 pm to 6.01 pm) | |
| 17 | Closing remarks and future timetable. | |
| 18 | THE PRESIDENT: Mr Gleason? | |
| 19 | MR GLEASON: Claimants would like to make | |
| 20 | a submission on costs, but concerning the timing we | |
| 21 | would defer to the Tribunal's preference on the | |
| 22 | nature of what would be made. | |
| 23 | Claimants are willing and happy to provide | |
| 24 | any additional information requested by the | |
| 25 | Tribunal, including information concerning |
[Page 775]
| 1 | equipment, which obviously has been the subject of | 18:02 |
| 2 | much discussion today, as well as perhaps moral | |
| 3 | damages or any other issue that the Tribunal deems | |
| 4 | necessary. | |
| 5 | Concerning an additional report on damages | |
| 6 | or quantum, Claimants are hesitant to go that route | |
| 7 | for costs and efficiency reasons. Our preference -- | |
| 8 | we would defer to the Tribunal as always on that | |
| 9 | issue -- but we are not affirmatively requesting a | |
| 10 | brief then. | |
| 11 | THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Kopecky? | |
| 12 | MR KOPECKY: As to costs Respondent | |
| 13 | would prefer a simple statement of costs, if | |
| 14 | possible not on 1 January -- please do not worry, | |
| 15 | that was a silly attempt at a joke -- and just a | |
| 16 | clarification whether there should be submissions on | |
| 17 | facts or a simple statement of costs from the | |
| 18 | Tribunal. | |
| 19 | Respondent sees no need to post hearing | |
| 20 | submissions. If so, then very short, just about | |
| 21 | single digits, and certainly no new evidence. Thank | |
| 22 | you. | |
| 23 | THE PRESIDENT: Let me confer with my | |
| 24 | colleagues. | |
| 25 | (The Tribunal conferred) |
[Page 776]
| 1 | THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, both | 18:04 |
| 2 | parties. There is commonality on a | |
| 3 | statement/submission. For our purposes I think what | |
| 4 | we just need is a simple statement with a breakdown. | |
| 5 | We do not need a long pleading on costs. We do not | |
| 6 | want to put you to that. We would like a detailed | |
| 7 | breakdown of the costs. | |
| 8 | MR KOPECKY: You mean including billed | |
| 9 | hours or just invoices? | |
| 10 | THE PRESIDENT: Not each hour, but a | |
| 11 | statement of the costs that have been incurred by | |
| 12 | each side. We know that you are both making | |
| 13 | requests for costs and so we have taken that, but | |
| 14 | I don't think we need further submissions. | |
| 15 | MR KOPECKY: No proof of payment? It | |
| 16 | comes up at times. | |
| 17 | THE PRESIDENT: I don't think for this | |
| 18 | point. Given the nature of this case, the sums | |
| 19 | being requested, I don't think we would want to put | |
| 20 | you to additional time and trouble to do that, and | |
| 21 | I think a simple statement is absolutely fair | |
| 22 | enough. | |
| 23 | There is one question in relation to C-95 | |
| 24 | where there was one little line, the confirmation by | |
| 25 | the Mayor, if we could just have an agreed text from |
[Page 777]
| 1 | you on a rev C-95? | 18:06 |
| 2 | MR KOPECKY: The text has been agreed. | |
| 3 | I think it is on record. | |
| 4 | THE PRESIDENT: It was the mayor's | |
| 5 | signature with the line that says -- | |
| 6 | MR KOPECKY: No, sorry. I was referring | |
| 7 | to C-94. | |
| 8 | MR GLEASON: I think we can agree. | |
| 9 | THE PRESIDENT: If you could email that by | |
| 10 | the end of the week to Ms Nitschke that would be | |
| 11 | excellent. | |
| 12 | MR KOPECKY: So will we with C-94. That | |
| 13 | was the confusion. | |
| 14 | THE PRESIDENT: We have heard you both. | |
| 15 | We are certainly not minded to ask you and we are | |
| 16 | hearing the common position of the parties. There | |
| 17 | is one possibility which is that we may, following | |
| 18 | deliberation, make a request to you, and you both | |
| 19 | have a chance to respond to it, for some further | |
| 20 | information. We would keep it very narrowly | |
| 21 | focused, give you an appropriate time, but not huge | |
| 22 | amounts of time, and it would be very narrowly | |
| 23 | dovetailed. We may not, but we want to reserve the | |
| 24 | possibility of coming back to you with some request | |
| 25 | for further information put very briefly and |
[Page 778]
| 1 | tightly, but we reserve our position on that at this | 18:07 |
| 2 | point. | |
| 3 | There is the question of the date for the | |
| 4 | cost statement. Frankly, there is no mad rush for | |
| 5 | it. We can say the end of January. If you want to | |
| 6 | do it earlier, that is absolutely fine. Let's say | |
| 7 | by January 31. Obviously it is filed separately. | |
| 8 | It does not get passed on to the other side, and we | |
| 9 | then have them. | |
| 10 | I think that covers absolutely everything. | |
| 11 | Those of you who have done ICSID cases before will | |
| 12 | know that this is the point where the Tribunal wants | |
| 13 | to satisfy itself that the parties feel they have | |
| 14 | had a fair hearing and have been treated | |
| 15 | respectfully and have had adequate time in | |
| 16 | accordance with the various Procedural Orders to | |
| 17 | make all of the arguments and submissions they wish | |
| 18 | to. Claimant? Are you comfortable that you have | |
| 19 | been treated appropriately and fairly? | |
| 20 | MR GLEASON: My colleague has made the | |
| 21 | point that the request for allocation of costs does | |
| 22 | hang out there, but otherwise he is satisfied, | |
| 23 | I think we all are satisfied with the conduct of the | |
| 24 | hearing, if that answers your question. | |
| 25 | THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. |
[Page 779]
| 1 | Respondent? | 18:09 |
| 2 | MR KOPECKY: So is Respondent and would | |
| 3 | like to extend particular thanks to the Tribunal? | |
| 4 | THE PRESIDENT: Can I say, speaking | |
| 5 | personally, I have really appreciated the way, for | |
| 6 | the entirety of the proceedings, the very collegial, | |
| 7 | genial, good natured and very professional way of | |
| 8 | conducting the totality of this case, and that has | |
| 9 | continued through this hearing. We have also really | |
| 10 | appreciated your willingness to listen to us for our | |
| 11 | sometimes not so subtle hints on how we would wish | |
| 12 | you to proceed in terms of various issues. | |
| 13 | I would -- again, I haven't even conferred | |
| 14 | with my colleagues -- but if anyone is looking for a | |
| 15 | self Christmas present, or some equivalent thing, | |
| 16 | the book you may want to take a look at is a book by | |
| 17 | I think he is now decreased, a very eminent | |
| 18 | barrister called Richard Du Cann which is called | |
| 19 | "The Art of the Advocate". It is just a really | |
| 20 | useful guide. I don't want to impose a particular | |
| 21 | cultural approach. Every community and legal | |
| 22 | culture has its own way of doing these things, and | |
| 23 | we all come to them with our cultural baggage, but | |
| 24 | it provides at least one way of thinking about these | |
| 25 | things. The chapters give you a sense of it: |
[Page 780]
| 1 | Chapter 3: The essentials of advocacy. Chapter 6: | 18:10 |
| 2 | Cross-examination: aims, duties and dangers. | |
| 3 | Chapter 8: The style of cross-examination. But it | |
| 4 | is just a way of comparing notes. You will have in | |
| 5 | your own legal systems your own way of dealing with | |
| 6 | those things. It also has some terrific anecdotes | |
| 7 | in it about major cockups in advocacy, none of which | |
| 8 | have happened here, I should say, we have not got to | |
| 9 | that situation, but it is quite an entertaining read | |
| 10 | and it is published by Penguin Books. | |
| 11 | That is all I wish to say. I thank you, | |
| 12 | our interpreters, I thank my assistant Lea, I thank | |
| 13 | the court reporters who have worked as always in | |
| 14 | heroic conditions. We are deeply grateful. | |
| 15 | I thank Frauke Nitschke, who is an | |
| 16 | absolute pleasure to work with. I can tell you that | |
| 17 | I have worked with many, many international | |
| 18 | secretariats, they are all terrific but some are | |
| 19 | more terrific than others, and amongst all of the | |
| 20 | terrific ones Frauke is as good as it gets in terms | |
| 21 | of an international secretariat and a real credit to | |
| 22 | that community, and we, you may have noticed, have a | |
| 23 | very good relationship as arbitrators, we have been | |
| 24 | consensual on everything. We hope that will | |
| 25 | continue, who knows, but there is every supposition |
[Page 781]
| 1 | that it will. I thank both of them. I am | 18:12 |
| 2 | privileged to call Yves and Rolf friends as well as | |
| 3 | colleagues. It is an absolute pleasure and a | |
| 4 | privilege to sit with them. I have really | |
| 5 | appreciated the way you have approached this case. | |
| 6 | The ball is now in our court. You have | |
| 7 | given us everything that we need. It is now for us | |
| 8 | to do our work. Thank you very much. Safe travels | |
| 9 | back to wherever you are going. Not very far in | |
| 10 | this case; a little bit further in this case. Happy | |
| 11 | holiday season, Happy New Year, happy everything. | |
| 12 | That closes the hearing. Thank you very | |
| 13 | much. | |
| 14 | (The hearing was closed at 6.12 pm) | |
| 15 | ||
| 16 | ||
| 17 | ||
| 18 | ||
| 19 | ||
| 20 | ||
| 21 | ||
| 22 | ||
| 23 | ||
| 24 | ||
| 25 |
[Page 81]
Word Index
Revised
Ffruitful [8] 604/5 769/9 769/11 769/17 769/24 770/8 770/16 771/12 full [5] 570/4 655/21 680/22 681/1 700/10 fully [6] 534/6 629/14 630/10 649/10 649/11 721/9 function [2] 704/24 704/25 fundamental [3] 591/23 650/23 670/13 fundamentally [1] 719/13 further [27] 539/10 541/5 552/16 566/25 577/24 581/12 586/2 601/13 604/8 635/19 652/13 652/16 658/5 687/9 700/12 700/15 705/10 729/7 756/25 759/20 764/15 764/24 774/5 776/14 777/19 777/25 781/10 Furthermore [1] 767/12 future [29] 532/20 564/7 629/21 631/17 636/12 651/16 651/17 680/24 681/2 683/2 683/5 683/5 683/7 683/24 684/7 684/8 684/8 685/8 685/23 686/12 687/8 703/24 709/24 712/19 738/22 739/8 741/11 748/9 774/17 futures [2] 714/5 714/5 Ggained [1] 593/10 GALIS [1] 529/25 game [2] 690/25 710/11 gather [1] 716/7 gathering [1] 617/2 gave [2] 686/11 710/21 general [9] 536/24 539/14 563/18 565/21 579/3 602/22 634/15 703/11 708/13 generalise [1] 668/22 generally [7] 582/3 591/20 598/14 603/22 662/6 668/18 671/24 generate [6] 641/11 641/22 652/4 652/10 680/10 692/9 generated [7] 588/15 652/8 658/11 663/18 685/12 692/16 739/4 |
generating [2] 644/25 703/24 generation [1] 683/2 genial [1] 779/7 gentlemen [5] 552/22 582/8 584/1 584/16 752/9 geographical [1] 566/7 geographically [1] 597/23 German [2] 553/5 710/12 Germany [3] 553/9 597/25 689/25 get [43] 534/9 539/16 539/16 540/17 550/22 551/4 552/13 557/7 558/4 559/19 559/25 564/2 576/9 581/18 582/10 586/4 591/19 605/22 606/17 606/18 637/14 638/15 640/19 644/19 645/12 649/21 656/11 657/12 683/25 684/12 687/22 691/4 697/18 701/18 724/19 734/12 735/13 735/15 747/14 749/4 753/12 768/6 778/8 gets [2] 772/23 780/20 getting [2] 701/19 719/4 GIEDRE [1] 530/5 girls [1] 689/12 give [15] 563/1 575/3 632/13 689/9 692/11 703/16 705/3 710/18 712/3 712/5 727/12 747/6 754/6 777/21 779/25 given [34] 537/23 538/24 539/12 566/5 571/4 571/5 571/22 573/25 574/24 581/19 618/12 624/4 653/15 654/1 657/2 659/7 675/12 684/25 692/8 697/15 703/13 707/5 707/7 712/16 714/3 717/17 719/9 719/17 720/12 734/8 736/13 769/14 776/18 781/7 gives [4] 685/20 686/6 753/2 773/5 giving [3] 707/9 711/8 750/3 GLADEI [34] 530/16 530/16 530/17 722/19 723/3 724/13 727/5 729/23 753/18 753/20 760/8 760/10 761/11 761/13 761/22 761/24 762/1 762/2 762/20 762/23 762/25 763/4 764/9 764/10 764/14 764/17 764/24 765/2 766/19 766/25 767/3 767/8 767/10 767/13 Gladei's [3] 724/10 733/16 733/20 GLEASON [7] 530/3 530/6 552/18 720/8 738/8 774/9 774/18 gleasonwells.com [3] 530/9 530/9 530/10 gmail.com [1] 529/16 GMBH [1] 531/6 go [35] 537/22 574/6 582/13 604/14 611/13 631/13 635/24 636/12 639/13 643/3 649/9 652/1 657/12 663/22 689/20 690/4 699/19 702/4 703/7 703/20 704/7 704/8 704/10 709/1 711/12 716/2 729/5 729/7 734/6 736/20 736/23 737/13 742/1 742/23 775/6 goes [6] 537/5 565/8 638/12 704/19 709/9 721/19 going [56] 570/18 571/15 576/7 615/20 627/1 629/21 635/23 637/14 638/7 638/12 640/1 648/5 648/12 648/13 648/14 652/7 653/4 653/5 655/10 656/21 657/2 659/5 665/6 673/6 683/6 687/11 687/24 688/9 692/3 692/20 697/21 698/19 704/19 705/21 709/18 714/3 721/14 721/18 722/11 723/17 729/5 730/16 730/17 733/10 735/15 736/14 736/17 736/23 748/4 749/9 753/5 754/13 754/16 756/16 773/10 781/9 gone [5] 565/3 703/14 708/2 708/4 737/9 good [33] 533/3 534/25 539/2 539/15 541/11 541/12 554/21 555/19 555/19 555/21 555/22 556/23 558/12 558/15 561/2 576/22 576/24 603/25 605/21 606/11 618/24 625/5 715/12 721/4 737/6 752/3 768/1 771/19 771/21 771/24 779/7 780/20 780/23 goods [1] 600/21 |
got [7] 533/4 534/25 550/19 616/4 629/13 632/23 780/8 govern [1] 658/25 government [4] 668/14 732/8 756/13 757/2 gradient [1] 571/23 graduated [1] 554/7 graduates [2] 552/22 554/18 grain [1] 714/1 grains [3] 566/13 567/19 572/20 granted [1] 766/5 granular [1] 695/2 granularity [2] 643/13 645/6 grasp [1] 649/11 grateful [5] 533/7 581/23 582/14 584/17 780/14 gratitude [2] 534/23 773/16 Gray [1] 529/5 great [6] 572/19 690/1 713/24 714/25 724/12 729/2 Great Britain [1] 690/1 greater [8] 645/6 672/8 673/20 687/13 704/19 722/4 725/14 736/21 gross [6] 597/15 597/17 647/12 647/15 647/21 647/24 GROT [147] 528/8 530/12 530/14 536/9 536/13 537/18 555/22 557/18 558/9 558/13 558/15 560/19 563/9 572/23 581/11 585/25 586/7 587/24 588/12 588/21 608/1 613/14 614/10 627/20 627/25 629/20 630/17 631/8 631/10 645/10 645/23 647/11 648/25 649/13 649/19 650/4 653/3 655/13 658/16 661/22 662/9 662/14 662/19 667/18 672/24 673/1 674/6 683/17 686/3 686/7 687/21 688/22 689/23 690/17 690/21 691/18 691/23 692/3 693/9 693/12 694/10 694/15 696/8 696/10 697/12 697/13 698/8 699/7 703/16 705/8 706/6 706/14 714/12 714/21 714/24 715/5 721/4 723/11 723/20 728/16 730/7 730/16 730/21 730/25 731/8 731/9 731/19 733/6 734/10 734/14 734/20 735/6 735/13 735/23 736/20 737/2 737/5 737/9 737/18 738/4 738/15 738/16 739/18 739/22 741/8 742/23 743/15 743/20 744/17 744/20 746/1 746/4 746/17 748/23 749/8 749/10 749/20 750/2 750/11 750/16 750/23 752/13 753/2 753/21 753/23 756/11 756/25 757/4 757/7 758/18 761/1 761/2 761/7 765/1 767/23 767/25 767/25 768/2 768/3 768/5 768/6 768/9 768/10 768/14 771/19 771/22 773/1 Grot's [32] 564/18 578/5 580/5 624/15 624/24 624/25 625/11 630/19 643/7 643/17 644/1 644/7 655/18 667/21 668/14 689/18 707/14 728/19 728/24 732/2 740/11 744/3 746/12 750/19 757/5 757/11 760/23 761/4 767/7 768/8 772/2 773/12 ground [3] 681/9 687/22 688/5 grow [1] 637/16 growing [2] 647/20 658/12 grown [1] 754/22 grown-up [1] 754/22 growth [1] 667/5 guarantee [2] 704/24 705/1 guess [1] 750/1 guidance [1] 626/18 guide [1] 779/20 guideline [11] 569/5 578/18 593/18 596/5 596/7 596/9 596/23 621/10 622/9 675/20 675/22 guidelines [3] 571/21 572/14 575/20 GUMOVSCHI [23] 530/18 532/2 533/2 541/25 542/9 543/15 548/17 550/4 552/4 553/3 554/4 557/14 559/15 561/23 562/7 563/7 578/22 593/7 603/22 769/4 769/13 770/2 770/5 |
[Page 82]
Gguys [2] 551/12 689/11 GUZUN [1] 531/11 HH3B [1] 529/11 ha [22] 554/12 557/25 560/11 561/20 570/12 570/18 570/19 570/22 571/19 571/20 572/1 572/2 574/4 574/9 645/11 645/13 645/14 667/16 699/23 700/22 714/13 739/3 had [171] 533/4 534/3 535/5 540/1 547/8 547/11 552/15 554/12 555/10 556/10 557/22 558/9 558/16 558/17 558/18 558/19 558/20 560/14 564/7 564/9 564/20 565/3 566/1 570/13 571/8 571/10 572/17 572/18 572/20 572/22 572/25 573/5 573/7 575/4 575/10 575/10 576/4 576/8 576/14 576/15 576/16 577/8 578/4 578/9 580/8 580/12 582/11 587/2 588/11 588/19 598/7 598/14 599/12 603/25 606/19 607/18 608/25 609/14 613/21 615/5 615/5 615/20 617/12 623/9 624/16 625/16 626/6 626/22 628/24 635/4 637/17 640/11 642/14 647/12 649/5 649/5 650/15 650/17 651/22 651/24 656/25 668/5 670/24 671/7 671/8 671/8 671/13 671/14 675/3 675/3 676/9 679/5 681/19 681/20 682/25 685/6 685/11 685/14 686/9 686/20 687/23 687/25 688/1 688/3 688/5 688/5 688/22 689/2 689/5 689/19 691/18 694/1 696/9 696/11 697/2 697/4 697/11 698/9 703/8 709/3 714/13 714/14 716/7 722/24 723/2 723/11 723/20 723/22 725/4 726/18 728/14 732/12 734/14 734/17 735/23 737/6 737/7 740/7 741/21 742/5 744/15 744/16 746/11 748/15 748/23 750/23 750/23 750/24 750/25 750/25 757/3 757/8 762/6 762/22 763/16 764/13 765/1 765/4 765/15 766/13 766/16 768/5 768/13 770/2 771/10 771/19 771/21 771/23 773/7 778/14 778/15 half [7] 573/12 573/14 573/16 580/17 580/19 629/13 714/20 hall [2] 730/13 755/22 halls [2] 730/8 762/12 hand [12] 591/8 596/1 603/9 604/25 613/25 618/23 679/17 704/16 722/1 759/9 764/2 767/23 handed [7] 533/16 604/25 607/7 618/7 618/24 619/8 619/15 hands [4] 554/14 638/3 638/8 638/13 handwritten [1] 618/13 hang [1] 778/22 happen [8] 534/10 580/1 619/6 631/21 683/7 714/3 768/13 774/2 happened [26] 565/3 580/23 581/22 582/12 609/17 609/19 609/25 611/23 614/6 616/14 641/24 648/4 684/20 685/21 685/22 700/17 703/14 707/14 716/18 721/5 744/11 745/11 746/5 748/25 752/12 780/8 happening [4] 638/20 646/7 692/18 723/19 happens [2] 568/20 773/25 happy [8] 533/15 618/5 749/6 750/4 774/23 781/10 781/11 781/11 hard [4] 540/18 691/15 740/17 772/6 hardly [1] 768/22 hardware [1] 699/21 harrows [1] 611/15 harvest [19] 546/10 546/12 567/13 567/23 568/1 574/18 574/18 574/19 576/22 576/24 576/25 583/17 583/19 583/22 589/25 628/4 645/11 646/17 648/7 harvestable [1] 570/15 harvested [2] 646/17 669/6 |
harvesters [1] 611/15 harvesting [9] 554/16 573/23 574/3 574/13 574/17 576/19 576/21 579/25 580/1 has [110] 548/19 561/15 561/19 562/4 571/9 571/17 579/4 587/11 588/1 590/7 590/8 591/11 592/16 592/17 601/16 608/14 608/22 609/17 609/19 614/11 618/19 625/6 629/12 630/6 638/20 640/4 645/2 645/3 645/23 646/24 647/21 648/17 649/24 650/4 650/9 652/18 652/21 654/16 655/20 655/23 656/1 656/4 658/2 660/22 662/3 662/14 666/16 670/10 676/6 678/2 678/9 681/14 685/21 685/22 693/3 693/12 694/15 695/6 698/6 700/20 700/22 701/9 701/10 701/14 701/18 701/24 703/14 703/14 705/4 705/8 706/6 706/9 706/14 707/25 708/2 708/4 709/24 710/2 711/2 712/24 713/2 713/7 714/9 714/15 715/2 716/18 717/21 718/19 719/12 719/17 719/18 720/18 721/7 726/16 729/7 729/24 740/22 743/15 747/2 747/2 755/18 760/11 772/1 773/1 775/1 777/2 778/20 779/8 779/22 780/6 hassle [2] 619/3 754/3 have [556] haven't [10] 534/15 537/14 562/10 562/11 665/9 677/5 681/15 721/15 751/9 779/13 having [15] 562/18 580/22 612/21 623/19 638/8 639/15 669/25 685/23 689/22 697/5 698/4 701/15 706/19 716/9 747/5 he [149] 534/4 534/5 534/13 540/18 540/19 540/20 542/1 548/20 555/23 557/16 557/19 558/15 558/16 558/17 558/18 558/20 559/16 559/21 560/23 560/24 562/3 563/10 563/11 563/12 564/7 564/14 564/23 578/9 588/15 592/1 594/1 594/6 594/8 594/22 596/25 598/18 598/19 600/17 600/20 601/17 601/19 607/6 610/22 611/10 618/11 624/16 625/6 631/12 645/12 649/21 653/4 653/5 662/14 662/15 670/10 670/11 673/3 687/23 687/25 688/1 688/3 688/5 688/5 688/22 688/22 689/2 689/6 691/3 691/23 692/4 694/1 695/17 698/9 699/10 700/9 700/10 701/9 701/9 701/14 701/18 701/22 701/24 702/1 707/15 711/11 712/16 723/2 723/20 730/7 730/8 730/8 730/8 730/18 730/25 731/19 731/19 731/20 731/22 732/4 732/7 732/11 732/12 732/13 734/11 736/22 737/6 737/7 737/8 737/12 737/13 737/13 739/21 740/13 740/18 741/20 741/21 743/21 747/17 747/21 750/2 750/3 750/4 750/12 750/15 750/24 750/25 756/13 757/13 758/18 758/19 758/20 758/23 758/25 759/3 761/19 767/24 768/5 768/7 768/11 768/11 768/12 768/12 768/12 768/14 769/8 771/21 771/23 778/22 779/17 he didn't [1] 740/13 he would [1] 560/24 head [2] 745/4 745/16 heading [1] 554/13 headline [1] 533/18 hear [9] 556/21 559/21 584/22 715/24 716/15 750/2 772/15 773/25 774/7 heard [42] 562/6 562/9 606/13 618/3 641/4 643/19 643/24 645/5 655/3 656/19 657/22 667/4 684/14 684/17 690/16 695/14 696/4 696/14 709/10 711/18 716/16 717/11 720/2 720/25 721/2 727/5 727/23 728/15 728/19 728/22 730/7 730/25 731/19 732/2 732/11 737/12 739/19 |
751/9 753/9 753/15 755/10 777/14 hearing [37] 528/19 538/22 539/8 541/21 571/5 571/6 579/6 579/12 579/14 616/16 698/21 717/12 717/14 717/20 718/15 727/23 729/2 744/16 750/9 751/23 752/23 752/25 753/15 756/7 756/18 757/4 757/19 760/17 769/16 773/13 775/19 777/16 778/14 778/24 779/9 781/12 781/14 hearings [1] 751/20 heart [1] 721/15 hectare [6] 560/8 569/20 570/17 570/19 594/5 617/25 hello [1] 632/17 help [20] 573/15 601/14 623/15 624/8 684/9 688/16 688/18 689/15 690/8 691/13 691/19 691/22 696/22 702/8 710/6 711/4 711/5 711/13 718/11 735/18 helped [3] 698/20 698/21 698/23 helpful [10] 570/2 571/12 711/11 711/24 715/21 754/15 754/23 768/21 773/18 774/7 helpfully [1] 574/12 helping [1] 761/1 helps [1] 708/7 Hence [1] 710/1 her [1] 759/16 here [81] 533/15 541/17 566/15 568/3 570/11 571/14 573/19 579/15 581/19 584/11 584/19 585/18 586/23 590/19 600/17 601/15 603/4 604/7 604/23 611/14 615/3 615/11 619/12 619/19 626/2 626/12 629/16 631/3 633/19 634/19 635/14 638/11 640/21 641/10 642/17 645/17 645/25 646/7 646/23 648/3 648/20 651/14 652/18 653/2 653/3 655/15 657/14 659/15 660/14 661/7 662/13 667/4 676/5 681/7 687/2 687/10 689/13 690/10 690/10 690/13 691/18 695/5 710/6 713/24 714/4 718/25 720/14 723/17 727/18 730/6 |
[Page 83]
|
here... [11] 736/5 747/8 752/11 753/2 754/23 761/19 768/10 772/3 772/4 774/3 781/17 heroic [1] 780/14 hesitant [1] 775/6 hesitate [1] 746/3 high [10] 558/10 558/24 575/18 576/4 576/4 602/7 640/15 645/6 663/16 757/2 higher [23] 546/10 546/19 547/14 548/10 548/11 549/1 549/11 549/19 558/25 568/11 568/19 569/9 569/11 595/16 611/1 628/2 644/8 654/11 657/23 712/8 731/1 732/18 highest [3] 617/19 739/24 741/13 highlight [1] 592/2 highlighted [3] 590/14 768/23 highlights [1] 646/5 highly [3] 575/10 575/17 576/21 him [32] 534/5 534/10 542/1 542/6 554/21 560/21 610/16 610/21 610/22 611/9 698/22 700/17 701/12 706/7 718/25 721/21 730/1 730/12 732/11 737/8 737/11 737/12 738/11 738/18 747/18 747/19 756/14 757/5 758/1 768/8 himself [4] 728/16 728/16 739/20 756/15 hindsight [2] 591/25 779/14 HIRED [1] 530/4 hiring [3] 614/17 737/8 his [130] 535/4 539/12 540/19 558/10 558/17 564/20 567/24 568/14 582/22 608/1 613/18 613/18 619/1 621/12 627/22 630/3 637/17 648/22 648/25 655/13 656/16 674/2 686/4 687/21 687/21 688/1 688/5 688/6 688/8 688/11 689/5 693/10 696/10 700/20 706/14 708/2 712/12 714/22 718/22 721/8 723/5 724/14 729/24 732/5 732/9 736/10 736/11 739/3 739/10 739/11 739/19 739/20 739/22 739/24 740/21 741/9 741/19 742/22 742/23 743/20 750/10 756/11 757/1 760/11 761/23 768/2 768/13 771/21 773/1 773/24 774/18 775/8 historical [6] 597/11 645/24 650/21 685/18 686/1 749/9 historically [2] 599/17 history [5] 683/1 686/25 740/11 740/25 hold [2] 628/6 628/8 holding [2] 650/2 770/13 holiday [1] 781/11 home [1] 737/11 homework [2] 679/10 Hon [2] 528/15 529/9 honest [3] 624/5 honestly [4] 554/6 601/13 719/7 honour [2] 585/8 hope [4] 533/4 533/4 704/12 771/22 hoped [3] 534/14 659/4 758/5 hoping [2] 659/6 780/24 horse [1] 555/17 hotel [4] 717/20 722/10 776/20 778/18 hour [3] 730/21 776/9 housekeeping [1] 732/9 how [53] 533/11 533/12 533/12 553/22 554/16 555/22 558/19 561/18 565/19 566/25 569/18 570/3 571/21 572/10 572/11 574/2 574/11 575/1 575/6 575/19 580/6 582/2 582/9 586/24 589/21 594/1 |
594/20 603/25 605/3 609/1 612/25 613/3 614/13 614/19 627/11 630/12 642/24 652/12 654/18 654/21 654/21 654/21 670/24 672/24 673/17 673/21 687/13 689/11 689/19 691/13 691/19 691/22 697/13 701/8 701/14 702/5 707/4 707/15 708/18 717/8 718/5 718/5 725/1 726/3 727/2 727/17 727/21 737/13 745/2 748/18 754/12 764/16 772/15 however [2] 579/13 599/17 huge [7] 597/15 615/12 716/13 717/2 770/13 huge... [1] 561/9 hundred [2] 558/4 hundreds [6] 560/14 561/9 561/13 662/19 716/13 726/10 hungry [1] 662/19 hybrid [1] 547/25 hyperlink [1] 535/19 hypotheses [1] 654/25 hypothesise [1] 653/17 hypothetical [6] 566/10 566/15 566/18 644/3 653/17 703/12 II accept [1] 687/23 I acknowledge [1] 533/20 I acted [3] 553/4 553/6 I add [1] 561/24 I agree [8] 548/24 551/19 555/19 565/19 579/23 590/25 751/20 780/4 I also [5] 612/1 648/15 650/13 669/24 695/9 I am [114] 533/3 533/7 533/8 533/16 534/20 540/6 554/17 555/8 555/11 555/25 555/25 556/1 558/11 560/1 563/5 570/6 570/12 571/1 571/10 571/12 571/14 571/15 577/24 582/14 601/12 604/2 604/9 611/1 611/2 612/21 612/23 615/4 615/13 617/1 618/5 620/4 621/8 623/21 627/9 632/1 639/1 641/8 643/18 650/16 651/7 652/8 653/17 659/5 662/4 662/16 667/10 672/20 672/23 674/25 678/13 680/22 684/17 688/9 688/14 688/17 689/21 689/21 692/14 693/14 694/12 696/9 698/15 702/5 706/11 706/19 706/22 707/13 707/23 707/24 707/25 710/24 711/10 722/1 724/4 724/11 726/23 739/24 744/19 746/7 746/13 747/5 749/24 752/11 756/24 766/24 773/10 I apologise [4] 604/6 608/23 711/23 753/25 I appreciate [1] 611/12 I arrived [1] 611/19 660/21 I ask [8] 557/1 611/6 624/11 682/21 708/9 I asked [2] 555/10 I assume [2] 570/7 669/23 I believe [11] 627/19 631/23 654/19 660/19 660/20 660/24 604/8 608/11 619/20 631/20 632/14 I can [31] 534/8 547/13 648/3 649/7 650/22 652/14 653/10 671/14 678/14 679/10 683/11 692/14 695/10 715/3 I calculated [1] 655/14 I cannot [10] 549/21 557/3 562/12 572/13 573/9 576/20 |
607/24 619/19 628/15 640/1 640/2 649/13 696/1 696/1 744/25 780/16 I can't [1] 668/22 I cannot [6] 575/14 616/1 637/18 652/11 678/4 711/23 I compare [1] 653/18 I confirm [1] 747/23 I consider [2] 543/10 633/4 634/20 I considered [2] 644/5 672/16 I considered [1] 624/13 I continue [1] 755/2 I could [10] 624/11 691/15 692/5 694/20 694/25 695/17 698/8 698/9 I did [13] 543/7 554/17 578/24 586/15 616/21 661/2 667/22 670/15 672/11 674/1 674/23 674/24 I didn't [1] 565/15 I direct [1] 664/11 694/8 694/10 I discussed [1] 593/9 I do [28] 537/15 543/22 550/5 550/5 552/5 568/7 579/8 639/4 639/23 641/13 642/11 654/23 661/20 662/4 665/23 670/6 670/20 671/21 691/13 696/2 702/25 708/17 718/20 722/15 731/15 I don't [46] 534/15 541/18 561/16 561/25 562/9 562/11 575/11 575/15 576/12 577/21 592/14 595/20 621/22 622/14 622/19 652/12 656/1 657/20 662/21 664/22 664/24 669/4 671/23 673/2 676/20 676/22 689/2 689/21 692/1 692/16 696/18 744/1 746/15 746/21 776/1 776/1 776/2 776/18 I encourage [1] 742/1 I excluded [1] 586/23 I expect [1] 534/13 I expressed [1] 589/1 |
[Page 84]
II find [1] 649/18 I fully [1] 649/11 I get [2] 605/22 684/12 I go [1] 649/9 I graduated [1] 554/7 I had [7] 556/10 603/25 640/11 649/5 651/24 671/13 681/19 I have [112] 533/13 533/14 536/4 537/13 537/14 539/18 541/5 543/11 544/2 544/5 552/16 553/23 554/17 555/4 555/15 556/3 558/6 558/21 560/7 561/22 562/9 571/25 574/10 574/10 582/10 585/2 585/23 591/24 594/4 594/12 594/24 604/12 606/16 608/20 609/18 609/20 611/25 612/18 613/5 613/11 615/12 617/3 619/14 631/4 638/14 639/16 639/20 641/1 641/10 642/17 645/5 646/24 647/1 647/4 647/5 649/3 649/6 649/9 652/2 652/9 652/12 652/15 653/2 653/20 653/21 653/22 654/22 658/3 658/4 658/6 658/6 658/7 658/8 660/11 660/20 664/5 664/11 664/15 667/3 667/18 668/16 671/21 673/15 674/6 677/6 679/9 681/1 683/9 686/17 686/17 686/23 689/13 689/13 690/14 692/8 694/7 695/1 696/7 699/3 703/13 703/25 704/1 708/1 708/19 708/22 709/17 712/2 714/23 715/4 753/12 773/6 779/5 I haven't [6] 534/15 537/14 562/10 562/11 681/15 779/13 I heard [2] 562/6 695/14 I hesitate [1] 746/3 I hope [4] 533/4 533/4 696/24 758/5 I insist [1] 710/5 I just [11] 541/20 545/25 551/11 568/25 579/2 615/11 693/19 698/14 727/21 741/1 743/12 I know [20] 561/7 561/10 561/14 561/19 561/20 563/3 565/13 576/1 576/1 579/3 580/4 580/6 600/3 619/3 650/11 669/5 688/19 690/8 699/12 715/18 I leave [3] 678/15 687/14 688/15 I left [1] 555/7 I limit [1] 752/23 I listen [1] 680/23 I literally [1] 616/4 I look [3] 609/20 653/14 692/17 I looked [4] 565/15 575/9 643/5 694/24 I made [3] 586/12 629/19 671/1 I maintain [1] 695/1 I make [1] 616/3 I may [8] 543/10 556/16 582/18 601/8 607/13 629/5 744/9 773/17 I mean [1] 618/18 I mentioned [1] 550/25 I might [3] 713/18 714/5 735/24 I misinterpreting [1] 677/8 I need [3] 540/19 558/21 758/5 I note [3] 652/6 656/1 656/4 I now [6] 588/3 589/15 591/12 591/16 633/5 670/12 I object [1] 754/19 I only [2] 617/10 690/18 I pass [1] 732/25 I performed [2] 612/2 642/16 I personally [1] 773/20 I pointed [1] 651/23 I posed [1] 772/21 I prepared [1] 674/4 I presented [1] 648/7 I presume [1] 613/1 I produced [1] 674/22 I project [1] 679/22 I projected [1] 680/10 I put [1] 715/3 I rather [1] 621/2 I read [2] 556/2 689/21 I realise [1] 580/14 I really [4] 642/23 706/18 715/12 771/16 I recall [2] 581/8 660/5 I received [2] 604/3 650/14 I recognise [1] 612/16 |
I regret [1] 590/5 I relied [1] 678/4 I remember [1] 554/25 I repeat [1] 583/25 I respond [1] 694/17 I revert [1] 661/6 I right [2] 570/16 746/15 I said [8] 560/22 578/16 583/25 648/2 686/2 687/14 696/20 728/10 I sat [1] 702/12 I saw [1] 576/20 I say [5] 541/22 654/12 689/3 701/17 779/4 I see [4] 569/18 611/24 619/2 653/24 I selected [1] 652/4 I sell [1] 615/13 I share [1] 686/24 I should [1] 780/8 I shouldn't [1] 657/19 I show [1] 610/23 I simply [2] 566/19 605/1 I sit [1] 585/3 I solemnly [1] 585/7 I speak [2] 688/18 691/7 I started [1] 555/1 I stated [1] 752/19 I stick [1] 711/24 I still [1] 621/9 I stop [1] 632/11 I strongly [1] 594/25 I struggle [2] 654/2 654/15 I suppose [2] 698/1 706/11 I take [2] 569/1 743/6 I taught [1] 553/22 I thank [4] 780/11 780/12 780/15 781/1 I think [73] 539/19 541/18 552/19 561/1 565/10 571/11 573/15 579/5 582/12 584/16 585/11 588/19 593/5 595/9 595/10 597/5 601/23 614/17 615/10 615/17 618/19 618/22 631/22 632/13 634/25 637/22 638/1 645/9 652/19 654/16 659/4 670/10 675/5 675/13 681/6 685/10 687/1 687/20 688/6 688/13 688/18 688/19 689/23 692/11 692/15 693/1 693/2 696/8 698/19 699/6 702/24 704/13 705/5 707/20 712/2 712/23 713/11 713/19 713/21 714/23 714/24 715/23 719/16 739/12 742/14 758/21 776/3 776/21 777/3 777/8 778/10 778/23 779/17 I thought [1] 610/16 I took [1] 589/23 I tried [1] 639/23 I understand [27] 543/19 574/21 576/18 577/1 603/18 605/23 606/3 612/23 616/2 621/6 624/3 624/9 643/14 646/11 653/3 653/6 653/11 653/24 654/14 658/14 662/5 667/5 669/10 695/9 705/9 706/20 773/14 I understood [3] 536/9 566/16 671/10 I use [1] 700/21 I used [3] 651/23 653/9 655/24 I visited [1] 561/21 I walked [1] 766/20 I want [24] 534/1 542/24 544/20 549/9 552/11 581/21 593/24 601/14 609/23 610/22 631/2 633/18 634/11 642/11 645/25 646/23 651/14 675/19 699/11 705/9 715/22 729/9 735/16 738/13 I want to [1] 709/1 I wanted [3] 587/16 611/20 628/9 I was [28] 553/18 554/7 554/8 554/12 554/13 554/25 555/2 555/6 556/1 562/14 578/23 581/18 582/10 614/3 614/3 619/5 640/13 651/20 673/10 675/12 680/11 681/25 690/2 690/7 690/13 694/12 754/14 777/6 I wasn't [2] 652/1 673/14 I welcome [1] 639/4 I went [1] 578/25 I will [24] 535/3 545/7 546/15 556/15 610/19 639/24 640/6 640/19 642/8 643/9 646/20 664/13 665/24 680/19 686/15 687/17 696/19 709/8 721/25 722/1 722/13 738/6 753/8 754/6 I wish [6] 691/17 696/21 771/18 771/20 771/23 780/11 |
I wonder [3] 621/24 629/13 708/6 I worked [3] 542/19 554/9 604/13 I would [82] 538/16 543/3 543/8 543/9 543/18 544/18 545/22 546/6 548/15 548/17 548/22 551/13 553/13 557/17 557/19 564/12 570/2 575/12 579/12 582/23 586/2 586/11 588/10 590/11 592/4 592/20 596/3 597/13 598/11 601/4 605/22 606/4 606/12 607/8 607/10 608/4 612/8 615/14 617/6 622/12 627/15 630/21 631/24 632/2 632/18 635/2 637/17 640/12 647/16 673/5 679/12 682/9 685/8 685/8 691/8 697/16 699/1 701/7 701/10 702/6 708/15 710/11 712/12 713/9 714/11 718/25 719/7 722/3 722/16 724/3 725/9 726/9 732/24 737/3 741/6 746/21 749/18 765/22 773/10 773/12 773/25 779/13 I written [1] 555/10 I'm [2] 698/19 726/8 ICS [2] 575/4 722/7 ICSID [9] 528/5 529/17 703/25 704/9 704/21 704/25 749/13 768/11 778/11 idea [6] 555/22 574/11 582/10 665/6 721/4 768/13 idealism [1] 707/19 ideally [1] 774/1 identical [2] 568/4 624/22 identified [10] 580/12 605/14 612/22 613/23 623/7 642/18 726/13 733/8 746/16 750/16 identify [3] 590/12 590/13 763/23 identifying [1] 587/3 idle [3] 701/11 701/24 702/1 ie [3] 607/17 644/8 671/11 ignorance [1] 630/12 ignored [1] 736/23 ill [2] 771/18 771/18 ill-managed [1] 771/18 ill-set [1] 771/18 illegal [3] 726/19 |
[Page 85]
|
illegal... [2] 759/1 773/3 illiquidity [1] 657/13 imagination [1] 739/19 imagine [2] 704/20 734/13 immediately [2] 589/25 724/1 immense [1] 597/16 impact [13] 550/25 599/5 615/8 635/9 645/3 654/8 655/23 660/25 675/22 676/9 679/4 709/20 740/3 impacted [1] 629/2 impaired [3] 668/15 669/3 669/5 impeded [1] 726/6 imperfect [1] 755/22 implications [1] 760/7 implies [2] 599/6 603/3 implore [1] 741/1 imply [1] 573/22 importance [1] 593/6 important [14] 533/6 565/7 590/4 591/4 600/8 601/6 678/19 707/20 719/16 753/16 755/5 760/16 761/14 770/17 importantly [2] 738/21 739/23 imported [1] 723/23 impose [2] 638/13 779/20 imposed [1] 658/3 impressed [1] 674/25 impression [3] 556/3 768/5 768/7 impressions [1] 591/20 impressive [1] 553/1 impressively [1] 563/8 improved [1] 563/12 inaccurate [1] 667/19 inappropriate [1] 656/14 incentives [1] 704/10 inclination [2] 538/15 538/19 include [6] 550/17 560/19 583/20 584/5 584/12 610/5 included [6] 587/12 608/3 610/7 617/24 635/3 642/5 includes [2] 618/13 654/13 including [12] 569/12 570/9 581/20 620/22 634/8 681/2 728/2 743/22 773/2 774/6 774/25 776/8 income [14] 590/17 598/25 617/3 620/22 681/12 681/15 681/23 682/5 682/6 682/13 685/11 685/11 693/22 710/1 income-based [6] 681/12 681/23 682/5 682/13 685/11 710/1 inconsistency [1] 620/14 inconsistent [1] 622/19 incorporating [1] 590/2 incorrect [4] 662/1 665/23 666/6 666/13 incorrectly [1] 666/17 increase [2] 645/2 685/25 increased [2] 751/2 751/3 increases [2] 630/25 654/7 increasing [1] 557/7 incur [5] 599/18 599/25 648/12 650/11 701/10 incurred [5] 585/25 701/9 748/15 768/20 776/11 indeed [14] 538/17 590/4 632/10 633/22 678/21 682/25 685/18 697/13 756/6 757/19 759/4 759/23 765/18 767/6 independent [6] 546/3 585/24 694/12 697/17 699/2 715/15 independently [1] 642/7 indexed [1] 651/15 indicate [6] 587/18 608/8 669/1 714/21 723/16 739/6 indicated [5] 572/14 607/11 632/21 654/16 723/3 indicates [3] 576/6 586/5 597/18 indirect [10] 617/24 618/2 618/9 619/18 619/21 620/6 620/10 620/24 647/22 694/2 indisputably [1] 631/7 individual [5] 654/24 726/16 749/7 749/14 749/16 individualising [1] 764/7 |
individually [1] 726/20 induce [1] 603/12 industries [4] 598/2 623/20 712/21 712/24 industry [13] 537/1 594/17 625/3 655/5 671/20 672/1 674/14 712/17 712/20 713/2 713/7 713/20 740/21 ineptness [1] 718/21 infected [1] 553/7 inferred [1] 757/17 infinity [1] 627/2 inflate [1] 727/24 inflated [1] 650/19 inflating [1] 636/11 inflation [7] 552/2 552/7 552/8 552/14 650/17 651/15 709/22 inflow [2] 598/22 642/6 inflows [1] 646/10 influence [1] 623/17 information [50] 535/11 546/18 546/23 570/5 573/4 575/3 592/1 592/7 592/11 592/14 592/17 593/11 593/12 594/11 596/8 612/4 612/20 615/6 617/1 617/12 620/1 624/2 642/10 649/16 658/19 664/18 664/19 664/20 669/1 670/15 670/16 675/12 678/18 683/25 684/24 685/23 685/24 686/1 694/1 694/22 697/13 699/2 712/18 729/8 747/10 770/14 774/24 774/25 777/20 777/25 informative [1] 709/2 ingredient [1] 733/15 ingredients [1] 685/20 inherently [1] 709/19 initial [20] 586/6 586/13 604/13 604/14 605/11 605/13 633/4 633/13 633/15 634/8 640/22 645/1 683/20 703/20 704/6 705/25 710/25 741/11 742/8 742/12 initiate [1] 768/2 initiative [1] 706/13 injunction [7] 725/19 727/17 766/2 766/4 766/5 766/8 766/24 injunctions [8] 724/17 724/20 724/22 727/11 727/15 765/23 765/25 767/14 injury [1] 592/9 |
Inn [1] 529/5 input [11] 592/23 593/6 596/1 600/21 604/2 620/21 642/13 665/2 676/18 695/25 740/20 inputs [7] 553/10 594/2 594/25 602/7 635/9 673/2 679/14 inserted [1] 559/12 insertion [1] 589/20 insignificant [1] 654/6 insist [2] 710/5 770/10 insists [1] 768/25 insofar [4] 586/8 587/19 594/22 717/23 insolvency [1] 683/16 insolvent [1] 744/2 inspect [3] 613/3 641/4 641/6 inspected [3] 607/17 612/25 613/17 instance [6] 566/13 568/13 572/19 592/15 678/24 762/1 instances [1] 767/5 instead [3] 702/17 767/22 768/2 instinct [1] 717/4 institute [5] 559/16 559/17 566/9 567/18 569/6 institution [1] 649/22 instruct [3] 692/23 728/7 730/9 instruction [1] 730/4 instructions [1] 728/15 insufficient [3] 686/25 693/14 734/24 insufficiently [1] 755/13 integrate [1] 565/18 integrated [2] 562/17 562/20 integrity [1] 541/14 intellectually [1] 699/19 intelligence [1] 680/20 intend [1] 689/3 intended [2] 560/19 704/9 intending [1] 699/8 intent [1] 723/5 interaction [1] 680/12 interest [21] 543/11 563/6 590/23 591/1 591/6 591/15 612/15 640/17 651/10 651/11 654/20 656/12 656/13 657/13 701/25 709/22 741/20 742/20 742/20 748/19 751/25 interested [4] 563/6 571/12 750/1 768/14 interesting [4] 716/8 720/19 723/18 724/13 interestingly [1] 723/20 interests [1] 538/7 interfered [1] 700/7 interim [1] 767/12 international [5] 528/2 709/5 728/2 780/17 780/21 internationally [1] 752/17 internet [1] 757/6 interpretation [1] 763/18 interpreters [2] 529/23 780/12 interrupt [1] 556/1 interval [1] 584/10 intervening [1] 690/14 intervention [1] 740/7 introduce [2] 535/22 560/20 introduced [10] 538/24 539/23 557/22 558/9 560/23 563/23 564/18 709/3 744/22 746/23 introducing [1] 537/7 introduction [1] 564/16 introductory [1] 585/12 invalid [1] 761/25 invalidating [1] 736/3 invasion [1] 698/16 inventories [2] 590/1 628/23 inventory [5] 600/14 600/18 600/19 600/22 600/23 invest [2] 555/23 704/11 invested [6] 611/18 627/25 656/25 693/6 693/16 702/19 investigate [1] 729/4 investigated [2] 587/5 609/18 investing [3] 649/19 656/16 706/5 investment [61] 528/3 558/12 558/15 586/1 586/6 586/19 588/9 605/11 607/10 612/10 614/22 615/2 615/8 616/5 631/8 633/16 640/22 641/17 641/25 645/1 645/22 656/24 683/14 684/19 688/8 688/10 688/22 694/11 697/4 697/22 701/11 |
[Page 86]
|
investment... [30] 702/1 704/6 705/16 705/20 705/24 706/1 706/8 707/6 707/10 707/13 707/21 711/1 733/14 735/9 735/21 737/19 738/5 738/23 740/3 740/4 741/22 742/8 742/18 743/20 744/3 768/2 768/11 768/13 771/18 772/3 investments [10] 563/9 563/10 572/24 572/25 587/8 640/24 703/21 705/17 707/11 743/22 investor [16] 591/7 591/8 625/2 629/22 630/1 631/1 698/2 698/3 698/6 704/4 704/6 706/13 706/24 714/25 749/12 749/16 investors [2] 698/7 755/25 invests [3] 705/20 705/24 706/3 invite [2] 637/18 699/15 invited [1] 612/12 invites [1] 637/23 inviting [1] 707/3 invoiced [1] 731/22 invoices [2] 587/23 776/9 invoked [1] 762/4 involved [5] 650/6 722/25 727/18 728/11 758/24 IONESCU [1] 529/24 Iraq [1] 698/16 irregularities [1] 724/8 irrespective [1] 762/3 irrigated [1] 548/1 isn't [5] 595/6 624/16 646/19 676/8 695/1 issue [53] 533/12 534/6 535/4 535/8 538/10 577/25 579/16 582/1 582/5 589/16 601/2 608/12 615/11 636/4 636/17 639/15 641/7 641/10 645/17 654/21 661/7 662/13 670/13 714/18 714/19 722/2 725/10 727/12 737/22 740/21 744/15 744/15 744/17 744/18 746/4 746/24 747/5 748/8 749/11 752/11 756/9 757/18 760/16 760/20 761/14 762/10 763/6 765/22 767/21 772/3 772/4 775/3 775/9 issued [4] 723/24 724/7 765/5 767/16 issues [30] 535/3 536/1 540/25 553/12 579/16 600/5 601/2 602/3 602/4 616/23 620/19 625/15 654/22 654/24 679/8 696/16 702/14 716/22 721/25 725/7 726/10 738/12 749/4 750/21 751/1 752/20 752/24 758/12 767/8 779/12 issuing [1] 726/18 it [584] it true [1] 595/6 items [1] 698/12 its [32] 534/24 539/21 543/22 599/20 599/25 642/20 647/8 654/17 656/4 656/5 660/6 669/13 675/22 676/9 679/5 702/13 703/23 725/4 726/3 727/14 735/14 737/24 737/25 738/14 739/8 739/16 747/18 748/16 764/14 765/14 766/21 779/22 itself [11] 617/14 642/9 657/20 679/24 707/22 713/11 739/1 740/6 746/1 749/17 778/13 Ivanes [3] 723/10 728/16 728/17 JJanuary [8] 592/16 607/1 607/2 633/9 736/10 775/14 778/5 778/7 January 2017 [1] 633/9 January 31 [1] 778/7 join [1] 680/16 joint [1] 546/2 joke [2] 710/13 775/15 judging [1] 573/20 judgment [5] 590/25 591/15 636/17 734/7 742/20 judgments [1] 736/3 July [3] 612/15 646/13 756/15 July 2011 [1] 756/15 June [2] 646/13 668/3 June/July [1] 646/13 jurisdictions [1] 755/25 just [129] 533/11 534/9 535/11 535/12 537/2 537/10 538/7 539/6 539/7 539/9 539/15 539/18 540/13 541/14 541/20 543/3 545/22 545/25 547/19 548/9 548/18 548/19 551/11 553/15 556/19 556/21 556/22 559/3 560/23 561/8 563/8 567/21 568/25 570/7 571/11 571/25 574/2 576/13 576/19 577/8 579/2 579/3 579/4 580/3 580/3 582/18 584/3 585/22 590/8 590/12 592/22 597/14 600/12 602/11 603/22 606/10 606/17 608/7 610/6 610/17 610/18 613/15 614/18 615/11 619/15 620/19 621/22 626/21 627/24 630/12 630/24 631/24 634/10 635/12 641/4 646/4 657/16 659/5 659/7 662/17 670/3 670/8 674/14 676/3 677/7 679/20 686/9 693/19 698/14 698/17 698/18 699/18 700/15 702/21 703/18 705/21 709/10 710/21 714/20 715/18 719/4 719/11 721/16 723/19 726/14 727/19 727/20 727/21 728/9 737/9 737/13 737/17 741/1 742/25 743/12 744/10 752/21 753/9 754/19 754/20 759/1 762/16 775/15 775/20 776/4 776/9 776/25 779/19 780/4 justice [3] 707/4 755/15 768/6 justified [2] 586/25 588/7 Kkeep [4] 626/21 734/5 737/5 777/20 kept [1] 533/6 key [1] 623/13 kg [1] 560/11 kilograms [4] 557/23 557/24 558/1 694/3 kilometres [2] 710/14 711/20 kind [8] 586/18 624/17 682/4 682/9 684/19 705/19 708/19 745/21 kinds [2] 556/9 697/5 Kingdom [1] 529/6 KLINGST [1] 529/20 knew [1] 636/6 Knieper [11] 528/16 529/13 556/19 556/24 585/4 639/6 683/8 696/15 700/4 719/17 772/12 Knieper's [1] 635/6 know [91] 539/20 547/10 552/11 561/6 561/7 561/9 561/10 561/14 561/17 561/19 561/20 562/7 562/11 563/3 563/3 563/19 565/13 571/18 571/20 575/6 576/1 576/1 577/8 578/14 578/24 579/3 580/4 580/6 580/7 580/10 580/13 581/20 581/22 582/9 582/14 587/16 600/3 605/1 609/25 610/22 611/1 615/16 619/3 624/12 629/22 635/22 638/6 644/13 644/16 650/11 652/11 660/23 664/20 664/24 669/4 669/5 670/2 670/3 670/23 671/22 671/24 673/22 673/24 675/10 680/7 681/4 688/19 690/8 690/9 699/12 711/15 714/2 715/18 718/18 721/3 725/17 727/8 727/11 727/14 728/24 729/3 735/11 739/21 751/8 756/14 759/20 759/22 768/14 774/8 776/12 778/12 knowing [2] 576/7 673/23 knowledge [10] 544/3 544/5 614/1 614/10 614/11 664/16 681/8 755/18 757/5 764/9 knowledgeable [6] 592/2 592/8 603/5 612/5 625/3 696/13 known [6] 589/19 592/2 592/7 612/4 651/9 696/6 knows [6] 559/1 610/22 684/4 684/5 706/4 780/25 KOPECKY [14] 531/3 535/3 536/4 536/6 604/10 632/12 632/20 639/11 661/17 679/18 699/12 715/9 772/20 775/11 KOZAK [1] 531/17 KPMG [8] 531/17 531/17 586/3 596/4 596/7 600/11 628/16 696/6 KPMG's [1] 590/3 |
Ll.kopecky [1] 531/8 la [1] 529/14 labour [1] 705/17 lack [4] 562/3 642/15 713/16 726/5 lacked [1] 669/13 ladies [1] 752/9 Laguardia [107] 543/22 548/7 548/25 549/3 549/5 549/11 549/16 551/22 563/9 565/1 565/17 567/14 568/4 572/23 573/5 573/7 574/8 575/4 576/4 583/2 587/6 588/2 588/17 598/7 599/12 607/19 607/21 609/7 610/10 610/13 610/14 611/2 611/3 611/18 611/18 612/9 612/10 612/14 621/4 621/15 625/19 625/20 628/13 633/25 649/14 658/10 658/16 661/18 661/23 662/7 662/10 662/17 662/20 665/7 665/10 669/13 670/16 670/17 673/25 674/1 674/3 674/7 674/9 677/4 677/23 681/8 681/17 681/20 685/6 686/9 686/13 693/21 722/7 723/8 724/20 725/4 725/8 725/16 725/17 725/22 726/3 727/2 727/13 729/25 730/1 730/10 738/14 738/16 744/2 744/21 745/12 745/21 745/24 746/2 746/17 746/18 746/20 748/15 749/20 757/25 758/3 760/2 762/11 763/12 764/12 765/20 771/8 Laguardia's [19] 546/3 549/18 563/13 563/13 563/14 563/14 563/17 595/14 624/15 667/1 670/21 676/10 712/15 726/6 727/4 739/25 742/4 764/9 766/3 laid [1] 722/4 land [26] 549/23 554/3 554/4 554/23 555/3 555/4 556/14 556/23 556/24 557/9 557/9 557/19 560/9 560/11 563/20 569/9 569/14 576/16 578/25 644/24 645/24 668/13 681/10 714/14 739/13 770/19 landowner [1] 761/1 |
[Page 87]
|
landowners [8] lands [18] 546/12 language [1] 545/20 large [7] 570/11 large-sized [1] 571/24 largely [1] 661/16 larger [1] 771/2 LARS [9] 530/18 LARS WIECHEN [5] last [21] 533/5 534/2 late [4] 622/13 639/21 later [10] 564/2 law [18] 632/9 722/24 lawsuit [1] 734/11 lawsuits [1] 727/9 lawyer [3] 570/7 637/4 lawyers [9] 690/24 lay [1] 740/1 LEA [2] 529/20 780/12 lead [4] 549/13 596/2 lead-up [1] 689/16 leading [3] 542/15 leads [1] 601/21 lean [1] 717/1 |
learn [3] 570/10 595/3 learned [8] 662/8 learns [1] 704/3 learnt [4] 580/19 lease [32] 551/22 leased [5] 574/9 575/4 leases [34] 635/25 least [13] 573/11 leave [9] 580/9 642/8 leaving [1] 557/8 led [5] 600/22 709/24 left [8] 550/1 555/7 legal [25] 531/16 legality [1] 764/21 legally [1] 738/1 legislation [2] 555/17 lei [7] 569/21 569/22 LELIA [1] 529/25 length [1] 603/5 lengthy [1] 709/11 LEON [1] 531/3 less [16] 542/15 lessee [5] 757/25 lesser [1] 566/3 lessor [1] 764/7 lessors [1] 759/5 let [19] 535/3 538/15 let's [18] 573/24 level [14] 564/11 levels [2] 714/17 liabilities [2] 741/22 liability [1] 703/2 liberal [1] 579/10 life [3] 638/6 723/3 lifetime [2] 626/22 lift [1] 611/16 lifted [3] 727/15 light [2] 691/17 like [108] 535/22 |
592/20 596/3 597/13 likelihood [2] 738/22 likely [5] 536/17 limit [1] 752/23 limited [10] 561/15 limits [1] 637/21 LINDINGER [1] 531/4 line [11] 600/13 lined [1] 535/16 lines [2] 608/11 linked [1] 651/12 list [17] 529/1 530/1 listed [4] 593/18 listen [4] 538/25 listened [2] 689/13 lists [2] 580/13 581/5 literally [2] 616/4 literate [1] 755/13 literature [3] 547/12 little [16] 556/1 561/8 live [1] 682/10 lived [1] 739/1 living [2] 740/6 760/4 LLOYD [1] 529/22 local [36] 536/23 locally [2] 566/9 located [2] 566/7 location [6] 589/13 locations [3] 589/14 logic [1] 571/14 logical [1] 630/24 London [1] 529/6 long [16] 539/15 long-stop [1] 704/24 longer [9] 613/2 638/4 look [44] 543/3 543/18 looked [14] 535/7 |
[Page 88]
|
looked... [10] 575/9 looking [18] 582/25 loss [20] 557/5 566/1 loss-making [3] 599/3 losses [4] 565/24 lost [33] 588/7 614/22 lot [18] 545/21 546/17 lots [1] 578/9 love [1] 691/8 lovely [1] 688/25 low [4] 558/7 626/3 lower [8] 605/17 Ltd [1] 611/18 Ltd's [2] 610/15 611/3 LUCIA [1] 530/5 lunch [4] 637/11 luncheon [2] 659/13 lunchtime [2] 540/18 Mmachinery [12] 574/1 machines [12] 573/8 mad [1] 778/4 made [42] 544/2 548/1 main [4] 529/20 MAIN-KLINGST [1] maintain [1] 695/1 maintains [1] 700/10 maintenance [6] maize [1] 568/5 major [1] 780/7 make [43] 535/23 makes [5] 570/24 making [15] 584/18 man [4] 720/23 732/5 managed [2] 555/21 management [8] |
manager [1] 613/22 managing [1] 554/13 mandate [1] 610/1 manner [6] 668/23 many [27] 580/6 592/1 maps [1] 569/7 March [3] 589/13 margin [11] 588/19 marginally [1] 692/19 margins [7] 588/15 Marie [1] 529/10 Marius [4] 542/20 marked [1] 535/14 market [13] 602/24 MARTIN [1] 531/17 match [4] 604/18 material [3] 634/7 materially [1] 697/2 math [1] 626/5 mathematical [1] Matrix [1] 529/5 matrixlaw.co.uk [1] matter [16] 538/11 matters [5] 533/12 mature [2] 681/10 maturity [1] 682/19 maximise [1] 603/10 maximises [2] 603/13 maximum [1] 548/2 may [49] 533/9 538/9 maybe [15] 536/12 mayor [20] 726/18 mayor's [8] 731/23 mayoral [1] 726/15 mayors [23] 722/18 me [59] 541/22 546/7 |
695/21 696/12 698/23 me, [1] 736/8 me, May of [1] 736/8 me.com [1] 529/7 mean [8] 618/18 626/7 meaning [3] 607/21 meaningful [2] 733/6 means [23] 549/24 meant [2] 665/10 meantime [1] 638/24 measure [2] 702/17 measures [1] 558/20 mechanical [2] mechanicalised [1] mechanisation [1] mechanised [4] media [1] 562/10 median [1] 550/13 medication [1] 773/6 medium [3] 560/15 medium-sized [1] meeting [3] 536/23 member [1] 564/13 members [7] 607/15 memorial [2] 736/22 memorised [1] 537/15 memory [2] 736/8 mention [8] 618/9 mentioned [12] |
[Page 89]
|
mentioned... [6] mentioning [1] mentions [1] 611/14 merchandise [6] mere [1] 747/12 merely [3] 621/11 method [17] 590/18 methodical [1] 598/17 methodologies [1] methodology [13] methods [8] 622/14 metres [1] 549/24 MICHAEL [8] 531/17 MICHAEL PEER [5] Michael Peer's [1] middle [1] 668/2 midnight [2] 539/9 midsummer [1] midyear [1] 648/16 might [13] 581/17 MIHAIL [3] 530/17 MIHAIL RURAC [2] million [5] 590/21 mind [7] 601/4 670/13 minded [1] 777/15 minds [2] 582/5 mine [1] 682/5 mineral [2] 560/7 minimise [1] 630/2 minimum [10] 591/9 Minister [5] 536/22 minus [4] 550/1 minute [6] 540/7 minutes [10] 539/14 misinterpreting [1] missed [1] 765/7 missing [1] 619/12 mistake [2] 601/23 mistakes [1] 564/14 misunderstanding [2] mitigation [2] 742/5 mix [1] 585/13 model [5] 598/7 modelled [1] 648/11 models [3] 593/20 modern [5] 575/17 modest [2] 739/3 modification [1] modifications [1] modified [1] 719/15 modify [2] 652/1 MOLDOVA [72] |
623/23 629/24 634/13 Moldovan [31] 536/1 Moldovans [1] 757/8 moment [13] 538/4 Monday [4] 690/10 money [16] 555/12 monies [1] 697/25 monitoring [1] 554/13 monogram [1] 559/7 month [1] 646/4 monthly [2] 646/6 months [1] 748/1 Montréal [1] 529/11 moral [7] 749/8 749/9 morass [1] 747/13 more [51] 535/21 712/21 713/1 713/8 moreover [2] 739/3 morning [21] 533/3 most [17] 556/7 mother [1] 714/2 motivata [1] 763/16 motivation [1] 572/21 mouth [3] 608/18 move [8] 548/16 moved [1] 681/18 movement [3] 660/22 movements [1] 661/2 Moving [3] 650/9 Mr [394] Mr Astuno [8] 585/13 Mr Beril [9] 690/21 Mr Beril's [1] 759/6 Mr Chairman [3] Mr Fortier [11] 556/23 Mr Fortier's [1] Mr Gladei [11] 723/3 Mr Gladei's [2] 733/16 Mr Gleason [5] |
552/18 720/8 738/8 Mr Grot [134] 536/9 Mr Grot's [32] 564/18 Mr Gumovschi [16] |
[Page 90]
|
Mr Gumovschi... [7] Mr Kopecky [13] Mr Lars Wiechen [1] Mr Michael Peer [1] Mr Nagacevschi [1] Mr Peer [49] 536/14 Mr Peer's [24] 536/3 Mr President [10] Mr Rurac [9] 534/3 Mr Rusu [3] 728/12 Mr Tcaci [1] 634/1 Mr Ursu [1] 750/10 Mr Veaceslav [1] Mr Wiechen [31] Mr Wiechen's [2] Mr Zbigniew Grot [1] Mr Zelenenco [3] MS [14] 529/18 529/20 Ms Ivanes [1] 723/10 Ms Nitschke [2] 601/9 Ms Pernt [4] 541/2 much [52] 533/23 multinational [1] multiple [5] 569/11 multiplied [2] 600/20 multiplying [1] 600/19 must [7] 607/6 687/11 my [160] 534/23 |
604/22 606/14 607/25 myself [6] 551/6 NNagacevschi [1] name [3] 585/2 744/1 namely [7] 557/5 narrowly [2] 777/20 national [7] 594/6 naturally [1] 721/23 nature [7] 668/12 natured [1] 779/7 near [1] 748/9 nearby [1] 737/10 nearly [2] 570/17 necessarily [1] necessary [8] 571/13 need [56] 536/17 needed [6] 547/11 needing [1] 644/22 needs [6] 560/6 negative [13] 599/3 negativity [1] 654/7 neglect [1] 705/19 negotiate [1] 687/6 neighbour [1] 711/20 neither [2] 672/17 net [6] 588/15 600/6 neutral [1] 617/20 neutrally [1] 610/25 never [19] 552/11 nevertheless [4] new [26] 533/13 |
540/11 551/15 551/18 newly [3] 538/24 newly-established [1] newly-founded [1] next [15] 538/21 NICOARA [1] 530/17 night [4] 533/5 534/2 night's [1] 535/1 nil [3] 689/21 696/7 Nina [2] 728/16 Nina Ivanes [1] nitrogen [1] 557/23 NITSCHKE [4] 529/18 no [152] 528/5 534/4 |
[Page 91]
|
no... [60] 683/14 No 1 [2] 604/16 No 4 [1] 760/20 No 8 [1] 767/21 No.1 [1] 734/17 No.2 [1] 734/18 nobody [4] 691/2 nodding [1] 773/22 non [3] 682/19 762/3 non-compliant [1] non-maturity [1] non-opposability [1] none [8] 579/23 nonsensical [1] norm [1] 655/5 normal [5] 639/16 normally [7] 542/2 normative [3] 575/19 north [1] 681/18 not [470] notary [1] 760/14 notation [1] 618/25 note [12] 579/3 noted [5] 608/15 notes [4] 618/13 nothing [9] 612/8 notice [4] 567/15 noticed [2] 566/10 notices [8] 757/18 notification [6] notifications [6] notified [2] 734/12 notify [1] 545/7 notion [1] 660/2 Notwithstanding [1] nought [1] 688/8 November [6] 611/22 now [78] 538/5 542/12 number [29] 550/8 |
646/24 661/3 661/4 numbers [19] 551/9 nutrients [1] 563/20 Oo'clock [1] 719/21 object [3] 536/15 objection [2] 608/16 objective [3] 585/24 objectivity [1] 617/20 obligated [1] 764/3 obligation [2] 543/22 obligations [3] 728/2 obliged [1] 765/8 observations [1] obtain [8] 576/24 obtained [6] 566/9 obviously [12] 651/20 occasion [2] 735/24 occupied [1] 574/8 occurred [9] 663/25 occurring [1] 668/13 October [1] 646/18 off [7] 538/6 579/7 office [8] 731/23 officer [1] 735/22 official [7] 723/5 officials [5] 728/8 offset [3] 741/13 often [4] 689/9 753/24 okay [5] 541/21 old [2] 551/15 551/16 omission [2] 590/5 omissions [5] 721/10 omitting [1] 631/4 once [2] 740/12 one [123] 535/4 539/6 one-year [1] 657/11 ones [4] 558/11 |
ongoing [1] 626/21 only [75] 533/12 opaque [1] 744/9 open [7] 540/5 581/25 open-ended [1] 540/5 opened [1] 555/15 opening [12] 686/20 operate [7] 598/3 operated [1] 678/14 operates [1] 646/8 operating [21] 572/11 operation [7] 644/16 operations [21] 546/3 opine [2] 615/4 |
[Page 92]
|
opined [1] 764/18 opinion [11] 544/25 opinions [2] 544/5 opportunities [1] opportunity [18] opposability [1] 762/3 opposing [1] 533/16 optimal [2] 603/15 optimise [1] 603/8 optimum [1] 631/19 option [4] 735/5 options [6] 721/21 OQ [2] 528/15 529/9 Or is [1] 535/18 oral [1] 752/5 order [15] 539/6 Orders [1] 778/16 ordination [1] 728/25 organic [3] 560/4 organised [2] 714/12 original [16] 543/4 originally [1] 571/16 other [88] 535/2 539/2 others [3] 528/8 677/2 otherwise [9] 553/9 ought [10] 650/24 our [69] 534/5 538/8 ourselves [1] 602/15 out [46] 533/15 543/7 |
718/22 722/4 726/22 outcome [2] 654/6 outcomes [2] 712/19 outflow [3] 627/3 outflows [1] 646/10 outlined [1] 601/17 outset [2] 696/20 outstanding [4] over [30] 536/5 540/7 overall [2] 536/24 overestimation [1] overnight [1] 533/6 overrides [1] 543/21 overriding [2] 543/19 overstated [1] 643/8 own [20] 544/3 544/4 owned [9] 587/25 owner [12] 615/12 owners [1] 726/13 ownership [9] 607/25 owns [4] 608/22 613/9 Ppage [20] 545/24 page 103-104 [1] page 14 [1] 569/1 page 18 [2] 626/1 page 24 [1] 602/13 page 31 [2] 629/6 Page 34 [1] 633/9 page 5 [1] 607/15 page 8 [2] 604/14 pages [8] 528/1 paid [15] 586/6 587/19 pain [1] 704/19 paper [4] 602/10 papers [1] 691/16 paragraph [42] 543/9 paragraph 14 [1] paragraph 16 [1] paragraph 18 [4] paragraph 21 [2] paragraph 26 [1] paragraph 27 [5] paragraph 30 [2] paragraph 31 [3] |
548/16 548/23 770/23 paragraph 4 [1] 543/9 paragraph 43 [2] Paragraph 46 [1] paragraph 5 [1] paragraph 51 [1] paragraph 53 [1] paragraph 59 [1] paragraph 6 [1] 544/1 paragraph 604 [1] paragraph 61 [2] paragraph 62 [1] paragraph 7 [1] paragraph 8 [1] paragraphs [8] 543/8 parameters [1] 623/13 parcel [1] 681/16 parcels [1] 570/14 Pardon [1] 608/9 part [22] 544/18 546/9 parte [7] 724/17 participants [4] 529/1 participate [1] 614/1 particular [14] 534/6 particular issue [1] particularly [6] 590/13 parties [20] 530/11 |
[Page 93]
|
parties... [4] 774/8 parties' [1] 761/21 partners [1] 603/5 parts [8] 535/12 party [11] 587/19 pass [2] 533/15 passed [1] 778/8 past [12] 568/18 paste [2] 593/3 593/4 patches [1] 657/23 patience [1] 637/22 pattern [5] 648/3 Pause [3] 584/1 712/9 pay [6] 599/9 599/10 payables [1] 628/23 paying [2] 599/7 payment [3] 658/25 payments [3] 551/20 pays [1] 701/22 peasants [1] 583/21 peer [60] 531/17 Peer's [25] 536/2 Penguin [1] 780/10 people [18] 542/23 per [51] 536/14 per se [1] 536/14 perceive [1] 603/23 perceived [1] 698/3 perceives [1] 699/10 perceiving [1] 704/21 percent [4] 560/1 percentage [1] 558/5 percentages [1] 551/7 perfect [2] 624/2 perfectly [3] 621/3 perform [2] 620/24 performance [7] performed [9] 558/22 performing [4] 575/10 perhaps [30] 538/13 |
720/16 724/11 725/24 period [22] 563/21 periods [2] 568/21 permission [1] 604/25 permit [1] 765/1 permitted [1] 757/19 PERNT [5] 531/4 person [7] 625/4 personal [2] 614/1 personally [3] 716/12 persons [3] 613/19 perspective [7] 631/8 persuade [1] 716/20 persuaded [1] 711/19 persuasively [1] pertain [2] 612/18 pertained [2] 629/23 pertaining [4] 536/1 pertains [6] 587/14 pertinent [1] 766/9 pesticides [19] pests [1] 550/22 petrol [1] 572/11 phase [1] 538/21 PhDs [1] 552/24 Philippe [4] 528/17 Philippe Sands [2] philippesands [2] phosphate [1] 557/23 phosphorous [2] photograph [3] photographs [3] photos [1] 578/2 phrased [1] 664/19 physical [3] 608/1 physically [2] 613/12 physician [1] 750/19 phytosanitary [1] pick [1] 676/25 picked [1] 559/10 picture [5] 575/25 pictures [7] 577/10 piece [2] 698/14 pieces [3] 750/7 751/4 pin [1] 689/10 PIOTR [3] 528/8 place [14] 529/10 places [6] 596/4 Plains [1] 572/19 plan [30] 548/6 649/13 planned [3] 568/3 planning [1] 536/19 plant [8] 533/21 plantations [1] 574/16 planted [3] 537/18 |
planting [2] 723/19 plays [1] 755/5 pleaded [1] 753/7 pleading [1] 776/5 pleadings [4] 581/10 please [10] 595/12 pleasure [6] 753/3 plenty [1] 769/13 plot [2] 563/20 756/4 plots [5] 546/19 ploughs [3] 575/17 plus [8] 599/6 599/6 pm [9] 659/21 659/21 PO6 [1] 717/17 poignant [1] 739/11 point [87] 538/9 Point 9 [1] 768/18 point, [1] 737/2 point, December 2012 |
[Page 94]
|
P pointed [4] 543/7 points [8] 538/23 Poland [8] 588/13 police [7] 729/4 Polish [3] 624/17 polluted [1] 560/18 pollution [1] 560/16 poor [3] 556/8 556/25 poorly [1] 556/8 popping [1] 600/13 population [1] 755/9 portion [4] 610/13 posed [1] 772/21 position [13] 537/20 positive [2] 598/22 positively [1] 595/24 possession [1] 725/4 possibilities [1] possibility [6] 648/18 possible [11] 550/3 possibly [3] 646/18 post [9] 640/24 post-hearing [6] postage [1] 760/3 potatoes [1] 553/7 potential [12] 547/21 potentially [1] 706/5 poverty [1] 760/5 PowerPoint [2] |
618/19 721/16 powers [1] 764/22 practice [3] 557/6 practices [1] 714/19 practise [1] 554/15 practising [1] 756/1 practitioner [1] pre [7] 590/25 591/6 pre-award [4] 591/6 pre-judgment [3] precisely [2] 704/6 predict [2] 685/23 predictability [1] predicted [3] 595/20 predicting [2] 646/9 predominantly [2] prefer [1] 638/15 preference [5] 657/11 preferred [1] 697/16 prejudice [1] 718/5 prejudiced [2] 725/22 premise [4] 662/21 premised [1] 608/19 preparation [2] 638/5 prepare [5] 638/2 prepared [28] 553/25 prepares [1] 698/2 preparing [4] 613/1 prerogative [1] prescribed [1] 773/6 present [7] 530/11 presentation [26] 539/13 540/13 540/16 presentations [2] presented [6] 579/11 presenting [2] 649/23 presently [1] 582/2 preserve [5] 541/14 president [26] 528/17 President correctly President just [1] President of [4] President Zelenenco pressure [2] 640/9 presumably [6] presume [1] 613/1 presumes [1] 681/14 presupposes [1] pretend [1] 679/9 pretty [6] 536/18 previous [4] 601/17 previously [3] 600/8 price [5] 533/19 prices [11] 650/10 |
pricing [1] 714/7 primarily [2] 640/17 primary [3] 600/4 Prime [4] 536/22 Prime Minister [2] Prime Minister Prime Minister Vlad primitive [1] 753/23 principally [1] 729/21 principle [3] 576/15 principles [2] 594/9 print [1] 633/22 prior [6] 572/20 697/4 private [11] 723/1 privilege [2] 585/2 privileged [1] 781/2 probability [1] 636/8 probably [8] 555/10 probative [1] 759/7 problem [16] 534/4 problems [12] 553/12 Procedural [1] 778/16 Procedural Orders [1] procedure [2] 733/23 procedures [9] proceed [5] 606/9 proceeded [1] 652/13 proceeding [5] 720/14 proceedings [13] proceeds [2] 641/16 process [14] 617/2 processed [2] 563/24 processes [1] 554/14 processing [2] 549/22 procured [1] 714/15 produce [6] 555/21 produced [8] 571/17 producers [4] 536/23 product [2] 537/19 production [13] 537/7 productions [2] 547/9 productive [2] 547/20 productivity [8] products [9] 533/21 Prof [2] 761/21 765/11 professional [6] 544/7 Professor [33] 528/16 |
[Page 95]
|
P Professor Knieper [8] Professor Knieper's Professor Rusu [13] Professor Sands [2] Professor Sands' [1] profit [9] 588/15 profitability [18] profitable [9] 599/18 profits [5] 588/7 programmed [1] progress [1] 690/7 prohibited [1] 701/5 project [12] 542/9 projected [13] 596/18 projecting [2] 671/3 projection [6] 626/15 projections [7] 645/7 prominent [1] 758/10 promptly [1] 767/16 proof [5] 579/17 proper [3] 699/13 |
properly [5] 725/15 property [2] 682/16 proponent [1] 623/21 proposition [1] prosecutor [1] 728/25 prosecutors [1] prospective [1] 686/1 prospects [1] 698/5 prosperous [1] protectants [1] protection [7] 533/21 proud [1] 554/18 prove [3] 553/7 proved [1] 686/4 proven [1] 661/25 provide [17] 546/2 provided [31] 535/5 provides [4] 570/5 providing [2] 544/23 proving [1] 588/12 provision [2] 652/24 public [21] 579/6 publication [3] 569/15 publicity [1] 761/17 publicly [1] 623/10 publicly-listed [1] published [1] 780/10 pun [1] 689/3 punished [1] 720/4 punt [2] 706/6 706/24 purchase [1] 581/5 purchased [6] 573/5 pure [2] 589/24 purely [4] 625/10 purported [1] 643/7 purportedly [2] 608/6 purpose [8] 538/21 purposes [7] 569/25 pursuant [2] 540/16 push [2] 705/9 706/18 pushing [1] 707/16 put [48] 535/24 puts [1] 691/5 putting [5] 577/2 Q QC [2] 528/15 529/9 qualification [3] 545/7 qualify [1] 763/2 quality [8] 556/14 quantify [1] 648/23 quantum [9] 538/22 quarter [1] 659/15 Quebec [1] 529/11 |
question [77] 537/5 questioning [8] 607/5 questions [44] 532/4 quick [2] 640/1 743/12 quickly [3] 551/14 quit [1] 700/18 quite [12] 561/20 quoted [1] 569/8 R R-11 [3] 581/14 R-13 [2] 745/13 R-14 [1] 762/13 R-15 [1] 762/14 R-16 [1] 762/14 R-19 [1] 762/16 R-9 [4] 581/13 611/8 raise [2] 744/17 747/9 raised [8] 536/2 raises [1] 704/20 ran [1] 588/12 range [2] 567/14 ranged [1] 567/12 rape [2] 567/9 567/19 Rarely [1] 600/2 rate [18] 552/14 601/3 rates [4] 591/6 650/24 rather [17] 548/12 ratio [5] 596/12 629/8 rationale [2] 537/7 ratios [1] 655/6 re [16] 532/3 532/5 re-direct [4] 533/9 Re-examination [10] re-incur [1] 701/10 re-read [1] 752/11 reach [1] 563/22 reached [4] 561/1 reacted [1] 732/7 reaction [2] 534/21 read [23] 537/13 |
[Page 96]
|
R read... [10] 669/7 readdress [1] 722/11 reader [1] 600/14 readily [1] 629/24 reading [7] 585/5 ready [4] 577/6 720/7 real [8] 565/1 620/25 realise [1] 580/14 realistic [5] 721/21 reality [9] 563/17 really [36] 563/5 realm [1] 688/9 rearrange [1] 584/21 reason [14] 537/4 reasonability [2] reasonable [26] reasonably [6] 588/20 reasoned [1] 763/15 reasoning [2] 766/21 reasons [8] 586/16 |
622/16 624/4 628/16 rebel [1] 759/24 rebuttal [2] 579/8 recalculation [1] recall [11] 537/15 receivable [1] 600/16 receivables [1] 628/23 receive [2] 673/3 received [16] 573/6 receiving [2] 730/21 recent [1] 702/11 recently [4] 560/7 RECHTSANWÄLTE recognise [5] 612/16 recognised [2] 538/3 recollection [1] recommendation [2] recommendations [1] Recommended [1] reconfirmed [4] 637/2 reconstitute [2] record [64] 533/24 753/14 754/9 754/14 records [7] 587/18 recoup [1] 648/15 recouped [2] 642/3 recover [1] 645/1 recovered [1] 645/23 red [1] 535/16 red-lined [1] 535/16 rediscuss [1] 695/22 redone [1] 762/18 reduce [1] 683/23 reduction [1] 550/18 refer [12] 544/8 reference [11] 565/16 referenced [3] 587/9 references [2] 753/25 referred [3] 544/2 referring [9] 546/13 refers [1] 764/1 refinery [2] 689/6 reflect [10] 566/17 reflected [2] 565/11 reflecting [1] 704/2 reflection [2] 541/4 reflective [1] 698/5 reflects [1] 583/23 refreshing [1] 768/22 refusal [3] 763/11 refused [2] 727/11 regard [2] 580/22 regarding [13] 590/25 |
765/24 768/23 771/3 regardless [2] 764/15 regards [16] 565/23 region [2] 710/13 register [9] 580/24 registered [2] 724/1 registers [2] 587/5 registrar [2] 755/18 registration [18] registry [2] 623/24 regret [1] 590/5 regrettably [1] 767/22 regular [3] 583/18 rehabilitate [1] 644/24 reimburse [2] 706/7 reimbursed [1] reiterate [1] 716/13 Rejoinder [1] 773/11 relate [3] 537/21 related [9] 533/21 relates [1] 571/18 relating [3] 543/11 relation [8] 538/18 relationship [6] relatively [2] 640/18 released [2] 584/20 relevant [5] 546/8 reliability [8] 558/24 reliable [15] 592/23 reliance [6] 593/25 relied [12] 593/12 relief [2] 767/12 rely [6] 536/19 592/23 relying [3] 595/2 remain [4] 595/19 remainder [1] 731/21 remained [1] 702/15 remaining [1] 602/17 remains [5] 581/1 remark [1] 681/5 remarks [5] 532/20 remedied [1] 564/15 remedies [7] 721/22 remedy [4] 737/15 remember [4] 554/25 remind [3] 728/18 remodeled [1] 617/15 remotely [1] 531/10 renal [1] 755/17 renewal [3] 627/12 renewing [1] 636/8 rent [2] 551/20 552/7 rented [2] 557/19 repay [1] 655/9 repeat [4] 549/9 repeated [3] 563/8 repeatedly [1] 757/12 repeating [2] 694/9 |
[Page 97]
|
R repetition [1] 716/15 rephrase [2] 595/10 replace [3] 618/24 replaced [1] 701/20 replacement [2] replacing [1] 701/8 Reply [1] 736/22 report [171] 536/2 |
740/22 740/23 741/20 reporter [1] 754/7 reporters [4] 529/21 reports [15] 542/5 represent [3] 538/1 representative [2] representatives [1] represents [1] 590/13 REPUBLIC [10] request [9] 534/9 requested [9] 670/2 requesting [1] 775/9 requests [3] 577/24 require [1] 700/18 required [4] 641/11 requirement [2] 649/6 requirements [1] requires [3] 545/6 research [4] 547/22 researched [1] 566/4 reservation [2] 534/3 reserve [7] 538/16 reserved [1] 605/24 residual [2] 627/6 resolution [2] 733/6 resolved [4] 734/17 resolving [1] 733/3 resort [2] 622/6 respect [6] 537/17 respectfully [2] respective [7] 573/9 respectively [2] respond [4] 556/18 Respondent [43] Respondent's [10] Respondents' [1] response [1] 556/21 responsibility [1] responsible [4] responsive [4] 536/3 rest [7] 545/23 584/19 result [7] 553/14 resulted [1] 741/21 resulting [1] 590/20 results [8] 562/12 resume [1] 584/22 retire [1] 695/15 retrieved [1] 566/8 retrospect [1] 752/16 return [8] 657/7 693/6 returned [1] 749/2 rev [2] 535/10 777/1 |
rev C-95 [1] 777/1 revenue [22] 593/25 revenues [9] 595/24 revert [2] 661/6 review [9] 601/11 reviewed [4] 610/7 reviewing [2] 540/19 revise [2] 672/15 revised [10] 533/17 revision [2] 586/12 revisit [1] 538/19 revisited [1] 605/12 revocation [3] 592/18 revoked [1] 684/16 rewarded [1] 591/9 RH [2] 659/6 659/7 RH-2 [1] 659/7 RH-3 [1] 659/6 rich [1] 558/3 Richard [1] 779/18 right [59] 533/15 rights [9] 723/7 726/4 727/14 735/1 761/21 rise [1] 773/5 risk [11] 656/3 656/6 risk-free [2] 657/7 risked [1] 713/20 risks [1] 704/10 risky [6] 704/15 706/4 robbed [1] 742/15 ROGER [5] 530/16 Roger Gladei [3] Roger Gladei's [1] role [5] 727/21 727/24 roles [1] 727/6 Rolf [3] 528/16 529/13 rolf.knieper [1] Romania [1] 623/25 Romanian [7] 537/2 room [4] 534/4 584/22 Rosietici [5] 578/20 rough [3] 572/1 572/3 route [2] 767/23 775/6 row [1] 567/24 rule [1] 742/25 ruled [2] 766/7 766/18 rumour [1] 657/25 run [5] 589/24 625/5 running [4] 615/10 runs [1] 540/7 RURAC [17] 530/17 Ruse [1] 761/18 rush [1] 778/4 Russia [1] 598/1 Russian [2] 759/2 RUSU [36] 531/16 |
[Page 98]
|
R RUSU... [35] 723/2 République [1] S sadly [1] 767/22 Safe [1] 781/8 safer [1] 704/18 said [59] 540/6 540/19 sake [1] 734/13 sale [19] 580/5 580/13 sales [3] 587/23 same [20] 533/16 Same handed [3] sample [2] 613/10 sands [7] 528/17 |
529/4 585/2 639/4 Sands' [1] 639/25 sat [2] 702/12 708/1 satisfied [6] 589/2 satisfy [2] 690/5 satisfy our [1] 690/5 Saulieu [1] 529/15 save [4] 735/20 754/3 saved [1] 599/7 saw [14] 552/11 573/7 say [84] 535/4 536/20 saying [20] 539/22 says [20] 543/10 scared [1] 750/12 scenario [5] 565/2 SCHNEIDER [1] 531/5 schoenherr.eu [5] school [1] 554/11 Schottenring [1] SCHÖNHERR [3] science [7] 546/17 Sciences [1] 552/25 Sciences and [1] scientific [8] 546/16 scientifically [3] score [5] 558/22 scores [1] 558/25 screen [3] 585/20 Scretariat [1] 529/17 scroll [2] 611/13 se [1] 536/14 season [5] 723/19 seasons [1] 734/9 second [14] 616/23 secondly [8] 587/4 secret [1] 653/3 secretariat [1] 780/21 secretariats [1] secretary [2] 529/18 section [3] 554/9 section 32 [1] 773/11 section 7K [1] 736/22 sector [6] 623/11 sectors [1] 546/11 secure [1] 731/4 |
security [1] 706/21 see [41] 557/6 558/23 seeds [2] 553/8 seeing [1] 644/4 seek [4] 726/7 738/1 seem [2] 652/15 seemed [1] 643/8 seems [5] 572/5 667/8 seen [18] 539/19 sees [1] 775/19 segmentation [3] seized [2] 747/1 749/1 selected [2] 629/10 selection [1] 622/25 self [1] 779/15 sell [7] 580/3 581/4 selling [1] 581/3 sells [1] 572/20 Semanatoaea [1] send [1] 764/19 sense [10] 582/11 sensible [2] 556/21 sensitive [1] 734/4 sensitivity [1] 646/5 sent [6] 562/17 562/21 sentence [2] 618/2 separate [2] 698/12 separately [6] 590/16 590/18 654/11 654/15 separates [1] 665/12 September [3] 587/12 September 2010 [2] sequestrated [1] sequestration [1] series [2] 721/9 722/5 serious [5] 668/8 seriously [2] 669/2 seriousness [1] 681/5 servants [1] 755/13 serve [1] 576/20 serves [2] 736/8 service [1] 715/16 servicer [1] 665/7 services [1] 647/18 servicing [6] 663/1 set [11] 602/22 644/10 sets [2] 698/15 715/20 SETTLEMENT [1] seven [9] 616/23 several [9] 548/7 severe [1] 602/12 severity [1] 733/12 shall [2] 719/21 share [4] 610/15 shareholders [1] She [1] 759/14 sheet [1] 748/16 shield [1] 658/7 shifting [1] 639/23 shoes [1] 583/1 short [12] 584/24 short-lived [1] 739/1 shortly [1] 726/7 should [38] 543/5 |
[Page 99]
|
S should... [37] 591/8 shouldn't [2] 657/19 show [11] 547/11 showing [2] 576/13 shown [4] 542/5 shows [7] 540/11 Shrugged [1] 599/21 siblings [1] 555/2 side [5] 696/5 716/25 sidelines [1] 562/1 sides [4] 541/18 638/1 siege [1] 732/10 sign [2] 759/12 761/1 signal [1] 765/17 signature [3] 760/6 signed [8] 722/17 significant [11] significantly [5] silly [1] 775/15 SILVIA [1] 529/25 similar [3] 551/2 similarly [1] 628/14 simple [12] 559/23 simplicity [3] 586/16 |
simplified [2] 589/23 simply [17] 566/19 since [8] 538/10 657/8 sincere [1] 585/9 single [5] 538/13 singular [1] 696/9 sir [3] 574/5 574/20 sit [5] 585/3 659/18 site [5] 577/7 577/11 sites [1] 578/19 sits [2] 702/1 740/17 sitting [3] 701/11 situation [16] 567/22 situations [2] 704/3 six [2] 555/2 564/9 size [3] 570/9 697/22 sized [2] 571/24 sleep [3] 534/13 slept [1] 535/1 slide [25] 586/5 slides [1] 591/13 slight [1] 741/23 slighted [1] 719/14 slightly [6] 540/4 small [15] 547/9 smaller [4] 567/23 smoke [2] 689/4 so [178] 533/5 534/5 |
society [2] 753/19 soil [8] 557/6 557/11 soils [6] 557/11 sold [22] 580/6 580/7 sole [3] 545/8 629/23 Sole Arbitrator [1] solely [3] 627/20 solemnly [1] 585/7 solicited [1] 728/22 solution [2] 572/17 solve [2] 732/9 755/11 solved [1] 767/9 solving [1] 758/11 some [97] 533/9 somebody [4] 562/22 somehow [10] 598/21 someone [7] 739/21 something [27] sometimes [6] 564/15 somewhat [3] 653/17 somewhere [4] son [1] 737/14 soon [1] 766/5 sooner [1] 765/19 sophisticated [2] Soroca [9] 566/2 sorry [8] 533/5 555/25 sort [11] 553/1 571/23 sorts [1] 553/23 sought [2] 759/12 souls [1] 756/3 sound [1] 711/5 sounded [1] 637/5 source [13] 551/21 sources [7] 620/5 south [3] 647/11 southeastern [1] Soviet [1] 569/12 sowing [8] 554/15 |
[Page 100]
|
S sown [2] 553/11 668/5 soya [5] 567/9 567/16 space [1] 570/15 speak [5] 539/15 speaking [4] 662/16 speaks [2] 739/1 special [2] 683/16 specialised [2] 559/8 specialist [1] 637/5 specific [19] 593/1 specifically [7] 581/9 specifics [4] 591/19 speculate [4] 636/7 speculation [3] speculations [1] speculative [9] speedy [1] 538/8 spend [2] 545/19 spends [1] 673/18 spent [2] 704/1 750/4 spoke [1] 539/13 spot [1] 718/11 spread [1] 570/12 spring [1] 723/19 Springs [2] 750/20 sprinklers [1] 611/15 square [1] 549/24 SRL [9] 588/2 588/17 SRL's [1] 612/9 stamp [1] 760/6 stamped [1] 722/18 stand [9] 638/11 standard [13] 597/14 |
602/23 602/24 602/25 standards [2] 697/6 stands [1] 704/4 start [20] 533/11 started [8] 555/1 starting [3] 554/4 STASIUNAITE [1] state [36] 546/10 State Chancellery [10] stated [13] 589/12 statement [34] 537/23 statement/submissio statements [27] 663/9 663/13 665/5 states [3] 530/8 704/8 STATESCU [1] 529/25 statistics [5] 569/7 stay [3] 534/11 636/10 staying [2] 541/17 Stefan [5] 686/10 Stefan Voda [5] step [2] 555/15 631/1 stepped [1] 690/14 Steppes [1] 557/18 steps [1] 602/21 stick [2] 655/11 still [22] 581/25 582/3 stock [2] 593/18 stock-listed [1] stolen [1] 749/2 stood [1] 726/25 stop [3] 632/11 stored [1] 580/9 story [3] 629/19 753/8 straight [2] 571/15 straightaway [2] straightforward [2] strange [8] 556/14 strategy [2] 691/1 street [3] 530/7 stretch [1] 637/22 stretched [1] 767/23 strike [1] 696/12 |
strive [1] 603/8 strong [1] 765/17 strongly [2] 579/12 structure [16] 560/5 structures [1] 684/8 struggle [2] 654/2 students [1] 554/14 studies [1] 566/4 study [3] 559/7 559/8 stuff [1] 698/15 stupid [1] 680/7 style [2] 720/16 780/3 subject [8] 538/18 subjective [1] 632/2 submission [12] submissions [9] submit [5] 537/25 submitted [9] 535/9 subsequent [2] subsequently [4] subsidiaries [1] substance [1] 771/4 substantial [2] 620/22 substantiates [1] substantiation [1] subtle [1] 779/11 success [4] 704/17 successful [8] 554/24 successfully [1] succinct [1] 640/1 such [19] 549/24 suddenly [1] 599/18 suffered [1] 705/9 sufficed [1] 764/25 sufficient [8] 540/22 sufficiently [6] 642/10 sugar [3] 536/12 suggest [1] 672/7 suggested [2] 694/4 suggestion [4] 638/14 suggestions [1] suggests [1] 657/17 Suite [2] 529/10 530/7 sum [6] 590/19 657/2 summarise [5] 591/20 summarised [1] summary [1] 748/10 summer [1] 668/3 summing [1] 590/20 sums [1] 776/18 Sunday [2] 681/2 sunflower [7] 567/9 superior [1] 730/4 superseded [1] supplemental [1] supplementary [1] supply [2] 547/25 support [6] 537/3 supported [3] 667/8 supportive [1] 769/13 suppose [2] 698/1 supposed [2] 653/16 |
[Page 101]
supposed... [1] 658/3
supposition [4] 752/13 759/7 772/5 780/25
sure [20] 535/23 536/23 542/3 542/16 545/18 545/21 609/1 629/22 650/9 653/12 678/13 685/22 698/9 708/23 713/23 724/11 744/19 746/13 747/4 760/2
surface [1] 556/8
surfaces [1] 549/23
surprised [2] 556/1 653/17
surrounding [2] 734/25 757/20
survey [1] 657/21
suspensive [1] 765/20
system [5] 704/9 704/21 715/17 737/16 767/5
systems [1] 780/5
table [30] 533/18 533/21 551/13 551/16 551/18 551/19 551/20 567/7 569/1 569/2 573/18 582/22 582/24 583/9 600/10 600/12 604/16 604/16 604/16 604/21 607/8 625/25 626/2 629/5 663/10 741/19 770/4 770/11 770/12 770/14
tables [2] 567/4 567/5
tabulated [1] 741/18
tail [1] 689/10
tailored [1] 714/18
take [49] 536/17 538/5 538/8 543/5 555/16 567/3 568/17 568/22 569/1 579/18 579/19 591/5 592/6 615/1 617/6 617/14 618/9 628/13 629/5 630/22 639/25 643/20 655/17 664/13 679/1 681/16 704/7 704/10 705/11 706/9 719/5 721/25 728/23 733/22 742/13 743/6 748/17 750/13 750/18 757/3 762/22 767/23 770/18 771/16 774/13 779/16
taken [23] 538/14 577/10 578/4 582/12 611/25 614/21 615/7 617/8 649/3 655/25 656/7 700/21 706/6 706/14 707/25 716/10 733/19 738/23 742/7 743/21 748/13 770/12 776/13
takes [8] 549/22 572/3 701/12 706/24 717/2 734/5 742/21 772/2
taking [12] 538/8 572/1 572/1 582/22 612/3 637/7 664/18 664/23 706/21 725/6 758/8 767/22
taking that [1] 767/22
talk [20] 541/13 545/21 546/6 563/12 563/15 565/14 617/20 659/13 659/14 680/23 721/14 721/21 724/3 726/9 727/19 732/11 735/10 742/10 750/2 750/14
talked [7] 534/16 581/9 647/9 722/18 722/21 726/24 731/7
talking [13] 545/19 552/9 566/15 591/5 603/4 635/1 666/8 666/10 676/4 680/5 688/21 688/21 710/24
talks [1] 604/16
tariffs [2] 569/3 572/13
task [1] 697/2
tasks [1] 683/23
taught [1] 553/22
tax [4] 598/25 658/3 658/7 658/24
taxation [1] 581/6
taxes [5] 599/4 599/7 599/8 599/9 599/10
Tcaci [1] 634/1
team [11] 534/5 542/13 554/11 587/2 593/9 607/15 613/18 613/21 613/22 613/23 616/22
teams [1] 613/21
tear [1] 654/13
tears [1] 737/13
technical [5] 573/10 600/3 604/13 755/18 755/18
technological [6] 569/12 572/16 573/20 575/11 578/14 713/7
technologically [2] 678/25 679/5
technologies [4] 564/8 569/11 572/15 575/1
technology [18] 558/17 558/18 560/25 564/22 569/7 569/13 570/22 572/18 573/11 573/21 575/5 576/5 576/6 578/13 653/6 653/6 653/16 713/17
technology-based [1] 653/16
ted.gleason [1] 530/9
television [1] 562/10
tell [18] 564/12 569/4 572/7 606/12 616/13 616/18 689/18 703/15 703/21 710/10 711/10 730/16 730/17 744/19 745/3 746/3 753/8 780/16
telling [3] 703/13 707/22 754/20
tells [2] 642/21 711/13
template [1] 759/21
temporary [2] 766/4 766/5
ten [9] 606/13 616/4 629/13 639/17 640/12 656/25 685/6 731/16 753/12
ten per cent [1] 731/16
tendering [1] 537/4
term [8] 653/9 664/22 665/17 665/18 665/19 666/9 666/13 666/13
terminate [2] 627/5 723/7
terminated [1] 759/17
termination [10] 722/17 722/22 723/4 723/15 726/19 757/18 757/20 758/2 763/8 763/10
terminations [2] 723/24 759/19
terminology [3] 666/2 676/4 713/21
terms [19] 574/25 575/8 608/22 641/8 645/6 666/16 671/6 671/14 673/2 687/10 704/23 736/12 740/24 741/2 743/1 750/7 751/19 779/12 780/20
terrific [4] 780/6 780/18 780/19 780/20
terrified [2] 737/6 737/7
Territorial [3] 764/20 765/5 765/13
test [3] 547/13 644/2 671/9
testified [7] 592/22 691/18 753/18 755/14 756/25 759/23 770/22
testifies [1] 756/11
testifying [1] 609/23
testimony [11] 580/11 643/14 648/22 671/10 722/9 732/5 739/10 739/12 760/23 761/4 769/20
testing [3] 546/11 567/10 699/19
text [3] 629/19 776/25 777/2
textbook [1] 628/22
than [58] 545/23 546/12 546/19 547/14 547/17 548/10 548/12 549/19 558/11 567/23 570/18 593/22 595/2 600/15 603/11 613/19 617/21 623/9 625/5 626/5 629/25 630/23 643/22 644/8 653/4 655/23 656/18 657/23 667/7 667/10 673/20 673/21 680/11 688/5 691/9 691/15 695/1 695/3 696/22 699/9 699/17 706/4 712/20 713/5 717/1 719/5 721/2 725/3 731/2 731/5 741/3 741/4 746/12 754/2 762/15 770/14 771/2 780/19
thank [87] 533/23 535/17 540/24 541/4 541/5 541/6 541/15 541/19 551/17 552/17 552/18 552/21 561/5 565/6 568/24 579/20 584/15 585/10 585/15 585/17 586/22 587/13 589/15 591/12 596/3 598/24 601/25 602/14 602/16 603/18 604/7 604/9 604/11 605/19 614/17 618/7 620/18 624/9 625/13 632/11 632/12 632/17 633/2 635/5 635/19 639/14 659/3 659/20 679/17 680/3 680/14 687/19 693/17 693/19 696/22 712/1 712/7 715/7 715/8 715/11 715/22 718/16 720/10 720/14 738/7 738/8 738/10 743/4 743/8 748/19 752/2 752/3 752/5 772/8 772/9 773/20 775/11 775/21 776/1 778/25 780/11 780/12 780/12 780/15 781/1 781/8 781/12
thanks [3] 720/13 720/18 779/3
that [1336]
that in [1] 608/8
the financial [1] 741/18
their [44] 535/6 537/6 554/14 581/9 587/5 594/1 603/24 603/24 634/3 637/18 637/22 638/18 643/1 653/19 653/20 670/24 679/11 690/24 690/25 690/25 712/4 720/13 720/15 727/6 734/21 735/20 737/19 755/11 756/6 757/22 758/2 759/11 760/22 761/3 761/6 762/7 765/18 766/15 767/20 770/7 770/22 770/23 771/10 773/22
them [54] 539/15 549/20 553/13 554/17 557/1 559/12 562/12 562/17 562/25 567/25 576/1 576/15 578/5 580/5 593/12 593/20 600/21 604/3 608/14 609/17 609/25 610/7 613/4 615/15 621/21 623/25 626/4 641/6 642/25 643/2 653/18 665/24 675/12 675/14 676/2 676/21 677/12 678/3 701/23 712/5 729/8 749/16 751/9 754/14 754/15 754/17 754/24 755/2 763/24 765/21 778/9 779/23 781/1 781/4
themselves [5] 603/7 642/7 666/7 680/11 774/15
then [81] 533/9 538/19 540/11 550/17 553/19 556/9 557/22 558/18 560/6 564/1 564/8 564/10 564/23 565/14 566/17 566/24 574/18 594/7 599/4 599/18 629/2 630/3 631/11 631/11 631/16 632/14 634/17 636/21 638/16 638/17 641/16 646/15 647/22 650/17 650/18 658/22 659/17 661/12 662/15 665/24 666/13 666/17 667/12 676/13 676/21 677/24 681/18 681/23 685/3 685/7 688/3 688/4 690/14 693/25 700/3 701/7 709/16 710/18 717/25 718/14 719/24 722/1 723/15 723/25 727/5 730/1 730/15 731/6 733/22 740/22 740/23 741/25 742/10 745/11 745/12 754/13
[Page 102]
then... [5] 754/17 759/18 768/8 775/20 779/12
THEODORE [1] 530/3
theories [1] 691/9
theory [2] 614/21 703/19
There [279]
there's [1] 664/24
There's [2] 664/24 726/19
therefore [19] 536/13 543/21 544/5 641/13 643/21 644/2 652/17 656/23 657/1 672/9 672/11 673/24 683/11 683/16 753/6 754/6
thereof [1] 765/25
these [108] 538/25 541/14 541/16 542/21 544/12 544/13 544/17 551/24 551/25 552/12 556/25 558/6 559/9 559/10 560/9 560/20 562/14 564/2 564/5 566/7 566/8 566/11 566/23 567/4 567/5 568/9 569/10 573/23 574/24 576/20 577/12 577/13 577/14 577/15 582/24 596/6 596/13 596/23 599/2 599/21 605/14 605/15 607/20 608/5 608/7 608/19 618/25 622/23 623/7 623/23 624/1 624/1 631/23 633/6 634/13 634/14 635/1 636/11 636/24 637/2 640/9 641/1 641/11 641/20 641/21 642/3 642/14 651/1 655/14 666/14 667/17 669/8 676/23 676/25 677/11 677/18 680/8 680/10 682/16 685/18 688/3 698/12 708/2 708/18 708/21 710/18 711/1 722/1 722/24 724/25 725/5 725/7 725/18 726/1 726/13 726/13 726/14 726/14 726/15 727/6 727/16 731/10 731/11 735/11 746/13 747/5
these... [1] 750/14
they [272] 536/24 542/5 542/6 543/5 543/19 544/1 544/4 545/24 551/20 552/9 553/4 553/7 553/8 553/9 553/11 553/12 553/16 554/17 555/13 557/24 560/10 560/14 560/23 562/16 565/9 566/3 566/5 566/13 571/4 572/25 573/25 574/24 575/4 575/15 576/7 576/22 577/7 577/10 577/11 577/12 578/8 578/24 579/6 580/7 581/1 581/10 581/11 581/20 581/21 582/8 583/1 583/4 583/14 589/5 597/20 598/4 606/19 608/17 608/18 609/15 610/7 613/2 614/18 614/20 614/23 615/15 616/1 620/12 621/21 627/8 628/21 629/17 630/15 640/16 641/4 642/8 642/21 642/21 643/1 643/13 644/16 644/25 645/11 645/12 645/19 650/2 650/6 651/15 651/17 652/1 652/14 652/18 653/1 653/23 655/9 655/10 656/23 656/24 657/1 657/3 657/5 657/8 657/13 661/18 661/20 661/21 663/6 665/15 665/16 665/18 666/21 667/15 668/12 669/12 670/19 670/20 671/2 671/5 671/22 672/11 674/25 676/15 677/16 677/18 678/2 678/14 678/16 680/24 682/8 684/16 684/17 690/6 691/15 692/2 692/6 692/23 698/6 699/11 700/7 700/17 701/1 702/4 709/11 712/10 714/5 714/14 719/7 719/11 719/14 719/15 721/9 721/11 722/14 722/17 722/23 723/4 723/24 723/25 724/7 724/15 725/12 725/15 725/18 725/20 725/23 726/1 726/3 727/15 727/18 728/11 729/17 730/18 731/9 731/14 731/24 733/2 733/8 735/18 741/15 741/17 741/18 742/6 742/6 743/20 747/14 747/19 748/1 750/4 751/6 751/7 752/24 757/8 757/23 757/24 759/2 759/10 760/1 760/24 762/12 762/13 762/15 764/8 766/10 766/14 770/22 770/24 771/1 771/10 772/15 773/22 774/1 774/10 774/11 774/12 774/13 774/14 774/15 774/16 774/17 774/18 774/19 774/20 774/21 774/22 774/23 774/24 774/25 775/1 775/2 775/3 775/4 775/5 775/6 775/7 775/8 775/9 775/10 775/11 775/12 775/13 775/14 775/15 775/16 775/17 775/18 775/19 775/20 775/21 775/22 775/23 775/24 775/25 776/1 776/2 776/3 776/4 776/5 776/6 776/7 776/8 776/9 776/10 776/11 776/12 776/13 776/14 776/15 776/16 776/17 776/18 776/19 776/20 776/21 776/22 776/23 776/24 776/25 777/1 777/2 777/3 777/4 777/5 777/6 777/7 777/8 777/9 777/10 777/11 777/12 777/13 777/14 777/15 777/16 777/17 777/18 777/19 777/20 777/21 777/22 777/23 777/24 777/25 778/1 778/2 778/3 778/4 778/5 778/6 778/7 778/8 778/9 778/10 778/11 778/12 778/13 778/14 778/15 778/16 778/17 778/18 778/19 778/20 778/21 778/22 778/23 778/24 778/25 779/1 779/2 779/3 779/4 779/5 779/6 779/7 779/8 779/9 779/10 779/11 779/12 779/13 779/14 779/15 779/16 779/17 779/18 779/19 779/20 779/21 779/22 779/23 779/24 779/25 780/1 780/2 780/3 780/4 780/5 780/6 780/7 780/8 780/9 780/10 780/11 780/12 780/13 780/14 780/15 780/16 780/17 780/18 780/19 780/20 780/21 780/22 780/23 780/24 780/25 781/1 781/2 781/3 781/4 781/5 781/6 781/7 781/8 781/9 781/10 781/11 781/12 781/13 781/14 781/15 781/16 781/17 781/18 781/19 781/20 781/21 781/22 781/23 781/24 781/25
thickening [1] 756/4
thing [10] 540/4 576/7 609/8 609/12 609/21 610/22 615/2 615/22 621/22 623/13 623/22
things [14] 553/23 556/20 635/2 652/13 652/17 652/18 653/13 654/13 657/4 660/19 668/9 678/7 683/11 687/8 687/9 693/13 696/9 700/2 700/7 701/4 701/20 714/16 714/19 727/24 749/14 751/1 751/2 751/4 751/12 753/11 754/12 759/12 766/11 767/8 768/18 768/19 769/10
through [8] 550/23 579/14 595/6 622/24 645/10 688/18 751/7 765/10
thoughts [1] 691/2
thousand [2] 713/15 773/5
threatening [3] 727/3 736/20 737/3
threats [1] 773/5
three [36] 545/24 563/21 564/2 564/5 570/13 571/23 574/19 575/11 587/8 636/18 636/18 636/25 644/20 644/20 645/3 698/18 699/25 700/23 701/4 701/16 713/7 733/9 739/13 742/2 742/12 742/13 770/18 770/23 770/25
threshing [1] 573/8
third [11] 540/12 558/11 584/13 611/23 613/19 654/16 682/10 687/23 706/24 736/24 741/13 747/13
thoroughout [4] 630/6 645/8 648/20 671/17
those [4] 560/14 597/14 599/15 599/25
though [1] 560/4
thus [2] 536/2 723/23
tightly [1] 770/14
time [131] 533/12 534/19 535/1 535/9 540/4 540/22 541/3 546/15 548/1 555/19 555/18 568/21 571/1 600/18 601/1 601/20 604/4 606/14 610/17 613/4 615/14 617/6 626/18 627/1 628/18 628/20 632/2 632/22 632/23 637/10 638/22 641/19 645/7 650/3 650/13 650/17 656/4 656/21 657/7 664/21 668/2 669/13 672/23 674/23 679/18 680/22 690/13 690/14 691/1 696/20 701/2 701/16 701/20 702/4 704/11 712/20 715/13 717/20 720/3 720/11 720/15 726/19 730/19 734/14 736/1 738/19 739/4 741/2 741/2 741/3 754/5 755/12 758/1 758/23 759/25 761/1 765/21 768/21 769/20 777/21 778/18 778/25
timetables [1] 591/25
timing [5] 536/20 537/16 750/5 750/16 774/20
timings [1] 718/5
title [1] 533/1
titles [1] 533/1
today [19] 534/13 555/11 560/8 591/22 593/18 600/8 608/16 628/8 642/14 678/10 692/17 718/23 721/2 740/1 744/13 774/5
today's [3] 530/10 530/11 530/11
together [16] 546/2 555/2 618/20 620/14 621/2 621/4 621/14 652/14 659/18 680/10 684/2 692/24 696/21
[Page 103]
together... [3] 696/22 697/17 714/20
told [15] 536/22 542/21 565/14 573/25 574/24 611/22 625/16 627/20 663/25 686/16 665/19 703/8 756/14 759/15 766/2
tolerance [2] 541/16 720/19
tolerant [1] 720/16
tonight [1] 637/20
tons [9] 560/9 594/5 594/13 594/14 645/14 666/20 667/13 667/15 668/25
too [14] 589/23 590/1 619/14 619/15 650/12 667/18 700/21 702/15 702/23 703/9 707/1 716/12 719/10 744/4
took [15] 550/24 552/6 559/16 566/21 566/22 567/19 569/23 592/16 594/12 611/21 614/15 628/12 681/8 701/15 705/25
tool [1] 623/18
top [1] 574/18
total [3] 644/14 745/4 745/15
totally [7] 537/6 570/11 571/5 574/9 574/22 629/9 707/19
touch [3] 707/12 716/17 779/8
touched [1] 748/14
tough [2] 743/13 750/4
tour [1] 714/25
tractors [2] 575/16 607/19
trade [2] 628/22 628/23
traded [1] 583/21
trading [1] 600/15
tradition [1] 651/17
traditional [3] 569/11 573/19 704/17
training [1] 554/11
transaction [2] 603/6 611/5
transactions [1] 743/25
transcript [2] 537/1 542/4
transfer [7] 587/23 603/6 661/18 662/2 662/7 662/13 679/19
transferred [5] 569/22 588/1 744/25 745/24 746/16
transfers [4] 660/22 660/24 660/25 661/5
transitional [1] 652/20
translated [1] 536/21
translation [3] 535/5 536/5 536/11
translations [2] 535/18 539/22
transparent [2] 560/1 562/3
transparency [1] 534/24
transport [3] 534/2 534/7 571/4
transported [1] 534/18
travel [1] 753/17
travels [1] 757/12
treasury [2] 657/10 657/11
treated [2] 778/14 778/15
tremendous [4] 688/2 688/11 728/2 743/10
tribunal [80] 528/14 529/2 529/18 529/19 533/4 533/10 533/16 533/24 538/6 540/1 541/19 543/20 553/19 554/2 554/22 571/15 571/11 579/13 585/3 591/1 601/6 601/17 605/5 620/25 631/25 632/14 632/20 633/9 634/18 656/20 663/8 670/10 670/18 702/12 702/15 702/18 702/21 703/8 707/11 707/12 710/2 711/5 715/17 717/18 718/2 718/20 719/18 720/15 724/12 726/11 728/7 729/10 731/7 732/8 732/11 738/11 738/18 741/1 742/1 742/11 742/12 749/5 752/8 752/11 752/20 754/23 760/15 771/25 772/2 773/24 774/25 775/3 775/8 775/18 775/25 778/12 779/1
Tribunal's [7] 581/21 651/20 755/1 774/21 775/2 775/5 775/9
tried [3] 639/23 735/13 765/20
triggers [1] 765/8
triggered [1] 545/11
trouble [2] 546/12 776/20
truck [1] 611/16
truck-lift [1] 611/16
true [14] 544/25 546/3 546/5 547/20 551/3 565/5 583/12 595/6 628/8 662/8 662/8 662/24 674/8 713/3
truly [7] 702/22 705/4 713/13 740/11 742/15 753/16 769/18
trust [2] 739/21 756/8
truth [1] 658/3
try [11] 536/25 540/2 540/7 649/2 680/19 680/24 681/5 695/22 710/11 736/22 753/10
trying [16] 553/15 571/18 576/9 640/16 642/10 647/5 648/20 648/22 649/25 690/9 691/11 704/9 706/16 744/10 747/11 754/18
turn [18] 536/4 540/18 546/7 548/11 551/11 588/5 589/16 598/11 601/8 631/11 661/13 664/20 723/14 749/14 751/4 751/20 760/15 770/7
turned [2] 739/13 765/18
turning [1] 731/10
two [55] 540/7 555/6 563/21 564/5 564/6 564/8 566/17 568/23 568/23 572/22 573/24 574/18 574/22 580/18 582/17 586/1 593/10 597/15 598/6 601/1 612/14 615/24 634/6 634/10 640/20 641/1 643/20 645/2 646/1 647/18 650/7 674/4 680/15 680/20 683/8 687/18 690/2 690/13 696/10 696/12 696/21 699/18 701/12 710/25 715/11 724/15 734/1 734/9 740/14 741/10 748/18 750/17 757/7 765/23 775/10
two that [1] 540/7
type [4] 575/10 577/7 577/8 698/16
types [4] 571/24 577/11 580/1 764/18
typical [1] 736/14
UK [1] 704/7
Ukraine [1] 597/25
ultimate [1] 656/24
ultimately [6] 579/6 724/22 730/11 735/9 740/25 749/2
unable [2] 673/10 673/11
unacceptable [1] 726/15
unacceptable [2] 702/13 702/14
unanimous [1] 702/16
uncertain [1] 702/13
uncertainties [1] 701/1
uncertainty [11] 536/12 538/2 582/19 683/9 683/24 685/4 685/10 686/12 686/25 726/15 748/24
unclear [3] 614/14 769/16 769/20
uncontested [1] 751/13
uncontradicted [2] 751/9 751/10
under [32] 536/16 546/24 562/23 564/25 579/19 581/15 594/11 597/23 612/8 640/8 662/8 662/13 674/22 675/3 682/18 702/12 721/12 723/12 732/10 732/10 736/18 738/11 743/1 743/1 760/6 760/12 763/19 764/4 765/11 766/23 767/14
under-evaluated [1] 646/1
undercover [1] 702/11
underground [2] 570/25 592/13
underlying [9] 536/25 537/5 537/11 538/13 538/25 651/18 659/1 771/7 771/5
underscore [2] 622/17 634/21
understand [56] 539/18 541/13 541/22 542/2 543/12 544/21 550/2 559/25 562/15 563/16 571/23 573/4 573/16 574/24 574/25 575/20 577/21 605/23 606/3 612/23 615/17 616/2 621/6 624/1 626/2 629/11 630/13 643/14 646/11 652/11 652/14 653/3 653/4 653/11 653/24 654/14 655/1 662/1 662/21 667/5 670/6 674/24 683/9 695/10 699/17 705/14 709/2 724/24 738/15 741/1 747/11
understanding [7] 549/1 649/10 668/21 681/14 691/4 740/1 748/6
understands [1] 744/3
understate [1] 703/3
understatement [1] 685/10
understood [11] 536/2 562/1 562/16 562/19 576/10 679/17 685/2 710/13 682/6 689/2 710/13
undertaken [1] 625/15
undertaking [1] 625/15
undisputed [1] 565/24
undivent [1] 655/3
undisclosed [1] 655/3
unduly [1] 762/2
unexercisability [1] 762/2
unforeseen [1] 541/17
unfortunate [2] 540/20 540/12
unfortunately [8] 534/3 534/12 540/14 562/13 714/4 744/12 747/4 748/22
unfounded [1] 659/11
unique [3] 529/6 530/8 703/6
United States [1] 554/9
University [3] 552/23 554/11 555/5
unlawfully [1] 738/25
unless [1] 661/9
unlikely [1] 737/23
unlimited [1] 636/13
unpredictability [1] 712/22
unqualified [1] 722/20
unrealistically [1] 692/17
unreasonable [1] 579/24
unrelated [1] 579/24
unreliable [3] 634/24 702/13 702/14
unsolid [1] 581/1
unsuccessful [1] 769/1
unsuitable [1] 769/1
unthought [1] 739/14
[Page 104]
until [16] 560/8 592/8 603/13 612/5 631/16 635/23 661/8 664/15 681/2 681/3 690/15 702/1 725/18 730/20 736/10 770/21
until December 2010 [1] 730/20
unusual [7] 687/21 696/19 696/21 708/5 722/23 731/4 755/24
unworkable [1] 740/19
up [54] 559/10 560/9 561/1 567/19 569/19 572/16 580/13 580/14 582/16 582/18 582/24 586/15 590/20 600/13 604/21 611/9 618/23 620/16 626/4 633/6 634/10 638/11 645/9 657/16 661/17 676/2 682/1 682/1 684/9 688/15 689/3 689/16 692/24 694/10 695/15 698/25 700/1 700/22 700/23 704/19 705/18 716/3 716/4 720/1 720/2 728/20 735/25 740/15 754/22 756/13 768/16 770/18 771/18 776/16
updated [8] 535/6 590/9 616/3 628/7 639/20 652/17 666/18 692/8
updates [1] 591/14
upheld [1] 742/25
uphold [1] 728/2
upon [17] 534/9 538/16 541/4 585/7 586/3 594/1 594/22 595/7 617/4 627/21 636/5 642/19 647/2 658/3 678/4 681/13 770/7
urgency [2] 733/12 736/13
Ursu [1] 750/10
us [81] 533/7 539/9 547/13 548/1 563/1 569/4 572/7 572/23 573/3 573/25 575/3 578/14 582/8 585/18 618/8 619/16 620/2 623/15 625/16 658/16 658/17 658/23 659/1 672/22 684/6 684/9 685/5 688/16 689/15 689/18 689/22 690/8 691/5 691/13 691/19 691/22 692/23 695/15 695/24 696/22 701/6 702/20 703/15 705/3 707/2 707/5 707/7 707/22 710/6 710/18 710/25 711/10 711/13 711/14 711/15 715/21 716/11 716/21 716/23 719/17 720/14 738/13 739/9 739/11 740/8 740/14 740/18 747/6 748/3 749/9 750/6 751/25 754/20 758/7 760/4 769/23 772/14 773/16 779/10 781/7 781/7
US-based [2] 658/16 658/17
USA [1] 749/20
usable [2] 621/23 676/24
USD [22] 565/24 566/1 569/19 569/24 571/17 572/2 572/4 572/6 573/3 586/10 590/21 640/23 649/20 650/13 651/10 651/11 651/12 657/9 657/10 694/16 699/22 769/19
use [40] 546/8 548/24 549/7 549/12 549/17 550/23 555/18 564/22 569/11 572/16 576/7 596/22 603/15 622/19 623/18 625/8 627/11 628/2 630/13 635/24 638/4 643/2 645/24 648/9 648/16 649/25 664/22 666/25 676/21 679/10 685/22 686/17 700/21 702/2 702/4 703/15 705/14 707/2 709/25 767/19
used [61] 533/21 547/21 551/6 558/19 560/5 560/8 560/10 560/22 560/25 563/11 564/1 564/7 570/22 575/19 576/17 576/22 577/6 577/6 578/18 582/22 583/6 591/25 592/1 594/24 595/13 595/15 595/16 595/21 596/10 596/25 602/25 612/21 613/13 614/9 615/16 620/1 620/1 620/10 620/12 620/21 621/12 622/16 624/14 629/7 644/6 651/3 651/23 652/4 652/8 653/9 655/24 687/24 694/4 709/6 710/7 713/21 714/4 724/16 725/18 726/3 771/8
useful [12] 623/18 626/9 675/6 675/13 675/16 675/17 676/17 677/8 699/7 709/8 773/21 779/20
useless [1] 635/1
uses [9] 548/25 549/3 549/11 549/16 594/6 594/8 601/19 646/1 654/10
using [19] 540/14 566/8 582/25 593/17 596/1 600/18 612/20 617/3 621/21 621/25 622/4 649/16 651/7 651/9 651/11 652/16 696/9 701/5 720/4
usual [1] 704/18
usually [4] 600/16 603/11 613/20 626/25
utilised [1] 702/16
utmost [1] 593/5
v.pernt [1] 531/9
VALERIU [2] 530/14 728/20
valid [4] 635/25 636/18 723/7 761/23
validate [1] 761/25
validated [2] 633/4 740/15
validation [1] 647/8
validity [1] 761/22
validly [1] 731/14
valuable [2] 704/12 742/18
valuation [38] 586/8 589/10 589/11 592/2 592/8 592/9 592/24 594/10 594/16 597/6 597/8 601/15 602/22 603/1 612/19 612/21 612/22 615/8 617/2 623/12 627/1 631/3 631/15 632/5 635/7 663/25 664/3 664/10 674/3 682/25 687/4 687/5 689/9 703/19 712/23 717/23 741/4 747/15
valuations [4] 622/4 632/3 683/8 683/22
value [65] 582/1 586/1 586/2 597/6 602/23 602/23 602/25 602/25 603/2 603/3 603/10 603/14 608/6 614/20 615/19 627/7 630/6 630/25 631/6 631/6 631/7 631/8 636/11 636/15 641/17 641/19 642/3 648/20 655/16 656/22 657/7 674/1 678/22 683/1 683/4 684/10 687/9 689/2 689/5 689/19 689/19 691/19 691/22 694/10 694/14 696/11 697/15 697/23 699/1 701/3 701/5 701/20 703/22 703/22 705/8 705/16 705/17 709/16 710/23 710/24 738/14 740/19 747/20 759/7 760/12
valued [3] 594/18 673/25 674/7
values [3] 650/12 650/16 650/19
valuing [3] 687/2 703/7 713/12
vanished [1] 691/16
variable [3] 589/21 590/4 600/6
variables [3] 570/9 589/18 719/14
variance [1] 712/22
variant [1] 703/6
variation [1] 705/11
variety [1] 597/17
various [10] 547/21 553/11 642/20 651/18 708/13 712/24 726/24 773/6 778/16 779/12
Varvareuca [7] 578/20 579/24 589/14 728/18 757/21 762/12 763/9
vastly [1] 690/9
Veaceslav [2] 750/10 750/14
vegetable [1] 560/21
vehicles [5] 573/1 587/20 604/17 633/5 634/8
vein [1] 692/4
venture [1] 688/9
ventures [1] 687/25
verify [2] 624/25 633/19
verifying [1] 587/3
versed [2] 688/24 695/6
version [7] 535/6 543/7 546/9 556/6 619/4 628/7 639/22
versions [1] 724/15
versus [5] 645/14 652/19 676/18 687/4 749/16
very [154] 533/6 533/23 535/17 539/2 541/9 541/15 541/18 544/18 549/23 551/13 552/17 553/1 554/10 554/17 554/18 554/21 555/17 555/20 556/8 556/15 558/10 558/15 561/2 561/5 562/16 565/6 568/24 570/10 571/19 571/25 575/16 582/14 582/17 583/15 584/15 584/17 590/4 590/4 593/1 593/17 600/3 601/6 603/25 609/23 610/24 612/2 615/18 615/24 618/24 621/12 627/3 627/4 629/1 631/5 632/2 633/18 634/14 634/15 634/15 635/21 637/6 637/6 644/18 647/1 649/18 650/15 653/17 657/20 659/3 666/5 668/20 673/12 673/15 679/17 680/14 682/24 682/25 686/10 687/21 688/12 689/8 689/9 689/14 690/25 691/6 694/17 694/24 696/6 696/13 696/24 699/7 704/5 708/5 709/8 710/16 711/11 712/1 714/24 715/2 715/8 715/12 715/15 715/19 716/7 716/19 716/20 717/15 718/25 720/18 722/12 722/24 723/18 725/6 729/6 731/21 732/5 733/14 733/24 736/1 739/7 739/11 740/7 744/4 746/24 750/3 750/5 752/3 752/3 753/6 755/7 757/1 768/21 769/4 769/23 772/9 773/7 773/16 773/17 773/17 773/18 773/20 775/20 776/1 777/20 777/22 777/25 778/25 779/6 779/7 779/17 780/23 781/8 781/9 781/12
Vice [3] 723/13 728/13 756/22
Vice-Minister [1] 756/22
Vice-President and [1] 728/13
VICTORIA [1] 531/4
video [4] 536/8 536/20 536/21 537/1
VIENNA [7] 528/20 531/7 533/5 541/17 545/20 584/18 715/25
view [17] 548/8 566/21 567/1 574/1 587/5 609/11 612/13 615/21 640/15 686/24 699/14 700/16 702/9 702/13 711/9 714/13 733/16
viewing [1] 538/16
views [2] 712/13 717/15
village [6] 560/13
[Page 105]
village... [5] 724/16 729/1 729/3 756/2 760/15
villagers [10] 753/21 753/24 755/10 757/24 758/1 758/10 759/11 759/12 760/4 763/9
villages [3] 727/22 753/18 755/7
Ville [1] 529/10
violated [1] 766/3
violation [2] 597/12 700/5
violent [1] 737/7
VIOREL [1] 531/16
vis [2] 707/21 707/21
vis-à-vis [1] 707/21
visible [1] 568/11
visit [3] 578/19 584/19 690/4
visited [5] 561/21 562/11 607/16 613/16 771/8
Visoca [23] 546/7 548/1 548/2 548/4 548/23 549/6 549/12 549/17 549/19 549/22 550/2 550/18 550/23 558/11 566/22 567/18 567/20 568/5 568/15 579/1 583/8 584/13 770/20
Vlad [1] 536/22
Voda [5] 686/10 688/1 692/18 738/25 758/16
volatility [2] 713/8 713/25
volume [1] 633/20
voluminous [1] 634/6
volunteers [1] 759/1
Volvo [1] 611/16
WACC [5] 629/6 630/10 632/1 655/22 656/13
WACCS [1] 682/4
walk [2] 639/1 687/7
walked [1] 766/20
want [63] 534/1 541/20 542/24 544/20 545/25 549/9 552/11 561/25 566/19 581/21 588/3 593/24 601/14 605/1 609/23 610/22 631/2 633/18 634/11 637/19 642/11 645/25 646/23 651/14 659/13 670/12 675/19 678/15 690/8 693/19 699/11 705/9 706/18 709/1 711/21 715/13 715/22 716/3 716/16 717/5 717/12 717/13 717/14 717/15 717/25 718/7 718/10 718/12 719/20 720/5 727/21 729/9 735/16 738/13 744/17 754/15 759/20 776/6 776/19 777/23 778/5 779/16 779/20
wanted [7] 534/6 587/16 611/20 628/9 737/13 742/17 774/9
wants [4] 557/9 557/10 712/12 778/12
was [414]
was February 2011 [1] 589/12
wasn't [10] 652/1 673/14 697/10 721/6 735/20 737/10 737/17 739/20 746/23 750/9
waste [2] 560/21 632/24
water [4] 547/25 560/16 560/17 560/18
way [35] 555/14 558/25 560/4 563/25 564/1 635/8 646/8 650/20 657/25 695/22 704/21 706/12 706/12 706/20 708/21 708/24 710/17 711/10 711/14 712/4 720/4 726/12 747/6 747/13 748/4 758/21 764/13 766/12 779/5 779/7 779/22 779/24 780/4 780/5 781/5
ways [5] 642/24 688/12 695/25 711/17 726/24
WC1R [1] 529/6
we [570]
we can [1] 604/25
wear [1] 654/13
Wednesday [2] 528/21 533/1
week [1] 777/10
weeks [1] 616/15
weight [1] 538/24
weighted [3] 591/2 602/19 603/16
welcome [5] 585/1 585/10 639/3 639/4 715/25
welcoming [1] 720/14
well [44] 533/9 534/11 534/12 535/4 554/19 555/21 556/15 558/16 576/24 577/24 608/13 619/2 619/3 625/23 635/3 646/21 661/5 663/16 665/12 665/22 666/4 668/20 678/1 678/14 681/3 688/1 688/19 695/14 696/6 711/11 712/12 721/7 723/13 728/12 728/17 730/18 730/22 732/3 734/16 736/1 736/11 752/22 775/2 781/2
WELLS [2] 530/3 530/6
went [6] 560/12 578/25 605/13 689/3 727/6 759/13
were [174] 536/2 542/5 542/6 543/5 551/20 552/9 553/4 553/7 553/8 553/9 553/11 553/12 553/16 554/17 555/13 557/24 560/10 560/14 560/23 562/16 565/9 566/3 566/5 566/13 571/4 572/25 573/25 574/24 575/4 575/15 576/7 577/7 577/10 577/11 577/12 578/8 578/24 579/6 580/7 583/1 583/4 583/14 586/6 586/8 586/24 602/2 607/20 609/2 611/21 611/22 612/9 612/25 613/2 617/7 618/3 621/21 627/8 628/21 631/20 632/19 633/3 633/20 633/23 634/3 635/23 635/25 636/18 636/19 640/24 641/11 641/16 641/18 641/22 644/25 645/12 645/19 650/2 650/6 655/9 655/10 658/22 663/6 665/15 665/16 665/18 666/21 667/15 668/12 669/12 670/19 670/20 671/2 671/5 671/22 672/11 674/25 676/15 680/24 682/8 684/16 684/17 690/6 691/15 692/2 692/6 692/23 698/6 699/22 700/7 700/17 702/4 714/5 714/14 719/7 719/11 719/14 719/15 721/9 721/11 722/14 722/17 722/23 723/4 723/24 723/25 724/7 724/15 725/12 725/15 725/18 725/20 725/23 726/1 726/3 727/15 727/18 728/11 729/17 730/18 731/9 731/14 731/24 733/2 733/8 735/18 741/15 741/17 741/18 742/6 742/6 743/20 747/14 747/19 748/1 750/4 751/6 751/7 752/24 757/8 757/23 757/24 759/2 759/10 760/1 760/24 762/12 762/13 762/15 764/8 766/10 766/14 770/22 770/24 772/15
weren't [1] 746/14
western [1] 558/2
what [258]
whatever [5] 572/11 627/11 700/3 700/8 748/12
wheat [15] 566/13 567/9 567/16 573/18 573/20 574/18 574/18 645/12 645/13 646/13 666/21 667/9 667/15 667/25 668/25
when [76] 545/20 547/8 547/24 553/4 554/25 555/2 555/23 556/2 557/20 560/10 563/12 565/15 566/12 574/17 575/4 576/20 580/13 581/14 583/13 583/15 583/21 583/21 591/5 592/24 595/13 596/23 600/9 604/14 604/20 605/12 613/1 614/21 614/25 615/1 616/13 616/16 620/16 623/12 623/22 629/13 643/5 645/9 646/2 646/16 646/17 653/14 653/18 661/21 662/18 663/17 665/8 667/24 678/20 680/22 682/14 689/3 691/18 713/3 727/14 728/7 728/19 729/4 732/7 734/2 734/11 741/16 743/19 743/20 750/2 750/16 757/11 762/1 763/20 768/12 768/20 774/22
where [43] 542/24 551/3 552/13 557/19 559/5 563/20 567/4 567/4 567/24 580/8 588/18 592/11 596/6 596/7 597/23 602/10 604/3 607/17 608/4 608/8 618/8 619/17 625/6 632/10 646/19 652/7 656/11 663/7 685/11 685/14 691/3 706/8 706/24 707/18 708/4 708/17 709/15 712/21 716/13 740/12 742/25 776/24 778/12
whereas [1] 557/25
wherever [2] 535/1 781/9
whether [47] 544/21 546/1 571/18 580/25 581/1 582/15 611/1 611/21 615/4 619/16 621/8 624/12 633/12 635/25 636/17 641/8 642/9 656/6 664/24 669/4 675/10 676/14 687/15 688/10 689/16 689/18 691/13 691/20 693/9 693/10 693/11 700/5 701/20 701/21 703/6 729/17 731/8 743/9 749/15 752/11 752/16 752/18 761/6 772/4 772/10 774/9 775/16
which [188] 535/14 535/22 536/2 536/8 536/19 542/5 542/6 543/5 544/2 544/4 544/7 544/20 547/16 547/17 549/6 549/6 551/20 557/11 558/8 560/22 564/1 565/2 565/16 565/17 569/6 572/15 573/2 578/24 578/25 581/4 583/19 586/14 587/7 587/10 587/23 588/14 588/20 589/11 591/10 591/11 591/14 592/1 592/9 592/17 593/18 594/11 595/3 595/16 597/18 598/21 599/4 599/7 600/14 600/15 600/16 601/21 603/6 603/13 607/9 607/11 607/14 608/5 608/19 608/20 612/4 612/19 612/20 613/13 617/12 617/22 619/12 620/1 620/12 621/12 622/7 622/9 625/15 628/6 628/6 629/1 630/4 630/6 630/16 630/18 632/2 633/8 637/1 646/8 646/17 651/8 651/25 654/14 657/10 657/13 667/9 667/18 674/5 681/19 681/20 682/13 682/25 686/25 687/2 687/23 688/4 688/6 689/2 691/15 691/16 691/17 696/14 697/5 697/9 697/18 698/17 698/18 699/13 699/23 700/9 702/12 702/12 702/25 704/4 704/10 704/20 704/22 705/12 705/13 705/22 707/10 709/3 709/9 709/20 710/22 711/3 711/11 713/9 713/16 714/8 716/19 718/24 718/24 719/1 720/24 722/6
[Page 106]
which... [43] 722/14 722/17 723/4 724/16 724/19 724/23 725/5 725/20 726/16 727/17 728/1 729/1 731/8 731/9 731/14 731/15 733/8 733/23 734/7 737/18 744/18 744/21 746/4 746/13 747/9 747/21 748/23 750/6 750/11 751/11 751/23 752/10 756/8 763/13 763/23 764/9 767/5 767/21 773/5 775/1 777/17 779/18 780/7
while [7] 568/15 641/13 648/7 688/2 702/1 717/10 764/25
whilst [1] 757/9
who [66] 542/17 559/1 581/5 581/19 587/19 592/22 608/14 608/22 608/22 613/23 614/10 615/21 625/2 633/24 634/1 637/21 650/2 650/6 650/9 660/23 680/23 684/4 684/5 684/6 687/6 688/25 689/8 695/7 696/6 696/12 698/2 698/6 706/3 711/13 715/16 721/2 721/3 722/21 726/1 728/3 735/19 735/22 739/20 739/21 742/16 742/16 742/17 742/23 751/7 751/7 759/15 759/21 759/22 760/14 762/6 762/20 765/1 769/18 769/25 770/7 770/9 774/9 778/11 780/13 780/15 780/25
whole [5] 535/12 578/11 681/16 701/14 743/14
wholly [2] 587/25 655/18
wholly-owned [1] 587/25
whom [5] 581/15 602/24 688/17 770/10 771/21
Whose [1] 550/9
why [52] 549/5 549/17 549/19 550/1 550/23 556/11 556/21 558/8 560/11 567/22 570/6 571/12 575/19 578/17 588/6 591/1 592/22 602/18 603/14 604/18 605/1 605/15 608/16 610/20 611/9 622/15 634/12 634/17 634/22 635/12 648/15 653/4 662/2 662/11 682/12 682/17 684/1 691/17 698/19 709/24 711/4 716/24 716/25 721/6 741/7 741/17 746/13 747/8 754/24 757/4 758/1 763/6
widespread [1] 537/11
WIECHEN [40] 530/18 532/6 532/15 539/8 540/14 540/16 572/24 584/23 584/25 585/1 585/17 591/16 598/15 601/25 602/17 604/12 605/21 606/11 607/4 610/12 614/11 629/7 632/11 632/17 633/1 633/3 637/24 638/24 659/13 675/21 680/15 680/17 695/14 702/3 708/9 712/11 717/24 719/12 769/8 769/9
Wiechen's [2] 696/18 746/12
will [110] 533/8 535/3 535/18 535/18 538/13 538/14 538/19 538/25 539/12 540/7 540/9 540/14 540/22 541/8 541/9 545/7 546/8 546/15 556/15 570/8 571/7 571/11 577/23 579/19 579/22 584/22 585/8 585/11 585/13 586/4 596/1 604/8 606/14 606/17 606/18 610/19 626/13 632/5 632/13 632/14 637/9 637/16 637/22 638/4 638/17 638/23 639/24 640/6 640/19 642/8 643/9 644/16 646/20 659/4 659/14 659/15 662/15 664/13 664/24 665/24 680/19 686/15 687/17 691/21 696/19 707/16 709/8 710/7 710/11 711/12 713/15 716/1 718/11 719/18 719/25 720/3 721/21 721/23 721/25 722/1 722/13 724/19 726/5 727/19 734/12 738/6 738/7 739/6 747/11 748/10 748/17 748/18 750/14 751/23 751/23 751/24 753/8 753/9 753/9 753/13 754/4 754/6 754/25 758/7 774/3 777/12 778/11 780/4 780/24 781/1
willing [5] 603/5 704/7 735/18 742/23 774/23
willingness [1] 779/10
winter [8] 645/12 645/13 646/13 666/21 667/9 667/15 667/25 668/25
wired [1] 731/23
wisdom [2] 690/24 755/1
wise [1] 690/25
wish [9] 664/13 691/17 696/21 771/18 771/20 771/23 778/17 779/11 780/11
within [13] 543/20 544/3 544/4 567/14 613/14 617/1 655/8 655/22 658/10 694/19 716/4 719/14 735/19
without [14] 539/10 572/20 599/19 599/25 606/5 619/19 649/23 673/23 674/16 705/21 718/4 740/20 740/20
witness [20] 556/10 556/17 618/17 619/8 619/15 632/21 667/21 691/1 727/9 732/4 750/10 750/13 750/18 751/16 756/12 757/1 758/15 758/19 760/24 772/25
witnesses [11] 530/13 690/22 691/8 696/4 721/3 723/14 751/7 751/15 752/1 753/15 758/14
won't [1] 611/12
wonder [3] 621/24 629/13 708/6
word [1] 536/5
wording [1] 760/10
words [12] 583/1 608/18 614/18 661/2 664/23 675/8 700/20 707/12 716/11 724/25 728/7 731/25
work [32] 540/19 542/17 542/24 543/1 553/2 554/14 555/6 561/21 564/25 571/14 582/9 594/2 613/21 636/4 639/17 639/19 680/9 684/4 687/24 692/24 698/20 698/24 701/18 705/6 715/14 716/9 740/18 744/10 747/13 754/8 780/16 781/8
worked [18] 540/18 542/12 542/19 546/2 554/9 562/23 589/4 604/13 606/19 620/15 630/9 684/1 684/25 698/4 718/24 769/6 780/13 780/17
working [35] 542/8 554/25 555/8 589/19 590/3 600/6 600/7 601/5 601/12 601/16 601/18 601/18 601/20 602/4 603/20 603/21 607/25 621/21 622/16 624/7 627/15 628/17 628/17 628/20 628/25 629/3 645/3 648/8 649/4 649/6 677/15 684/21 697/24 705/4 730/13
works [6] 547/22 571/16 572/20 621/24 672/10 672/12
world [5] 546/20 557/12 612/19 613/7 637/20
worldwide [3] 547/18 548/12 548/14
worry [1] 775/14
worth [3] 688/6 688/7 689/11
would [381]
would also [1] 726/22
wouldn't [1] 698/22
wrap [2] 657/16 716/3
wrestling [1] 688/20
write [3] 556/11 562/16 620/11
writing [2] 718/4 772/1
written [9] 555/10 612/17 688/23 723/9 727/22 729/6 732/4 736/25 774/5
wrong [6] 632/4 632/6 700/3 703/14 716/25 742/17
wrongful [2] 709/5 752/18
wrote [2] 566/10 629/14
year [63] 536/22 552/7 557/8 557/25 563/24 568/19 568/19 571/16 572/2 572/4 580/17 582/23 583/14 583/15 583/18 583/19 583/20 583/24 584/5 584/9 584/10 584/12 588/18 589/9 601/20 604/17 606/22 616/7 626/6 635/24 636/25 642/4 643/18 643/19 644/1 644/9 645/2 645/19 645/21 648/5 648/14 648/15 648/20 657/11 667/6 667/10 667/16 668/4 671/12 671/12 695/3 701/15 714/3 733/19 734/5 736/11 738/19 738/20 740/12 741/16 765/4 770/21 781/11
years [64] 555/5 555/6 560/10 563/21 564/2 564/5 564/6 564/9 568/18 568/20 568/23 580/15 580/18 580/19 583/21 586/23 587/8 607/12 626/8 626/24 632/4 636/9 636/10 636/18 636/19 636/20 636/22 637/6 637/8 639/17 640/12 643/20 643/22 644/5 644/7 644/14 644/15 644/17 644/20 650/25 651/1 656/25 663/14 683/9 685/6 685/17 694/8 695/3 699/24 700/1 700/23 701/4 701/16 701/16 704/1 711/16 713/7 739/13 742/2 742/12 742/13 770/18 770/23 770/25
years' [1] 626/8
Yemen [1] 749/25
yes [103] 537/9 541/23 541/24 542/3 542/7 542/11 542/23 543/14 543/17 543/24 543/25 544/10 544/11 544/15 545/2 545/3 545/11 545/12 545/16 545/17 546/4 546/5 548/14 548/20 549/2 549/15 549/21 550/5 550/16 551/10 552/5 553/18 553/21 554/2 554/2 555/24 557/3 558/14 559/11 559/14 562/5 565/5 568/6 569/16 570/1 570/21 578/11 581/12 583/5 583/10 583/13 584/2 584/7 589/8 590/6 590/10 604/5 605/9 605/18 616/9 616/12 619/1 619/10 619/23 620/17 622/3 623/1 624/19 625/24 628/11 631/17 632/8 634/5 634/9 634/20 635/15 635/18 638/23 655/24 664/2 669/11 671/13 672/16 674/12 674/17 675/6 675/18 677/6 678/10 683/21 685/2 685/18 691/25 695/23
[Page 107]
yes... [9] 708/13 708/14 710/14 713/22 718/7 745/20 751/18 751/21 772/17
yesterday [18] 540/17 540/20 542/1 542/5 542/22 543/7 552/9 606/6 618/20 639/21 643/14 650/15 671/10 672/4 672/7 684/15 753/18 766/25
yet [14] 555/18 608/3 630/10 642/21 662/1 687/23 717/12 718/18 719/1 719/2 726/2 739/18 756/4 770/3
yfortier.ca [1] 529/12
yield [18] 546/19 547/11 548/2 548/7 549/5 567/1 583/8 602/7 643/17 667/6 671/5 672/13 672/15 679/23 680/1 680/6 695/3 695/3
yield and [1] 680/6
yielded [1] 547/13
yields [52] 533/20 533/22 536/25 537/12 538/2 547/9 549/5 549/14 549/18 555/19 558/10 563/13 563/16 564/24 583/3 583/8 594/5 594/13 594/23 595/21 643/21 644/5 644/14 644/20 644/25 645/18 651/22 651/23 652/4 654/2 657/18 657/23 658/1 670/17 671/1 671/3 671/15 671/19 673/4 673/13 673/20 679/21 680/2 680/9 680/9 680/11 684/8 692/7 694/2 701/1 770/20 771/2
you [945]
you for [1] 718/11
you integrated [1] 562/17
young [1] 737/14
your [163] 533/8 537/4 538/23 541/16 543/4 543/6 544/13 544/19 546/2 546/8 546/10 547/7 548/19 549/1 549/7 549/11 550/10 551/17 553/2 556/2 556/21 556/25 559/9 559/13 562/13 562/15 562/19 563/7 565/13 565/19 566/16 567/5 574/7 579/18 580/11 581/23 584/18 584/19 589/25 591/20 592/20 594/11 596/13 596/18 599/17 599/23 602/10 603/12 603/21 604/7 604/13 604/14 604/18 604/24 606/13 606/15 606/15 606/20 607/14 607/22 608/8 608/15 608/24 609/23 610/1 610/6 610/8 613/1 613/4 614/14 615/18 615/18 616/2 616/24 617/1 617/9 617/23 618/1 620/11 622/23 624/10 626/1 626/1 627/16 628/3 628/20 629/6 629/14 629/15 629/16 631/12 632/24 633/4 633/6 634/7 635/6 635/7 635/9 635/23 636/17 636/19 638/3 638/8 638/11 638/13 657/3 659/4 659/25 660/1 660/15 662/24 663/10 664/4 664/13 665/21 666/20 669/18 670/14 670/14 670/16 670/20 673/9 674/19 675/2 676/22 677/8 679/21 683/20 683/23 684/12 685/16 686/21 686/24 696/3 697/2 699/5 711/9 711/19 711/21 713/19 715/20 716/7 716/9 716/11 716/18 717/9 719/21 720/5 720/17 721/15 743/5 743/16 748/6 751/25 752/4 752/5 752/5 754/16 772/22 778/24 779/10 780/5 780/5
yours [1] 663/1
yourself [7] 575/24 583/1 613/19 620/9 621/20 622/1 623/2
yourselves [3] 554/3 688/25 711/9
Yves [4] 528/15 529/9 529/10 781/2
yves.fortier [1] 529/12
ZBIGNIEW [4] 528/8 530/12 530/14 738/16
Zbylski [1] 750/19
Zelenenco [4] 723/12 728/12 730/9 730/15
zero [3] 599/8 629/17 693/23
Zyblski [1] 772/25