Notorious agroholding company “Mriya” has been involved once again into the midst of controversy.

The first court session had a place on Thursday, 11/24/2016 in the Commercial Court of Ternopil city for pains and penalties indebtedness of 68 companies included as a compound of agricultural holding “Mriya”.

«BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited», debt facility providers of “Mriya” company as well as other ones currently enter in litigation with new management board of the “Mriya” agricultural holding represented by Simon Cherniavsky and claim to refund them about 600 mln USD as owed dept.

15 bln UAH, the value of matter in controversy on its own terms is unprecedented and headline-making being 3 times as much as Ternopilska region budget where exactly the court proceedings take place.

Notwithstanding the record-breaking amount in controversy the event was obviously tried to be hidden from the media and public attention.

After seeing the journalists and public activists in the courtroom the representatives of “Mriya” agricultural holding stared them in the faces, became visibly nervous and refused comment on the case.

Likewise the strange fact was well-prepared performance of other trial participants during the exact court session: their actions were too coherent, dovish and synchronous.

There was a suggestion for all attending journalists and social organizations representatives in the courtroom that both parties of that inside legal processing actually play on one side. And that action which takes place in the court room seems also to be developed as intentionally planned and coordinated screen version.

Therefore investigative journalists asked for biography and law cases of the trial participants.

It emerged that there exists one suspicious fact as attorneys of credit providers (prosecutors) concern are employees of the law company AVELUM which is the company that always represents the most defendants concerns, the agricultural holding “Mriya”!!!

marchukov_eng AVELLUM (DmytroMarchukov) /1-1 /1-4/

More specifically Dmytro Marchukov, the Head of Law Office Clerkship, represented the interests of agricultural holding “Mriya”(defendant) and Sergiy Uvarov, his administrative office colleague

uvarov_eng!9 AVELLUM Sergiy Uvarov /1-2/

represented the credit providers, who are the prosecutors in this specific case… So to be called “closed-door deal”

Thus it is no surprise that representatives of the both parties of the agricultural holding, prosecutor and defendant, unanimously asked the judge to continue the court session in camera, so to say behind the closed doors rather far off the other people and were truly upset when the Themis representative denied to their unmotivated procedural request.

Therefore as follows from the analysis of this crooked story there emerged the following     reasonable questions:

  1. Why was the Ternopil city chosen to be a juridical battle-field as the agricultural holding “Mriya” is the nation-wide company with numerous representation offices all over Ukraine?
  2. How can be explained the fact that the attorneys of the both parties (prosecutor and defendant) on this case are employees of the same law office. Does the conflict of interests or conspiration has some place in such a situation?
  3. Why do both parties (prosecutor and defendant) on this case with one accord interceded to hold the court which had the subject debt of 600 mln USD (!) behind the closed doors trying to hide the case from the public?

The answers to these and other questions we can get the very next Thursday when the “case of the 600 mln USD” will be considered on its merits.