Bonum Capital was associated with Suleiman Kerimov and Oleg Deripaska

The Bonum Capital fund, which claims to purchase the bank "Vozrozhdenie", is associated with Suleiman Kerimov. But the crossings at Bonum were with Oleg Deripaska, it turned out in the American court.
Origin source
The little-known fund Bonum Capital remains the only publicly announced bidder for Dmitry Ananyev's shares in Bank Vozrozhdenie. Bonum owner Murat Aliyev in mid-March was elected chairman of the board of directors of the "Renaissance", the board included five more representatives of Bonum. Control over the former bank of the Ananiev brothers can go for 1 ruble, Kommersant reported. According to the latest regulation of the Central Bank, Dmitry Ananiev should sell the bank before June 4.

The media connect Bonum Capital with the billionaire, senator from Dagestan Suleyman Kerimov. In 2015, RBC sources said that Bonum is affiliated with the investment holding Kerimov "Nafta Moscow". Founder Bonum Aliyev from 2006 to 2013 headed the department of treasury and trading operations "Nafta Moscow".

Suleiman Kerimov on April 6 was introduced by the US Department of Finance in the SDN sanctions list, which means complete isolation from the American financial system and international dollar settlements.

RBC found a lawsuit in the US in which the interests of Bonum Capital overlapped with the interests of another billionaire - Oleg Deripaska, also listed in the SDN, as well as the names of the "aluminum king" of the 1990s, Mikhail Cherney and former director of Kuzbassrazrezugol Alexander Glyklad. From these court documents it follows that a year ago Bonum bought back from Deripaska a distressed asset - potential financial claims to Black for hundreds of millions of dollars.

In addition, Bonum Capital has interests in the Donbas, disclosed its representative to the court in 2017.

Entangled scheme

In the case of Moquinon v. Gliklad, a Cypriot company shell company Moquinon Ltd, is conducting a New York arbitration against a citizen of Canada, Glyclad, who at the end of the 1990s was a member of the board of directors of Kuzbassrazrezugol, and then emigrated from Russia. In 2011, Moquinon, then controlled by Deripaska, lent $ 5 million to Gliclade at 10% per annum to finance his expenses for the lawsuit against Chernoy. The loan term expired on December 31, 2015, and the money was not returned.

Glyklad since 2009, tried through the court of New York to collect from Black $ 270 million on a bill signed by two businessmen in 2003 in Vienna. Chernoy challenged the receipt, claiming that he simply put the signature in the wrong place, because he was in a state of intoxication, but in fact the debtor allegedly was Gliklad. In 2015, the US court ruled that Chernoy should return to Gliklada $ 385.5 million plus interest from March 2014. Thus, Gliklad had an asset - the right to demand Black for hundreds of millions, but this money still had to be sought to recover.

Deripaska's structure was interested in a loan to Gliklad not because of annual interest of $ 0.5 million. Firstly, the agreement provided bonus payments in favor of Moquinon to $ 10 million, depending on the success of Gliclad's debt collection from Black; secondly, in case Black and Glyklad agree on an out-of-court settlement, Deripaska was justified in simply paying the proposed amount of the settlement agreement to Glyclad and taking away his claim to Black, whose value by the beginning of 2017 exceeded $ 450 million.

Given that at the end of 2016, Glyklad and Chernoy agreed to settle their dispute for $ 55 million, Moquinon estimated its potential loss of $ 400 million at the beginning of 2017, when she appealed to the Supreme Court of New York for help in an arbitration dispute against Gliklad. The case continues to be heard, it follows from the court documents studied by RBC.

Deripaska and Bonum

Deripaska wanted to sell the loan agreement with Gliklad at least from February 2016, when his representative "contacted the common acquaintance of Aliyev and Deripaska about the possible sale" of the problematic asset to this common acquaintance, told the American court the director of Bonum Capital Alexander Sidorov in March 2017 year (its declaration is in RBC). But the proposal eventually got Bonum, as the fund specializes in "stressful companies and assets," Sidorov said. The deal was closed on February 28, 2017, and Bonum became the owner of a 100% stake in Moquinon (the amount of the deal was classified by the court).

March 22, 2017 lawyers Winston & Strawn, representing the interests of Alexander Gliklad, claimed in court that Moquinon continues to act as "agent" Deripaska. "Over the last six years, Deripaska has acted as a representative, an agent, an alter ego and / or the ultimate owner and source of funds for Moquinon," the lawyers of Gliklad wrote. They referred to a "just-produced" document that is "amazing" and "confirms that Deripaska is Moquinon". However, the judge approved the text of their memorandum with bills (cut out for privacy reasons), and it is impossible to verify these statements of Glyclad. His lawyers from Winston & Strawn and Gliklad & Silver did not respond to RBC's request (in particular, to the question whether they continue to believe that Moquinon acts in the interests of Deripaska).

Sidorov in his declaration answers these suspicions as follows: the purchase of Moquinon from Deripaska's representatives was a market transaction between arms-length and "neither Bonum Capital (or its affiliated structures) nor Murat Aliyev has any connections or interactions - financial, personal, corporate or other - with Deripaska. " "Neither Deripaska nor any natural or legal person connected with Deripaska has invested in Bonum Capital," Sidorov assured the American court. According to him, Aliyev or Bonum Capital never dealt with Deripaska, with the exception of transactions related to the transfer of a loan agreement between Moquinon and Glikladom in 2011.

"As early as the spring of 2017, Moquinon was sold to Bonum Capital, and since then no financial, legal or other interests or arrangements have been and can not be," official representative of Oleg Deripaska confirmed. "At present, there are no claims and obligations between Mr. Cherniy and Oleg Deripaska. At the same time, the claims of Mr. Gliklada to Oleg Deripaska by the US court have been declared invalid, the case is also closed, "he said, referring to the case of Gliklad v. Russia. Deripaska, discontinued in 2017.

Donetsk interest

In his statement to the court, Alexander Sidorov disclosed some of the information about Bonum Capital: according to him, the fund is part of an "international group of financial companies that invest directly in the interests of their clients or for themselves." The head company of Bonum Capital (Cyprus) Ltd is located in Cyprus, its sole shareholder is Murat Aliyev (in accordance with the extract from the Cyprus registry, the shareholder is Bonum Capital Investors Corp. from the British Virgin Islands, where the beneficiaries are anonymous). The Cyprus structure is owned by the Bonum Capital fund, registered in the British Virgin Islands.

Sidorov points out that Bonum Capital specializes in the purchase of distressed assets, including problem loans. "For example, in December 2016 Bonum Capital acquired from Raiffeisen Bank Aval (a Ukrainian bank) a $ 140 million problem loan granted by the bank of the Ukrainian corporation" Industrial Union of Donbass (ISD) ", writes the director of Bonum Capital.

Information on this transaction was not disclosed, RBC did not find it in the reports of Raiffeisen Bank Aval. The press service of the Ukrainian bank did not respond to the request. Bonum Capital did not comment on either the lawsuit in the US or the Ukrainian asset.

Donetsk ISD unites more than 40 companies of Ukraine and other countries, the flagship asset of the group is the Alchevsk Metallurgical Plant, which in November 2017 was transferred to the administration of the authorities of the People's Republic of China. In 2010, Vnesheconombank helped Russian investors, led by Alexander Katunin, acquire a controlling stake in the ISD (50% plus two shares) and finance the company's withdrawal from the crisis. Vladimir Dmitriev, who was then the bank's presidency, said that it was an "investment of about $ 8 billion" that helped enterprises "get out of a very serious economic situation," and VEB became "the only source of resources."

RBC wrote that the interests of Suleiman Kerimov intersected with the interests of the head ISD Oleg Mkrtchana, arrested in February in Moscow. So, in December 2014, Mkrtchan became a short-term shareholder in the gold mining company Polyus Gold International Limited, acquiring an 18.5% stake. But at the end of 2015, the structures of Said Kerimov, son of Suleiman Kerimov, bought out a stake in Mkrtchyan from the company. Interests Mkrtchana and Kerimov crossed and in football: in May 2015 the newspaper "Sport Express" reported that Mkrtchane may become a partner of the senator on the Makhachkala club "Anji". According to the request of deputy Valery Rashkin, which he sent to Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika in December 2017, Kerimov could also be involved in the sale of VEB ISD.

Risky connections

Bonum Capital associations with the names Deripaska or Kerimov (both businessmen are now on the SDN sanctions list) may become a factor against the entry of Bonum into the capital of Bank Vozrozhdenie, even if neither Deripaska nor Kerimov have any real relationship to Bonum. "Revival" is not in the sanctions lists, it can have business relations with Western banks, correspondent accounts in the US, argues partner of the law firm Tertychny Agabalyan Ivan Tertychny.

Compliance managers of Western banks check counterparties on various databases, including the databases of court cases, media reports, and in relation to Russia they have already raised due diligence standards, Tertychny says. If Bonum becomes a controlling shareholder in Vozrozhdenie, counterparties will have to check whether the fund falls under sanctions as belonging to SDN persons: if Bonum fails to provide them with convincing information about its beneficiaries, counterparties are more likely to refrain from dealing with the bank.