Moscow. June 8. INTERFAX.RU – the Moscow Arbitration court on Thursday granted the petition of “Transneft” the savings Bank on the invalidity of transactions with a loss of about 66 billion rubles in derivative financial instruments in the framework of the General agreement on forward deals on financial markets, the correspondent of “Interfax” from a court. The court declared the transaction invalid.
Speaking on Thursday in stage debate on the matter, the representative of “Transneft” said that the deal, in fact, was imposed on her by the Bank under the form of subsidies. The loss of the company amounted to approximately 66.4 billion. Our claim is based on bad faith of the Bank, she added.
A representative of Sberbank said that the Bank did not impose a deal, but offered. The company should have known and knew of its risks by entering into a transaction. “The company analyzed and calculated, as evidenced by documents. In the documents indicated that at the rate of 45 rubles/$1, the loss company can make 22 billion roubles more”, – he said.
The impugned transaction is similar to previously concluded, and the company understood its essence, he added. In addition, the Bank pointed out “Transneft”, which is not a financial Advisor.
He also stressed that the company missed the Statute of limitations, which voidable transactions is one year.
Transneft earlier said the petition for the recovery of the savings Bank’s two local acts, regulating the procedure of risk assessment and management: regulations of market risk management and process risk management scheme.
The representative of the monopoly said that Sberbank, having full information about the risks, not brought it to the company.
A monopoly finds that the parties were present inequality in the negotiation process. “The Bank is very strongly suggested “Transneft” speculative transaction and submitted a Declaration of risks, which gives some quantification of risk. We believe that the Bank incorrectly reported quantitative indicators of risk”, – said the representative of the pipeline organization.
Since Russian legislation is small for transactions with complex derivatives, there must be local acts, regulating in detail such matters, and their study will allow to assess the risk calculation, explained the position of the representative plaintiff.
In addition, according to Transneft, Sberbank received a significant profit from the transaction, since the transaction has started buying foreign currency, although I would have to carry out net sales with the growth rate.
Meanwhile, representatives of the savings Bank considered that the requested documents are not relevant to the case, and the plaintiff is simply trying to delay the process. “The risks that arise from Sberbank, not broadcast on the risks that arise from the company. The requested regulation reflects risk management that arise from the savings Bank, and it is in no way associated with this deal”, – said the representative of the defendant.
“Risks on this deal are not the total risk of the client and the Bank, each of the parties their risks”, – he added.
In addition, the Bank considers that conveyed to the plaintiff the risks that could arise in the transaction.
“Transneft” in the 2014 report said that in December 2013 “to reduce the cost of servicing corporate bonds” made a deal with the Bank, state-controlled simultaneously purchased barrier call option put with a suspensive condition and sold barrier call option call with a suspensive condition in the amount of $2 billion with a due date in September 2015.
At the end of 2014, amid the devaluation of the ruble, “Transneft” has concluded with the Bank “interest rate swap” involving the exchange of floating rate for floating (float-to-float) on the basis of the amortised nominal amount for the period up to 2029. The transaction was restructured terms for barrier options to change the barrier in the direction of increasing and also signed options with deadlines in October-December 2014.
“Transneft” has submitted the claim to the savings Bank, demanding to annul at a loss for oil pipeline monopoly transaction with derivative instruments concluded before crisis of 2014 that saw the devaluation of the ruble.
