Angola v Jose Dos Santos

Day 5

July 30, 2018

Opus 2 International - Official Court Reporters

Phone: 0203 008 6619

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https://www.opus2.com
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos
1 Monday, 30 July 2018
2 (3.00 pm)
3 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: I would want to take time to
4 consider my judgment and formulate detailed reasons in
5 writing . However, I am conscious that it has taken some
6 time to list the return date and for the application to
7 discharge the freezing order to come on, and it is said
8 to be causing considerable prejudice to the defendants.
9 I have reached a clear view that , for at least some
10 of the reasons advanced, the freezing order should be
11 discharged in its entirety and no fresh freezing order
12 granted. In particular , there were breaches of the duty
13 of disclosure in failing to draw attention to material
14 matters which were or ought reasonably to have been
15 known to the claimants and their legal advisers so as to
16 make a fair presentation of the issues which the judge
17 had to consider.
18 I therefore propose to discharge the injunction now,
19 to grant a stay under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act
20 1996 in respect of the claims which it is agreed are
21 subject to arbitration agreements, and otherwise to
22 reserve my decision and my reasons in relation to
23 jurisdiction and case management.
24 I will give brief reasons for my decision in respect
25 of the freezing order. They will be replaced in due
1 3
1 course with fuller written reasons and are not to be
2 treated as an approved judgment for reporting purposes,
3 although the result may, of course, be published. I do
4 so because the claimants should have an idea now as to
5 why they have lost on the freezing order issues , and in
6 case they wish to argue for permission to appeal and
7 a continuation of the freezing order pending such appeal
8 or pending an application to the Court of Appeal for
9 permission.
10 I should make clear that the arguments which I do
11 not address in this judgment have neither been accepted
12 nor rejected ; they will be dealt with in my written
13 judgment in due course. These reasons, therefore , do
14 not necessarily constitute the entirety of the reasons
15 for discharging the freezing order.
16 There was, in my judgment, a breach of the duty of
17 disclosure in at least the following seven respects .
18 First , there was non−disclosure and an unfair
19 presentation in respect of the selection process in
20 a number of ways. The claimants failed to disclose that
21 Quantum had been selected as investment manager for
22 the Petroleum Fund in July 2012 prior to Mr Dos Santos
23 being chairman of that organisation , which subsequently
24 became FSDEA, and at a time when Dr Manuel was chairman.
25 Dr Manuel is not alleged to be a conspirator or guilty
2 4
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
Day 5
1 of any wrongdoing.
2 QGIM had entered in an IMA with the Petroleum Fund
3 on 13 July 2012, signed by Dr Manuel, and Quantum
4 entities had been engaged in relation to private equity
5 investments in infrastructure and hotel projects under
6 two engagement letters dated October 2012, again signed
7 by Dr Manuel.
8 Quantum had submitted detailed written proposals in
9 May 2012 in relation to those appointments. There were
10 three presentations dated 18 May 2012, one concerned
11 with liquid investments, and two in respect of equity
12 investments in infrastructure and hotel projects
13 respectively . None of the presentations were made by
14 Mr Bastos.
15 The presentation in relation to the liquid portfolio
16 was by a Mr Gareth Fielding QGIM’s chief investment
17 officer since 2008, with 25 years’ experience in asset
18 management, including with Merrill Lynch and Rothschild.
19 The 49−page document was detailed and apparently
20 thorough.
21 The 29−page written presentation of 18 May 2012 in
22 relation to infrastructure was by QGIM’s head of private
23 equity , a Mr Ulrich Otto, who had more than 10 years’
24 experience in private equity investments involving
25 assets which reached more than $2 billion and who sat on
1 the supervisory board of a company with revenues of
2 $1 billion . The presentation contained detailed
3 investment strategy and identified the key terms of
4 the proposed commitment and fee structure.
5 A similarly full presentation was made in relation
6 to hotel projects by a Mr Antoine Castro, Quantum’s
7 director of real estate , with extensive prior experience
8 in that field with Morgan Stanley and a Goldman Sachs
9 group company. There are two versions of his detailed
10 presentation now before the court , one of 88 pages and
11 the other of 108 pages.
12 There was no attempt to put those before the judge
13 on the without notice application , nor the circumstances
14 of that selection exercise , nor the 2012 IMA, nor to
15 address whether the selection at that stage was made
16 otherwise than on merit. Instead , Mr Morris’ first
17 affidavit and the skeleton argument put before
18 Mr Justice Phillips gave the misleading impression that
19 the selection had been entirely that of Mr Dos Santos
20 and it had been made in 2013 when he was chairman.
21 This error resulted in further misleading aspects to
22 Mr Morris’ evidence. For example, at paragraph 94(a) of
23 his first affidavit , he referred to a contract and
24 addendum with Stampa and Equus for IT services. This
25 was one of the services contracts put forward as an
transcripts@opus2.com
0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos
1 example of companies associated with Mr Bastos
2 extracting unjustifiably large fees . Mr Morris
3 emphasised in this paragraph of his affidavit that it
4 the addendum was signed on 18 December 2012, 11 months
5 before FSDEA entered into the IMA, and that it amended
6 an earlier contract of 16 August 2012, thereby giving
7 the impression that Mr Dos Santos was already improperly
8 conferring benefits on Mr Bastos before Quantum was even
9 appointed to manage the sovereign wealth funds, or any
10 part of them, and before any selection process, whereas
11 the true position was that this was after the selection
12 process and at a time when Dr Manuel was chairman.
13 Moreover, Mr Morris did not draw attention to
14 the fact , as he should have done, that the August 2012
15 contract and the December 2012 addendum were each signed
16 not by Mr Dos Santos but by Dr Manuel. The subparagraph
17 also made an unfortunate error in referring to the fees
18 under the addendum contract as being $44 million for
19 six months, amounting in total to $264 million . That
20 would have been indeed breathtaking, to use the epithet
21 applied to the fees in the claimant’s skeleton argument,
22 but it was wrong. The fees were $44,000 monthly, giving
23 a total of $264,000 for six months.
24 It was also misleading to characterise the process,
25 as the claimants did in the skeleton argument, as ”oddly
5 7
1 opaque” and ”not documented by anything other than
2 a single matrix ”. Mr Morris’ affidavit described
3 the matrix as apparently ”the extent of the selection
4 process ”. Again, this ignores the selection process in
5 2012 which involved the detailed presentations from
6 Quantum.
7 The false impression was reinforced by the assertion
8 at paragraph 31 of the Ernst & Young report that no
9 proposals were requested from any of the four potential
10 managers, ie including Quantum, which implied that there
11 had never been any proposal from Quantum.
12 Moreover, Mr Dos Santos gave a fairly lengthy
13 account of the selection process and of the rationale
14 for appointing Quantum in a letter of 27 September 2013,
15 addressed to Jersey trustees , who were then contemplated
16 as potentially being involved in the management of
17 the Fund and who had identified questions asked by the
18 Jersey Financial Services Commission. This letter was
19 not in evidence before the judge on the without notice
20 application and its contents were not referred to .
21 Mr Morris has said in his subsequent evidence that
22 he was unaware of the 2012 appointment. However, it
23 seems likely that the existence of the prior appointment
24 of the 2012 IMA and of the 2012 proposals were known to
25 those at FSDEA with the conduct of the case, and that
6 8
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
Day 5
1 they were known to Mr Goncalves, who was on board
2 throughout the period and remains an adviser to FSDEA
3 and who provided a subsequent witness statement. I say
4 he was on the board throughout the relevant period
5 because although in his own statement he describes
6 himself as being on the board from October 2012,
7 Mr Morris in his fifth affidavit says that Mr Goncalves
8 was on the board from March 2012. And importantly,
9 Mr Goncalves himself refers , at paragraph 26 of his
10 subsequent witness statements, to seeing one of
11 the presentations in May 2012.
12 It also seems to me likely that the circumstances of
13 the 2012 appointment and the 2012 presentations were
14 known also to Mr Gago, working in a role equivalent to
15 company secretary from late 2013 and on the board from
16 2016, from whom Mr Morris did take instructions at the
17 time of the without notice application . I say that
18 because Mr Gago records in his witness statement that he
19 was told about how the Petroleum Fund had operated in
20 2012 by Dr Manuel and Mr Goncalves, and he gives
21 evidence about those topics .
22 At the very least , the circumstances of the 2012
23 selection presentations and appointments are matters
24 which reasonable enquiries should have revealed.
25 The 27 September 2013 letter should have been identified
1 and disclosed .
2 These were important matters. One of the central
3 elements of the case against the defendants is that it
4 was Mr Dos Santos, as chairman of FSDEA, who had
5 dishonestly procured the appointment of Quantum because
6 of his close association with Mr Bastos. The fact that
7 the appointment initially took place under Dr Manuel’s
8 chairmanship and following detailed presentations by
9 Quantum puts a different complexion on that selection .
10 Secondly, there was non−disclosure and a failure to
11 make a fair presentation of Quantum’s track record and
12 suitability . Mr Morris described Quantum as ”an unknown
13 and untested entity ”, and in paragraph 14 of
14 the skeleton argument put before the judge Quantum was
15 described as having a ”limited track record” with
16 a capitalisation of only 100,000 Swiss francs , and was
17 contrasted with other candidates of the size and calibre
18 of UBS, Standard Bank and IFC Asset Management
19 with ” billions of dollars under management”. It should
20 have been explained to the judge not only that Quantum
21 had already been appointed under a selection process
22 under Dr Manuel’s chairmanship in 2012, but that as part
23 of that process Quantum had identified in its proposals
24 the apparently well−qualified staff with apparently
25 extensive relevant asset management experience who were
transcripts@opus2.com
0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 employed by Quantum, and, further, the independent board
2 members, apart from Mr Bastos, who were of apparent
3 eminence and experience. It should have been explained
4 that Quantum in fact had a capitalisation of 1 million
5 Swiss francs and had had that capitalisation since 2007,
6 as the detail in the Ernst & Young report accurately
7 recorded.
8 Moreover, Quantum had managed assets for
9 the Banco Nacional de Angola, the Angolan State Bank, of
10 US$2.3 billion dollars in liquid assets and a further
11 US$1 billion in private equity investments in real
12 property in conjunction with Jones Lang Lasalle .
13 Mr Morris mischaracterised the position at paragraph 39
14 of his first affidavit by saying that :
15 ” It appears from the documentation generated for
16 the purposes of Project Rainbow ... that Quantum Global,
17 at least at one point , managed several hundred US
18 dollars ( sic ) for Banco Nacional de Angola and has
19 unquantified business interests elsewhere in Africa but
20 had never at the date of its appointment (and indeed has
21 never at any point since) managed funds, even in the
22 aggregate, approaching the volume of funds entrusted to
23 it by the FSDEA.”
24 Again, these were important matters which were known
25 to the claimants and their legal advisers in relation to
1 the appointment of Quantum and its activities in
2 carrying out the investment management were transparent
3 and regularly reported on to an audience within FSDEA
4 beyond Mr Dos Santos. The claimants did not disclose or
5 draw to the judge’s attention as they should have done
6 the following :
7 The board of FSDEA was, by Presidential Decree,
8 overseen by two other state bodies, namely an advisory
9 counsel and a fiscal counsel. The advisory counsel is
10 by its remit a consultation and auditing body of
11 the president , whose responsibilities include
12 supervising the FSDEA board and advising the president
13 on the FSDEA policy and the investment strategy . It
14 includes the finance minister , the minister of
15 the economy, the minister of planning and territorial
16 development and the governor of the National Bank of
17 Angola. Its role was not specifically addressed in
18 the evidence or argument before Mr Justice Phillips ,
19 apart from an inaccurate reference in the Ernst & Young
20 report suggesting that the body never met; inaccurate
21 because Mr Goncalves’ later evidence is that it met at
22 least once.
23 More significantly for present purposes, the second
24 body, the fiscal counsel, was responsible for regular
25 assessment of FSDEA’s performance, and in particular for

9 11

1 the capitalisation of Quantum, and in any event ought to 1 overseeing compliance management, certifying the value
2 have been known to the legal team because reasonable 2 of FSDEA’s funds, verifying FSDEA’s accounts and
3 enquiries would have revealed them. Mr Morris could 3 reports , and reporting any irregularities to
4 have spoken to senior members of staff at 4 the authorities . It is clear that this body was indeed
5 Banco Nacional de Angola, as he says he did when 5 involved in oversight of FSDEA, for example it had
6 subsequently preparing his fifth witness statement. 6 detailed reports on the illiquid portfolio from
7 Again, the suitability of Quantum for the role , or lack 7 Deloittes . FSDEA’s accounts were audited by Deloittes .
8 of it , was at the heart of the allegations on which 8 Quantum also provided regular reports on
9 the claimant’s case is founded. 9 the investments, including monthly portfolio reports for
10 There was, additionally −− although this is a less 10 the liquid portfolio and quarterly reports for
11 significant matter −− an unfortunate mischaracterisation 11 the illiquid portfolio , which contained the sort of
12 in relation to Mr Bastos’ criminal conviction in 12 information one would expect from investment managers.
13 Switzerland. In particular , it was described as having 13 None of this was addressed in the claimant’s evidence or
14 given rise to a suspended sentence and a fine , giving 14 argument, or drawn to the judge’s attention , although it
15 the impression that it had warranted a suspended 15 must have been known to those at FSDEA with conduct of
16 custodial sentence, whereas, as was apparent from 16 the case, and in any event ought to have been apparent
17 the material available to Mr Morris and from which he 17 from reasonable enquiries . Again, it was of importance
18 took his information, the sanction was in fact 18 to the case being advanced.
19 a suspended sentence of a fine , ie a fine , payment of 19 Fourth, there was an unfair presentation of the use
20 which was suspended, and which in the event Mr Bastos 20 of the limited partnership model in the illiquid
21 was not required to pay, save in respect for the small 21 portfolio as evidence of impropriety. The repeated
22 sum of 4,500 Swiss francs , which was an immediately 22 thrust of the complaint was that this was an
23 payable fine which was not suspended. 23 inappropriate structure and had been chosen to eliminate
24 Third, there was non−disclosure and a failure to 24 FSDEA’s control and visibility . It is now accepted that
25 make a fair presentation of the extent to which 25 Mauritian limited partnership structures are commonly

10 12

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 used as private equity investment vehicles . The judge’s
2 attention was not drawn to the fact that the Ernst &
3 Young report described the structures used for
4 the illiquid portfolio as based on a standard model and
5 that :
6 ”Such models are commonly used in PE and venture
7 capital schemes and as collective investment vehicles
8 and generally offer limited liability without
9 the rigidity imposed by company law.”
10 In argument before me, the thrust of the complaint
11 changed to one that the limited partnership schemes were
12 only suitable as collective investment schemes, that is
13 to say where there was more than one investor. But this
14 was not the position taken by Deloittes in its audit
15 reports , which made no criticism of the structure as
16 such, nor was it the subject matter of any criticism by
17 the Mauritian authorities , at least in relation to five
18 of the seven limited partnerships. The judge should
19 have been told that both Ernst & Young and Deloittes had
20 not treated the structures used as inappropriate and
21 that they were a commonly used model. This was
22 obviously important given the criticisms which were
23 being made of this structure .
24 Fifth , there was non−disclosure in relation to
25 the allegation of conflict of interest in the projects
1 Mr McGrath QC accepted that the letter ought to have
2 been disclosed had Norton Rose Fulbright been aware of
3 it , but sought to excuse its non−disclosure on
4 the grounds that it was reasonable for
5 Norton Rose Fulbright to have remained unaware of it .
6 I ’ m afraid I cannot accept that submission. Given
7 the gravity of the allegations and the size of
8 the freezing order being sought, it was incumbent on
9 Norton Rose Fulbright to devote sufficient resources to
10 examining all the material it held which might contain
11 relevant material , so that it could be satisfied that it
12 could fulfil the duty to make a fair presentation if
13 a without notice application was to be made.
14 The Project Rainbow material fell within this category,
15 and its size provides no excuse for a failure to
16 consider it unless there were constraints of time or
17 expense which made this impossible. Neither existed in
18 this case. This is especially so in circumstances in
19 which Project Rainbow material was relied on by
20 Mr Morris to make criticisms of Quantum, and if
21 the material was interrogated for that purpose, it
22 should have been fully interrogated .
23 In any event, Mr Fortunato was obviously aware of
24 the letter and reasonable enquiries would have extended
25 to all the board members in place at the relevant times,

13 15

1 within the illiquid portfolio . Mr Morris asserted in
2 his first affidavit that no disclosure had been made of
3 any conflicts of interest to FSDEA. This was not true .
4 On 17 August 2016, Quantum wrote to FSDEA setting out
5 potential conflicts of interest , attaching a conflicts
6 of interest policy and expressly disclosing a number of
7 transactions where a conflict could be said to arise .
8 FSDEA granted a waiver in relation to the disclosed
9 projects and in relation to conflicts dealt with in
10 accordance with the policy by counter signing
11 the letter . The disclosure included a hotel project in
12 Luanda in which some US$157 million had been invested,
13 which had been the subject matter of identified
14 criticism by Mr Morris in his affidavit . The letter and
15 waiver were signed not only by Mr Dos Santos but also by
16 Mr Fortunato, another board director against whom no
17 allegations of impropriety are made.
18 The 17 August letter was amongst the documents in
19 Norton Rose Fulbright’ s possession at the time of
20 the without notice application . Mr Morris has said that
21 he and the team preparing the application were unaware
22 of it at the time because it was part of a set of over
23 750 documents which Norton Rose Fulbright had received
24 as a result of their involvement in Project Rainbow, not
25 all of which had been reviewed.
1 including Mr Fortunato, whom it is apparent from
2 Mr Morris’ fifth witness statement was available to
3 assist with the evidence on the application , whether or
4 not that availability was taken advantage of at the time
5 of the without notice application .
6 Sixth , there was non−disclosure and an unfair
7 presentation in respect of the fees charged on
8 the illiquid portfolio . The fees as a whole, then put
9 at some US$550 million were described
10 as ”breathtaking ”, ”extraordinary” and ”eye watering ”.
11 In relation to the illiquid portfolio there was further
12 argument that the fees were charged on the full amount
13 of the portfolio of $US3 billion , when the amount
14 invested in the project was only a much smaller part of
15 that , with a sum in excess of $2.2 billion remaining
16 uninvested and held in liquid funds at the date of
17 the freezing order.
18 There are several elements to what the judge was not
19 told as he should have been. As is now accepted, it is
20 common to charge fees on the amount of committed capital
21 rather than the amount drawn down, as Ernst & Young
22 noted as paragraph 54 of their report , to which
23 the judge’s attention was not specifically drawn.
24 In the course of the hearing before me, Mr McGrath
25 indicated that the vice in drawing down the funds and

14 16

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos
1 putting them in the partnership accounts was that
2 the claimants thereby lost visibility and control , and
3 when pressed, he conceded that this was the only vice of
4 which complaint was made. But this was not how
5 the matter was presented to Mr Justice Phillips , which
6 did not confine the criticism to this aspect . On
7 the contrary, it was suggested that the improper purpose
8 of the drawdown into the partnership accounts, or at
9 least one of the improper purposes, was ”to extract
10 management fees by reference to the entirety of
11 the US$3 billion even though most of it has been sitting
12 in cash or cash−like securities ”; see the skeleton
13 argument at paragraphs 16.5(b), and see also
14 the skeleton argument at paragraph 16.7, which made this
15 criticism as a matter of ”the structure by which
16 the fees were calculated ”.
17 Further, the judge was not told what appears now
18 from paragraph 23 of Mr Goncalves’ subsequent witness
19 statement, namely that he was aware of reasons given at
20 the time for the funds going into the partnership
21 accounts, having been told by Mr Dos Santos in 2013
22 that :
23 ”The fund was going to face increasing pressure in
24 the economy and pressure to access its funds, so he
25 wanted to use the funds now and put them into
17
1 the private equity fund so as not to give appetite to
2 the State to come and use the funds ”.
3 Mr Goncalves does not suggest that this explanation
4 gave rise to any surprise or opposition at the time.
5 Moreover, on the illiquid portfolio , the level of
6 fees was 2% plus 20% above a specified rate of return
7 for the infrastructure portfolio , which accounted for
8 over US$100 million of the fees on the figures then
9 presented, and 2.5% plus 20% in relation to the hotel
10 and other illiquid portfolios , which accounted for the
11 balance in relation to the illiquid portfolio .
12 The judge did not have specifically drawn to his
13 attention paragraph 53 of the Ernst & Young report,
14 which describes 2 plus 20 as a traditional PE fee model.
15 Moreover, the amount of the fees which would be charged
16 had been identified in the presentations to
17 the Petroleum Fund in 2012, which set out the 2 plus 20
18 structure for the infrastructure portfolio and the 2.5
19 plus 20 structure for the hotel portfolio , again,
20 a matter not drawn to the judge’s attention .
21 These fees should not have been included in
22 the total of fees described as ”breathtaking”
23 or ”extraordinary” without this being made clear. These
24 fees accounted for over half of the total level of fees
25 on the figures then relied on, US$263.4 million out of
18
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
Day 5
1 US$515.84 million.
2 The level of fees charged was another of the central
3 elements of the case against the defendants. It was
4 particularly important that there was a full and fair
5 presentation of the material in respect of that
6 allegation , and the non−disclosures I have identified
7 were important.
8 Seventh, there was a failure to present the stance
9 of Northern Trust fully or fairly . By letters of
10 23 February and 4 March 2018, Northern Trust had made
11 clear to FSDEA that it would not for the time being take
12 any action to allow movement of funds from the accounts
13 without joint and express written instruction from both
14 FSDEA and Quantum, and that it would give prior
15 notification if it intended to change that position . In
16 a letter of 16 March 2018 from Northern Trust’s
17 solicitors , Sidley Austin, which was largely addressed
18 to requests which were made for disclosure,
19 Northern Trust reiterated that there would be no change
20 of position without prior notification .
21 The first two letters were referred to in
22 a narrative section of Mr Morris’ affidavit but were not
23 identified in the section on risk of dissipation and
24 were not referred to at all in the skeleton argument and
25 were not drawn to the judge’s attention .
19
1 The third letter , that of 16 March, was referred to
2 in the narrative at paragraph 147 only in respect of
3 disclosure of documents, but it was referred to at
4 paragraph 190 of Mr Morris’ first affidavit and in
5 the claimants’ skeleton argument in sections which
6 addressed risk of dissipation . It was there addressed
7 in support of a case that Northern Trust’s statement
8 that it would give prior notice was no more than
9 a current intention , which might change without any
10 prior warning because Northern Trust might feel obliged
11 to follow Quantum’s instructions. That was to
12 mischaracterise the correspondence as a whole which,
13 read as a whole and fairly , suggested that
14 Northern Trust were caught between conflicting claims
15 and would not take any steps without the agreement of
16 both parties .
17 Had the judge been shown the correspondence or had
18 it fairly summarised, he would likely have concluded
19 that there was no real risk of dissipation of any of
20 the $2.2 billion held at Northern Trust, and in any
21 event not without the claimants being given sufficient
22 advance notification to afford an opportunity to come
23 before the court in those changed circumstances, if
24 necessary. That is my view of the correspondence, with
25 the result that , irrespective of this aspect of
20
transcripts@opus2.com
0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 non−disclosure, the claimants have not made out a case 1 considered.

2 of risk of dissipation in respect of over two−thirds of 2 Given the size of the freezing order sought and
3 the amount covered by the freezing order. 3 the allegations of dishonesty being made, it was
4 Those seven breaches of the duty of disclosure , or 4 incumbent on the claimants and their legal advisers to
5 perhaps more accurately groups of breaches, taken 5 make the fullest enquiry into the central elements of
6 cumulatively are serious . They are substantial and they 6 their case if they were to proceed without notice .
7 are culpable , although I make clear that I do not find 7 Although Mr Morris did emphasise in his first affidavit
8 that there was any deliberate breach on the part of 8 the limits on the enquiries which had been made, that
9 the claimants’ legal team. They do not relate to a few 9 does not itself excuse a failure to make the necessary
10 merely peripheral matters but to numerous matters at 10 enquiries , nor the presentation of incomplete material
11 the heart of the claimants’ case. 11 in an unfairly one−sided way.
12 The court was being asked to infer a dishonest 12 I have therefore concluded that the breaches
13 conspiracy by which Mr Dos Santos sought improperly to 13 the duty are sufficiently serious and culpable to
14 benefit his friend and associate Mr Bastos and to infer 14 warrant discharging the freezing order and not granting
15 a consequent risk of dissipation from four central 15 fresh relief , irrespective of the other grounds of
16 allegations , namely (1) that Mr Dos Santos was solely 16 challenge . When, in this judgment, I have referred
17 responsible for appointing Quantum without any proper 17 to ”the freezing order”, I intend to connote that aspect
18 selection process, (2) that Quantum was not properly 18 which was a proprietary order within that description .
19 qualified for the task , (3) the extraordinarily high and 19 I will therefore make those orders now.
20 unjustified level of fees charged, and (4) the funds 20 Submissions by MR AULD
21 being used to benefit entities owned by or associated 21 MR AULD: Thank you, my Lord.
22 with Mr Bastos, involving an undisclosed and 22 My Lord, there are two matters on the order itself .
23 inappropriate conflict of interest . 23 It ’ s in bundle A, my Lord, at tab 13. Your Lordship
24 The non−disclosures go to one or more of these 24 will see that it starts at page 314 with regard to
25 central elements of the claimants’ case. Proper 25 the freezing order.

21 23

1 disclosure would have put a very different complexion on 1 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes.
2 the application , and it is no answer for the claimants 2 MR AULD: If your Lordship could go over to page 325,
3 to say that the subsequent evidence put before the court 3 your Lordship will see the undertaking in schedule B.
4 to deal with these matters raises disputes which are 4 These are all in standard form, my Lord.
5 sufficient to surmount the merits hurdle of a good 5 The first point arises out of paragraph 6 of
6 arguable case. Occasional errors in preparing 6 schedule B on page 326 and that is that if the order
7 the material in a case of this size and complexity can 7 ceases to have effect , the applicants will immediately
8 perhaps be understood, but the unfair presentation in 8 take all reasonable steps to inform in writing anyone to
9 this case, in the respects I have identified , goes far 9 whom they have given notice of this order, that there
10 beyond the odd accidental slip and goes to the central 10 are reasonably grounds for supposing they act on this
11 elements of a case alleging dishonesty in support of 11 order and that it has ceased to have effect .
12 a $3 billion freezing order and proprietary order. 12 My Lord, we asked on Friday for a list and received ,
13 There was no very urgent timescale in preparing 13 I think about half an hour before court , if I could hand
14 the application , which was not precipitated , as 14 your Lordship a letter from Norton Rose.
15 sometimes happens, by an imminent threat of movement of 15 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Have you got a copy in front of you?
16 funds or some information which suddenly suggested 16 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, I don’t know what the letter is −−
17 urgency. The matter had obviously been under 17 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: I know, but do you have a spare
18 consideration for many months, at least since receipt of 18 copy?
19 the Ernst & Young report in December 2017. 19 (Handed)
20 The application evidence must have been weeks in 20 MR AULD: My Lord, you’ll see it ’ s responding to my
21 the preparation. There is no suggestion that there was 21 client ’ s −− our letter on Friday , and it sets out a −−
22 any restriction on the funding available to 22 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: List of people, yes.
23 Norton Rose Fulbright to use as large a team as was 23 MR AULD: −− long list of people who have been informed, 47
24 necessary to make the necessary enquiries and to 24 names.
25 consider all the documents which needed to be 25 Then my Lord will see on page 3:

22 24

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 ”We are conscious you requested details of 1 that , but whether it ’ s appropriate to set a particular
2 recipients ahead of this arguments hearing, so we are 2 timetable and to make an order that they do to is an
3 sending this letter before the 3 pm start time. We are 3 entirely a separate matter. You’ve asked who they’ve
4 continuing to make further checks as to the identity of 4 notified , they’ve written a sensible letter back, I ’ ve
5 any other parties notified and will revert as soon as 5 no reason to think that they won’t continue to act
6 reasonably possible . We further confirm the order has 6 sensibly .
7 been provided to clients ’ legal advisers in this 7 MR AULD: My Lord, that’s the first respect .
8 jurisdiction and other jurisdictions and to our clients ’ 8 The second point, which I suspect isn ’ t
9 advisers in connection with these proceedings. We do 9 controversial either , is that there ’ s a considerable
10 not, by providing this confirmation, intend to or have 10 volume of confidential asset information has been
11 authority to waive any privilege .” 11 provided to the claimants under the order, by both my
12 My Lord, what we would respectfully ask is that 12 clients and by Quantum. My Lord, the normal order in
13 within a period which your Lordship thinks is suitable , 13 these circumstances is that the claimants undertake to
14 24 or 48 hours, Norton Rose confirm the full list and 14 destroy all that material as soon as practicably
15 then make a witness statement, again within a period 15 possible and we would ask your Lordship also orders
16 your Lordship thinks is appropriate, confirming that all 16 that .
17 those people have been informed in writing of 17 My Lord, also on the −−
18 your Lordship’s order. 18 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Do you have a formula for
19 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Why do you need a witness statement? 19 identifying that?
20 Won’t a letter do? 20 MR AULD: My Lord −−
21 MR AULD: Well, my Lord, the position , as I understand it at 21 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: One form of order might be ”all
22 the moment, is that the process −− it’s slightly 22 material provided pursuant to the asset disclosure
23 surprising , from our point of view, that they don’t know 23 provisions in paragraph 11 of the order”, but if it ’ s
24 who they’ve told about it , but there appear to be some 24 going to be restricted to confidential material then we
25 further checks which need to be made. 25 may have to have a rather more careful definition of

25 27

1 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes? Well, that’s understandable. 1 that which is or isn ’ t confidential .
2 They will obviously want to make sure that −− 2 MR AULD: I think all of it has been treated as
3 MR AULD: It is , my Lord, I accept that but −− 3 confidential , my Lord, so it is all the material .
4 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: −− they’ve got the position. It may 4 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, if it helps, obviously under the order
5 be that notification hasn’t all been done through 5 what my friend is really talking about is the disclosure
6 Norton Rose, and I can quite understand why checks would 6 they have been compelled to provide under the terms of
7 want to be made. 7 the WFO, which would have the natural restrictions and
8 The undertaking is to take all reasonable steps 8 in this particular case would have additional
9 immediately. 9 confidentiality obligations .
10 MR AULD: Yes. 10 I was just wondering with −− I don’t know if my
11 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: At the moment, I’ve no reason to 11 friend would be happy with wording of:
12 think they won’t do that and I ’ m not inclined at the 12 ”The claimant shall forthwith destroy and/or
13 moment to think it ’ s appropriate to make any further 13 permanently delete all document, whether hard copy or
14 order in relation to that . If there comes a time at 14 electronic , provided to it by any of the defendants
15 which you’re in a position to suggest they haven’t done 15 and/or their solicitors pursuant to their disclosure
16 that which they have undertaken to do, then obviously 16 obligations in the WFO as defined ...”
17 you will have to raise it and the court will have to 17 As your Lordship defined it , including the orders:
18 address it , but why should I make any further orders at 18 ”... whether in affidavit form or in correspondence,
19 this stage? 19 together with all copies of those documents made by the
20 MR AULD: My Lord, it ’ s simply to achieve certainty and 20 claimants .”
21 clarity as far as we’re concerned. One would imagine 21 So it ’ s the documents which have been provided
22 that the very least we would be entitled to is a further 22 pursuant to disclosure obligations .
23 letter from Norton Rose confirming that they have 23 MR AULD: Yes. My Lord, without wanting to do it on my feet
24 identified further parties . 24 on the hoof, that seems fine to me, my Lord. Perhaps if
25 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: I would expect Norton Rose to do 25 we’re going to draw up an order for your Lordship

26 28

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 following this hearing, if there are any particular 1 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well ...
2 difficulties with that wording we can deal with them 2 MR ANDERSON: The undertaking, of course, was not given by
3 subsequently. 3 Norton Rose but by the claimant.
4 My Lord, the other point on schedule B is , of 4 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: It was given by the claimant but it
5 course, paragraph 1, which is the undertaking in 5 wasn’t given by other government departments.
6 damages. We would respectfully ask your Lordship to 6 The restriction in undertaking 7 is for the purposes of
7 order an enquiry under that undertaking −− 7 civil or criminal proceedings rather than an absolute
8 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: There are two difficulties with 8 ban on any dissemination.
9 that . The first is that I ’ ve not yet given my full and 9 MR ANDERSON: That’s true.
10 approved reasons. The second is that there is 10 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Now, there are other restrictions
11 a threshold evidential burden in relation to ordering an 11 other than the undertaking, and whether this is
12 enquiry, which involves using some loss as having been 12 a problem or not may depend on the detail , but I would
13 suffered and it being useful , which you’re not in 13 like , I think , now to try and bottom out the wording of
14 a position to satisfy at the moment. 14 any order that ’ s going to be made, if you’re going to
15 Now, I would have thought −− but you can address me 15 seek more than the sort of wording that has been
16 otherwise −− that there is no urgency in relation to −− 16 proffered , which will be an order against FSDEA.
17 MR AULD: No, I agree. 17 MR ANDERSON: Well, we would at least like to know to whom
18 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: −− ordering an enquiry under 18 the information has been disseminated, because it really
19 the cross−undertaking. I ’ ll make clear that I ’ m 19 ought not to have been disseminated to anybody, and may
20 reserving the position in relation to that . Of course 20 not have been, but we’d like confirmation of that , and
21 it ’ s open to you to apply following my full judgment. 21 it ought to be relatively simple wording that will
22 But subject to anything further you have to say, I ’ m not 22 provide us with that comfort.
23 inclined to order an enquiry at this stage . 23 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well, it’s probably perfectly
24 MR AULD: No. 24 permissible for it to have been disseminated −− I say
25 Then, my Lord, the final item is costs . I don’t 25 this provisionally −− to those who may be advising

29 31

1 know whether your Lordship would rather deal with that 1 FSDEA, such as accountants, foreign lawyers, people of
2 after the full judgment or deal with it today. 2 that nature.
3 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes, I would prefer to deal with it 3 MR ANDERSON: Yes.
4 after the full judgment. 4 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: So again, one needs to be a little
5 MR AULD: My Lord, I don’t think we have any other −− 5 bit careful about the scope of the order. I quite
6 certainly I don’t . I don’t know whether Mr Fulton does. 6 understand your concern, that essentially it should be
7 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Mr Fulton? 7 gathered in/destroyed wherever it has gone.
8 MR FULTON: No, my Lord, nothing further, only to apologise 8 MR ANDERSON: Yes.
9 for Mr Edey’s absence today which I promised him I would 9 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: I understand that, and in principle
10 do on his behalf . 10 I would hope that there ’ s a form of wording that
11 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Mr Anderson, did you want to raise 11 achieves that . If , for example, copies have gone to
12 anything? 12 Ernst & Young, they should also come within the scope,
13 Submissions by MR ANDERSON 13 I would have thought, of any destruction .
14 MR ANDERSON: No. On paragraph 6 of schedule B, we want to 14 Let me hear from Mr McGrath as to how we’re going to
15 record our understanding that this isn ’ t only confined 15 deal with that .
16 to information in Norton Rose’s possession, and includes 16 I didn’t , I ’ m afraid , make a note of your proposed
17 any information which may have found its way back to 17 wording, but the wording didn’t really focus on who
18 other government departments in Angola supplied pursuant 18 rather than what, did it ?
19 to the disclosure obligations in this order, 19 Submissions and Applications by MR MCGRATH
20 particularly in light of paragraph 7 of the undertaking, 20 MR MCGRATH: No, it didn’t, my Lord.
21 which is a restriction on users of that information 21 Clearly , the understanding is that if information
22 anyway. So one would hope that the information which 22 that we’ve obtained under the disclosure obligations
23 has been specialised 9has been very carefully preserved 23 here has been provided on to −− your Lordship’s example
24 within a confined circle , but in any event it now has to 24 was Ernst & Young, then that ’ s material that needs to be
25 be destroyed whatever has happened to it . 25 got back from Ernst & Young, or confirmed that they have

30 32

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 deleted and destroyed it . 1 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, yes. What we take from that is that
2 My Lord, as to dealing specifically with my friend’s 2 the monies, the $2.1 billion sitting there will be
3 problem, I suppose the first question would be to find 3 subject to joint instructions between ourselves and
4 out if there is in fact any real issue here and, if so, 4 the defendants, the Quantum defendants, as to
5 the scope of it , in terms of whether there has been to 5 the handling of those monies, even with discharge of
6 any, and to whom, dissemination over and above the list 6 this order, and that there may be some steps taken for
7 of the banks, et cetera , that my friend’s been given, 7 applications to be made by Northern Trust. But the key
8 and if so, then the steps that have been taken to 8 point is that .
9 recover. If my friend then doesn’t think that that ’ s 9 My Lord, in the light of that , although we seek to
10 satisfactory , he’ ll have to come back. 10 appeal the freezing order that was as was before
11 My Lord, unfortunately , I had the other wording 11 your Lordship, the temporary order that we seek pending
12 prepared, I ’ m not quite so prepared to deal on my feet 12 getting before the Court of Appeal is for the reduced
13 with my friend’s suggestion. 13 amount of the fees , the 560, not the 2.1 billion .
14 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: No. Well, how about 14 Entirely , my Lord, reserving our position to make
15 this : Norton Rose should write, within a specified 15 the appropriate application to lift it back up in
16 period of time, identifying (A) those to whom any 16 the event that the joint undertakings, et cetera , or
17 material has been disseminated, and (B) what steps have 17 other developments render that necessary.
18 been taken, or are being taken, to comply with the order 18 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: So it’s in what sum, the temporary
19 which will be made as to destruction , which will then at 19 order?
20 least identify if there ’ s a gap and what might have to 20 MR MCGRATH: 560 million, based upon the figures set out in
21 be done in the particular circumstances to fill that 21 the Ernst & Young report.
22 gap. 22 Now, my Lord, that ’ s on the basis that
23 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, I’m sure we can work something along 23 your Lordship −− I’m working on the basis −−
24 those lines . 24 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Why don’t we deal with permission to
25 MR ANDERSON: Thank you. 25 appeal. I understand why you’re feeling your way, but

33 35

1 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, in terms of the matter that my friend 1 let ’ s deal with permission to appeal.
2 raised , the notification , again we feel that can be 2 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, we ask for permission to appeal.
3 dealt with by way of letter , and the confidential asset 3 We’ve heard what your Lordship says about those
4 information you’ve heard what I ’ ve suggested and 4 non−disclosures. Two reasons. One is , if I don’t ask
5 proposed. 5 for it now, obviously, my Lord, it becomes far more
6 In terms of the enquiry, we respectfully agree with 6 difficult to ask down the line . Secondly, we say that
7 your Lordship that there is a two−stage process and that 7 when those non−disclosures are put in the context of
8 first stage hasn’t been reached yet, but it doesn’t 8 the case as a whole and the principles of when
9 appear to be time urgent. 9 a freezing order ought to be discharged, we say that
10 That really brings me on to the question of 10 there ’ s a real prospect of success of your Lordship’s
11 destruction of the documents and the notification of 11 order, with the greatest of respect .
12 the discharge of the freezing order and how that 12 My Lord, if you’re −−
13 interplays with any application I now make for 13 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Shall I deal with that? That’s
14 permission to appeal the discharge of the freezing 14 the application . I shall refuse permission on
15 order. 15 the grounds that I ’ ve reached a clear view and I don’t
16 What I would ask, my Lord, is this −− there’s two 16 regard there being a real prospect of success.
17 aspects . One is that we seek permission to appeal 17 That then leads to what we’re going to deal with
18 the discharge of the freezing order as was before 18 next, because I don’t have the final say and you can
19 your Lordship for the 3 billion . That’s one aspect . 19 make an application to the Court of Appeal.
20 The second aspect which bears on this is that as 20 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, yes, and that’s really where I was
21 a matter of about lunchtime today Northern Trust wrote, 21 getting to , that given that your Lordship has not found
22 I believe it was to all parties , indicating a stance , 22 there were grounds to give permission to appeal, I ’ m now
23 and I believe it was −− 23 asking your Lordship to give permission for the
24 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: It was sent to me and I’ve skim 24 temporary freezing order on the reduced amount to enable
25 read it just before I came into court . 25 us to get to the Court of Appeal and make

34 36

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 the application for permission, appeal and continuation
2 of the freezing order pending the appeal.
3 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: I will hear the other parties .
4 What I would be minded to do would be to grant
5 a temporary order but for a relatively short period, not
6 more than seven days, say.
7 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, could I just address your Lordship on
8 the time period?
9 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes.
10 MR MCGRATH: Your Lordship will have seen −− no,
11 your Lordship won’t have seen, but one of the cases that
12 I have referred to or got together for today’s
13 application on the odd chance that we might need to deal
14 with it was a case of Metropolitan Housing Trust v
15 Taylor . In that case his Lordship, in the same position
16 as you having refused permission to appeal, granted
17 a temporary order and gave a backstop of 21 days to get
18 before the Court of Appeal.
19 I should say, in a case similar to this in terms of
20 size and complexity, Mr Justice Picken in Tatneft gave
21 a backstop of 14 days. But the difficulty with that is
22 that then leaves us with having to persuade the Court of
23 Appeal to move, as opposed to no slowness and all
24 diligence on our side in getting the material to them,
25 but then we’re in the court ’ s hands there as to whether
1 least something into the double figures , my Lord, to
2 give us a time to catch our breath and then get straight
3 on to the work. When I say ”catch our breath ”, I ’ m
4 literally talking a day and then get back into what is
5 needed.
6 I don’t know what the holiday plans are of my
7 team −− I’m not asking your Lordship to hold that into
8 account, but it ’ s just a practicality −− but we do ask
9 that a few extra days would be of great assistance in
10 being able to make those applications . But I do take it
11 on board that the longer you give us, the longer
12 the Court of Appeal might take to hear us.
13 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Let me hear from Mr Auld.
14 Submissions by MR AULD
15 MR AULD: My Lord, before one gets to the number of days, in
16 my submission, the important matter of principle is that
17 your Lordship has discharged this order, refused to make
18 any other order, and has done so in particular on
19 the basis that there is no risk of dissipation . There
20 plainly isn ’ t a risk of dissipation .
21 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: No, I have said no risk of
22 dissipation in relation to the sums at Northern Trust.
23 Otherwise, the reasons I have given so far are simply
24 non−disclosure. So none of that has yet decided no risk
25 of dissipation in relation to the balance, as it were,

37 39

1 or not they think that they can deal with it . 1 in respect of which the temporary order is now sought.
2 I would respectfully ask for the longer than 2 MR AULD: My Lord, I see that , and your Lordship hasn’t
3 the seven days. If your Lordship is not prepared to go 3 given a full judgment yet, but my Lord, with respect ,
4 to the 21 −− 4 while the holiday plans of Mr McGrath’s team are of
5 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: There’s a bit of chicken and egg 5 interest , the unfairness and prejudice to the defendants
6 about this . I mean, there is always a Lord Justice of 6 of this continuing, even in what’s now suggested is
7 appeal on standby to deal with these applications , and 7 a reduced form where it’s focused entirely upon my
8 if they’re told you’ve only had 7 days and it ’ s got to 8 client ’ s assets , in effect , far outweigh those
9 be heard within 7 days, then they’ ll make themselves 9 considerations , in my submission. There is no arguable
10 available . If they’re told it ’ s 21 days, they’ ll say, 10 basis for appeal against your Lordship’s judgment and
11 ”Come back next week”. 11 order, and my learned friend has not articulated one.
12 I ’ m interested really only in the time I think it ’ s 12 And with respect, the claimants cannot use the appeal
13 reasonable to expect you to be able to get an 13 process as a face−saving device so as to simply continue
14 application together . I don’t myself expect that there 14 an oppressive order like this until that process is
15 will be a significant difficulty in a Lord Justice 15 followed.
16 hearing it urgently if you have only been given a short 16 My Lord, the Court of Appeal has a self −standing
17 time and I am conscious that it is said to be continuing 17 jurisdiction as the cases recognise in relation to
18 to cause prejudice , and I am not, therefore , minded to 18 freezing orders, and if my learned friend wishes to make
19 grant you any longer than absolutely necessary to enable 19 that application he’s free to do so. But my Lord, in my
20 the process to take place . 20 submission, there is no basis for not discharging this
21 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, in that respect, insofar as time taken 21 order in the meantime, because there is absolutely no
22 to prepare, to make sure that we get it right , obviously 22 evidence that if your Lordship does so, there will be
23 everyone’s been involved on the very heavy application 23 any asset dissipation while my learned friend is making
24 right now for the last week, and all the preparation 24 that application .
25 that went before that , we would ask for 14 days, or at 25 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Anybody else?

38 40

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 Submissions by MR FULTON 1 the order, it would have to be on an undertaking that

2 MR FULTON: My Lord, the position of my clients is that 2 you wouldn’t object to them using funds to which you
3 they’ve run out of money. Your Lordship heard 3 were making a proprietary claim.
4 submissions about this in the context of the fees 4 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, I’ll have to take instructions ,
5 application in the week before last week’s hearing, but 5 obviously. (Pause)
6 my instructions are , although there ’ s not evidence 6 My Lord, yes, we’re talking about legal expenses
7 specifically directed at this point , that they are 7 here, aren’ t we?
8 really suffering and even seven days, my Lord, could 8 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes.
9 make a significant difference to them, particularly in 9 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, yes, of course. (Pause)
10 circumstances where, for reasons which we obviously 10 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Anything else?
11 understand, your Lordship has put to one side 11 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, I was just commenting there that
12 the question of costs for the moment, but there are very 12 your Lordship was talking about the time to prepare, and
13 real cash flow issues for these corporate defendants, 13 I ’ m not talking about trying to extend the time I ’ ve
14 my Lord. 14 asked your Lordship for , but as a further factor in
15 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Thank you. 15 terms of making the application your Lordship had
16 Submissions by MR ANDERSON 16 indicated there certain areas of non−disclosure, and
17 MR ANDERSON: My Lord, I appreciate your Lordship hasn’t 17 obviously if we’re renewing the application before
18 decided yet the issue of whether there’s a risk of 18 the Court of Appeal we’ll want to make sure that there
19 dissipation , but Mr Dos Santos is in a very particular 19 can be no suggestion of that happening in respect of
20 position . He has no control over the liquid or illiquid 20 the application . So when your Lordship’s −−
21 funds. The freezing order against him relates solely to 21 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well, you’re going to go
22 his personal assets . The claimants have adduced zero 22 inter partes , so ...
23 evidence at every stage as to a risk of dissipation by 23 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, yes.
24 him. He is confined in Angola by the Angolan 24 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Aren’t you?
25 authorities . There is no evidence at all that at any 25 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, yes. So they’ ll have their chance to

41 43

1 stage within the last 12 months, two years or whatever, 1 say where we’re going wrong, in front of the judge.
2 that he has engaged in any unusual or dubious financial 2 But, my Lord, we would ask for the 10 days; if not,
3 dealing with his own or anybody else’s assets , and there 3 then the seven days.
4 is simply no reason for this interim injunction that is 4 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes, well, what I am going to do is
5 being sought against him to be continued. 5 I am going to continue the injunction in its modified
6 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Mr McGrath. 6 form, limited to $560 million . I ’ m going to do it
7 Submissions by MR MCGRATH 7 pending an application for permission to appeal and
8 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, I was only going to say that 8 interlocutory relief to be made to the Court of Appeal.
9 the period of time that we’re asking of your Lordship is 9 I ’ m only prepared to extend it until 4 pm on Friday
10 measured in days, it ’ s not weeks or months. If it 10 week, and I make clear for the Court of Appeal’s −− it
11 becomes longer than that it ’ s because the Court of 11 seems to have caused some consternation.
12 Appeal has indicated that ’ s their view that it ought to 12 MR MCGRATH: Friday week. Do you mean not this Friday but
13 be. I very well might fail in front of the Court of 13 the Friday after ?
14 Appeal in persuading them. But in terms of what I ’ m 14 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Exactly, Friday week.
15 asking you it ’ s a measure of days and, my Lord, we would 15 MR MCGRATH: I just wanted to clarify .
16 ask, if at all possible , for a ten−day period, but if 16 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: And I make clear, so that it can be
17 your Lordship was minded −− 17 brought to the attention of the Court of Appeal, that
18 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Let’s just address the question of 18 I regard that as a firm and not to be extended period.
19 principle . This is an application which ought to be 19 They, of course, are not bound by anything I may say,
20 made on notice, isn ’ t it ? 20 but I would not feel happy if the Court of Appeal felt
21 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, yes. 21 that for their convenience that period could be extended
22 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: And the Quantum companies ought to 22 without applying their minds to whether there should be
23 be allowed to use funds for those purposes. 23 a continuation of the order in the meantime.
24 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, yes. 24 MR MCGRATH: I’m grateful, my Lord.
25 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: So if there’s any continuation of 25 In respect of that , my Lord, going back then to

42 44

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 the acts of notification in terms of writing to parties 1 like this .

2 et cetera , the undertaking wouldn’t kick in because 2 MR AULD: My Lord, the other point is the amount of
3 the order hasn’t been discharged yet . Just so I ’ m clear 3 the continuing injunction .
4 on this . 4 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes.
5 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well, you’re going to have to notify 5 MR AULD: It’s a point that the Quantum defendants addressed
6 everybody of the variation , aren’ t you? 6 your Lordship on during the hearing. My learned friend
7 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, we can notify of the variation , 7 has made −− I mean, your Lordship hasn’t yet ruled on
8 obviously, because that ’ s −− 8 their submissions on the proprietary claim, for example,
9 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Don’t say you can; you must. 9 because obviously if that goes, the whole basis for this
10 MR MCGRATH: We must notify them. But there isn’t 10 continuing order goes, because it is the proprietary
11 a discharge, so we wouldn’t then be writing in the terms 11 order. My Lord, I obviously recognise that until
12 of 6, although we will be writing in terms 12 your Lordship’s judgment, that hasn’t been, as it were,
13 of notification of the variation . And in terms of the 13 finally dealt with. But as they submitted, my Lord,
14 destruction , we would ask your Lordship that we don’t 14 there has been an entire failure by the claimants to
15 destroy the documents for that period of time, obviously 15 explain what the quantum of their case is in relation to
16 until we hear what the Court of Appeal has to say about 16 this , save to keep lately telling your Lordship that
17 that . 17 they want all the fees back.
18 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well, that seems logically to 18 My Lord has seen the vast amount of work that
19 follow . 19 Quantum actually did, which has formed an important part
20 Does anybody want to say anything about that? 20 of your Lordship’s reasons so far . It ’ s simply nonsense
21 MR FULTON: No, my Lord. 21 to suggest that on any basis the whole 500 million could
22 Submissions by MR AULD 22 form the subject of a claim, and because the claimants
23 MR AULD: My Lord, there are a number of issues with this , 23 have failed to say, for example, if it is their case
24 but one of them, my Lord, is this : that one would expect 24 that we overcharged them −−
25 the claimant, with respect , to tell all the third 25 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Mr Auld, I understand that and we’ve

45 47

1 parties of your Lordship’s order and to put it in terms 1 had the submissions on that , and I ’ m sorry that
2 expressly that the injunction had been discharged, 2 I haven’t felt able to be in a position to give
3 subject to any appeal. That would be the accurate way 3 the parties my decision on all the issues which have
4 of doing it , in my submission. 4 been argued, but I haven’t felt able to do so, and it
5 But my Lord, I think we need to be clear that my 5 was a choice essentially between doing what I have done
6 client certainly has been subjected to a constant 6 or your simply having to wait, with the injunction
7 barrage of correspondence from Norton Rose about asset 7 staying in place , until I was in a position to give
8 disclosure , which continued before the hearing in front 8 a full reasoned judgment.
9 of your Lordship on a daily basis , with people in my 9 MR AULD: My Lord, obviously we’re very grateful to
10 instructing solicitors late at night every night having 10 your Lordship for dealing with it so quickly .
11 to deal with this and, my Lord, it ’ s simply not 11 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: But that does mean that you have to
12 appropriate for any of those processes it continue 12 proceed on the footing that I may be of the view that
13 beyond today, in my respectful submission, given 13 the arguments that I have not dealt with will not be
14 the very serious nature of the findings your Lordship 14 decided in your client ’ s favour . They may or may not
15 has made, the fact that there is no permission to 15 but −−
16 appeal, and in my submission, on the face of it , there 16 MR AULD: They may or may not, I appreciate that . But as
17 is no basis for any appeal. 17 a matter of fairness one would have expected
18 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well, the first point you make can 18 the claimants to come up with a rather more sensible
19 be dealt with by making clear that any continuing 19 figure for this brief continuation of the order than
20 disclosure obligations are to be suspended for 20 the entire amount of the fees , and taken a sensible
21 the relevant period. That’s entirely without prejudice 21 percentage which on some realistic basis they say might
22 to whether there are any obligations yet to be complied 22 be recovered because they have been overcharged.
23 with. 23 My Lord, it ’ s certainly not 560 million that the figure
24 Mr McGrath, I can see some force in that . 24 is .
25 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, that’s quite typical in a situation 25 My Lord, the only other point I would ask

46 48

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 your Lordship is this , whether it ’ s possible , with 1 application for such variation and release of funds as
2 your Lordship’s assistance , to arrange the next, as it 2 we need in order to meet certain short−term cash flow
3 were, hearing in this case in front of my Lord to deal 3 needs without the need for a full −blown application
4 with the consequential matters as soon as possible , so 4 along the lines of the −−
5 that the matter −− 5 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: There are two alternatives. One is
6 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Sorry, what hearing is this? You 6 essentially to make the Angel Bell proviso apply across
7 mean after I ’ ve given judgment or ...? 7 the board, rather than have the usual restriction we’ve
8 MR AULD: Yes. Whether there can be a consequentials 8 got here in relation to the proprietary injunction .
9 hearing to deal with costs and all the other matters. 9 MR FULTON: My Lord, yes.
10 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well, there will come a stage at 10 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: The alternative is to identify
11 which I give judgment. I ’ m not giving you any promises 11 particular needs and for those specifically to be carved
12 when that will be. That will then, no doubt, give rise 12 out of the restriction which the proprietary order puts
13 to consequential questions which I will have to deal 13 on them, in the way we dealt with the costs of this
14 with. 14 hearing.
15 I am sitting in the Commercial Court for the whole 15 MR FULTON: Yes.
16 of the rest of this week and next week, so if there are 16 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: You would prefer the former.
17 urgent matters that need to be sorted out, then you can 17 MR FULTON: Yes, my Lord.
18 see if you can persuade listing to put them in front of 18 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes.
19 me, if that ’ s more convenient than being put in front of 19 Mr McGrath?
20 anybody else. 20 Submissions by MR MCGRATH
21 MR AULD: That’s helpful , my Lord. 21 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, the first point I was going to suggest
22 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Obviously, if you can’t agree on the 22 was that if my friend was to write to us with those
23 form of the order that ’ s going to be made at the end of 23 costs and then they can decide whether they can agree,
24 this hearing then you will have to make written 24 solicitors to solicitors , in the light of what I ’ ve
25 submissions to me pretty promptly and I will have to 25 indicated to your Lordship.

49 51

1 decide. But I really would hope that we can deal now 1 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: The order at the moment −−
2 with really any matters of principle , so that we don’t 2 the normal course of business proviso, it has a prior
3 then get left with a lot of correspondence and a delay. 3 notification , doesn’t it ? They usually do.
4 MR AULD: My Lord, to assist , we will draw up between us 4 MR MCGRATH: Yes, it’s page 320, section E.
5 a form of order from today’s hearing and submit it to 5 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: It’s paragraph 14. I can see −−
6 my Lord. 6 MR MCGRATH: 14 is ordinary and proper course. 13 is
7 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes. 7 the legal expenses.
8 Mr Fulton. 8 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well, I think that’s what
9 Submissions by MR FULTON 9 Mr Fulton’s on about essentially , because he’s talking
10 MR FULTON: My Lord, I come back to the question of my 10 not just about the legal costs of these proceedings but
11 client ’ s short−term cash flows. Your Lordship made 11 all sorts of other sums.
12 the observation to Mr McGrath as to the need for us to 12 MR AULD: My Lord, in fairness , the same obviously applies
13 be potentially able to use funds which are subject to 13 to my client .
14 the injunction for the purposes of legal costs to resist 14 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes.
15 the appeal, my Lord, but there ’ s also , as your Lordship 15 MR MCGRATH: Well, as I understand the position , my Lord,
16 will have heard last week, an awful lot else going on in 16 the amendments that have been made to 14 −−
17 other proceedings, in particular in Mauritius and in 17 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: What I have in mind is this,
18 the arbitrations , my Lord. At the moment, those aren’t 18 Mr McGrath: if we were to delete from both paragraphs 13
19 legal costs which would be subject to the ordinary carve 19 and 14 the proviso in the opening words, which takes
20 out in the order, and insofar as the injunction is 20 proprietary funds out of the scope of those, then both
21 proprietary , they’re not subject to that carve out 21 legal expenses and normal business dealing would be
22 anyway, my Lord. So it may be something that 22 permitted, but only with prior written notice of two
23 your Lordship’s willing to entertain today, or it may be 23 days, so it couldn’t just be done −− is that right ?
24 that if your Lordship’s willing to give a general 24 MR FULTON: My Lord, we gratefully adopt that suggestion.
25 liberty to apply on our part , such that we can make an 25 MR AULD: Yes, my Lord, so do we.

50 52

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, but is this going forward, as opposed
2 to that being used as a means of recovering all previous
3 fees that they have been holding that they’ve not been
4 able to make use of because of this ?
5 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: No. What we’re on at the moment is
6 what are the terms of the temporary order which I have
7 said will remain in place until the Court of Appeal is
8 in a position to give its view, having decided whether
9 or not to grant permission to appeal, and over that up
10 to ten−day period what I am suggesting is that now all
11 the defendants should be permitted to spend money, both
12 on ordinary living expenses and a reasonable sum on
13 legal advice and in the normal course of business,
14 subject to the prior written notification which at the
15 moment applies to the freezing order aspects but which
16 also applies at the moment −− and this is what is
17 intended to be changed −− which is not allowed in
18 relation to proprietary assets which are caught by the
19 proprietary injunction . Am I making sense?
20 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, you are, obviously.
21 Sorry, the reason I was slightly looking over my
22 friend ’ s shoulder is that we’re looking at the original
23 order in 13 and I know that this has been subject to
24 amendments and I just wanted to make sure that we are
25 all on the same page. I don’t know whether
1 14(a) and just see where we’ve got to . (Pause)
2 Yes, I see. Thank you. So the logic of what I was
3 suggesting, which is , broadly speaking, making these
4 provisos apply across the board without any exception
5 for the proprietary claim, would involve deleting
6 the opening words from paragraph 13 ”save in respect of
7 monies and/or assets falling within paragraph 5”, so
8 that ordinary living expenses are dealt with in that
9 way, and deleting 1(i ), in relation to Mr Bastos having
10 to confirm that they didn’t come from proprietary
11 assets , and it would involve deleting the introductory
12 words to paragraph 14, which is ”ordinary and proper
13 course of business ”, and it would involve deleting ,
14 I think , 14(a), which is a separate regimen for
15 proprietary funds in relation to ”ordinary and proper
16 course of business ”.
17 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, just so we’re clear , because obviously
18 the concern on our side is that if we open up the gates ,
19 as I call it , and allow access to these funds to meet
20 fees , that we’re not talking about accrued expenses, as
21 opposed to what is necessary and needed for the next ten
22 days or whatever for the purposes of the ten−day period
23 that the WFO stays in place .
24 There’s a concern on our side that if ”ordinary
25 business expenses” is allowed to come out, it might

53 55

1 your Lordship recalls that Mr Yeo helpfully prepared 1 result in all fees , et cetera , that haven’t previously
2 a consolidated version . 2 been recovered during the period of the WFO suddenly
3 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Ah, quite right. Let ’ s look at 3 being paid as fees accrued by that point as opposed
4 that , if I can find it . 4 to −−
5 MR MCGRATH: So we can just make sure that what 5 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: You’re talking about legal fees?
6 your Lordship’s suggesting fits in with what’s 6 MR MCGRATH: No, no, fees due to the defendants, say, under
7 already −− 7 the arrangements. So the concern would be −− my Lord, I
8 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Do you have another copy? 8 fully understand the concern that if we’re going to have
9 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, if you take this copy and I ’ ll work 9 a temporary freezing order then there ought to be
10 off the screen. (Handed) 10 a mechanism within it, and your Lordship has identified
11 The first point to make, my Lord, in terms of what’s 11 the mechanism, that enables living and legal expenses
12 different in the 14 and the consolidated order is that 12 for that short ten−day period to be accommodated, and
13 there are thresholds for some of the respondents as to 13 legal expenses, so that they can −−
14 what they need to tell us, so that they do not need to 14 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: The point is we’re not just talking
15 tell us about something below, for example in the case 15 about living and legal expenses, we are talking about
16 of the second respondent, anything below $10,000, they 16 ordinary course of business.
17 don’t need to tell us about. There’s no threshold for 17 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, yes.
18 the first respondent. 18 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: And at the moment they’re free to do
19 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Sorry, which paragraph are we on? 19 that out of anything that aren’ t proprietary assets ,
20 MR MCGRATH: In paragraph 14 of the consolidated, which is 20 subject to prior notification . That’s caused
21 an addition to what your Lordship sees in tab 13. 21 the problem, because Mr Bastos says, for example, that
22 There’s no threshold for the first respondent, and in 22 everything is so tied up together that it ’ s difficult to
23 the case of the second respondent the threshold is 23 distinguish between the two.
24 $10,000. 24 MR MCGRATH: Well, D2 and D20, my Lord, under 14(a), were
25 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Let me read 13 and 13(a) and 14 and 25 allowed to meet ongoing expenses and costs in

54 56

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos
1 the ordinary and proper course of business and payable
2 to third parties in respect of existing commitments
3 prior to the WFO having come into place under
4 the proviso 14(a), and that was in respect of the monies
5 that fell within the proprietary regime. So they did
6 have a means of doing that .
7 But what you see there , my Lord, is it ’ s the payment
8 to third parties , so they can keep things going.
9 The concern that was addressed in 14(a) there is that
10 although third parties who provide services to
11 the investments or what have you might need paying, that
12 we weren’t allowing the proprietary monies to suddenly
13 start paying the fees of the defendants. That’s really
14 the point , that if one doesn’t accept that what we’re
15 talking about is the ordinary business expenses that
16 arise during that ten−day period, there ’ s a danger that
17 they’ ll cover everything that ’ s been stopped previously
18 by way of fees to the defendants.
19 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: I follow.
20 Mr Fulton, what is it that for the next ten days you
21 want to be allowed to use the funds for?
22 Submissions by MR FULTON
23 MR FULTON: My Lord, certainly, first and foremost, there ’ s
24 legal fees , but I don’t understand that to be
25 contentious, and legal fees both in these proceedings
57
1 and also elsewhere. But there ’ s also , my Lord,
2 the salaries and the ongoing costs to keep these
3 businesses going, my Lord. Payments such as rent,
4 my Lord, relating to Mauritius premises; there has been
5 some evidence about that.
6 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Is 14(a) −− is there a problem with
7 14(a) continuing in its present form?
8 MR FULTON: Yes, my Lord, because of the timing, because
9 that requires 14 days notice .
10 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: But that’s what you have had to do
11 up to now.
12 MR FULTON: My Lord, yes, in the hope of getting rid of it ,
13 as we have managed to do, my Lord. So the indulgence
14 that ’ s been granted for this 10−day period whilst my
15 learned friend wants to go to the Court of Appeal, we
16 say that that ought not to now prevent us from making
17 ordinary course payments as we would be entitled to do
18 and free to do if the order had been discharged in its
19 entirety , my Lord. And the history to some of this is
20 that the question of notification and seeking permission
21 or clarification from Norton Rose has been a painful
22 one, my Lord.
23 My Lord, I ’ m reminded also that the level of
24 the freezing order which your Lordship is minded to keep
25 in place pending a decision by a single Lord Justice is
58
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
Day 5
1 on any view a generous measure, because it includes , for
2 instance , the sums paid in respect of service
3 agreements, which had nothing to do with my clients
4 my Lord, there ’ s no allegation against to my clients in
5 relation to those service agreements, and yet we are
6 caught by a freezing order in respect of those sums.
7 The logic of an injunction −− continuation of
8 the injunction in respect of fees , my Lord, will be in
9 respect of the 80−odd that was paid under the IMA and
10 the 280−odd that was paid under the illiquid portfolio .
11 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: All right. Why wouldn’t the logic
12 extend to the service agreement?
13 MR FULTON: Because, my Lord, my clients had nothing to do
14 with the service agreements, my Lord. They weren’t
15 party to any of those service agreements, and if there
16 was a conspiracy to cause them to be entered into ,
17 there ’ s no −−
18 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: To which your clients were a party.
19 I mean, that is the allegation against them and I have
20 not yet ruled on it .
21 MR FULTON: It’s the allegation , my Lord, but it is
22 the difference between an allegation which is made
23 against Mr Bastos and Mr Dos Santos that they conspired
24 to cause agreements to be entered into .
25 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well, it’s the same as the cross
59
1 claims argument.
2 MR FULTON: It’s the same issue that arises in relation to
3 the cross claims , my Lord, yes.
4 But the short point for present purposes is that
5 the level of that injunction is , on any view, my Lord,
6 a generous one, so far as my clients are concerned, and
7 any allegation of wrongdoing or receipts on their part .
8 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: The particular concern that
9 Mr McGrath has identified is that your clients shouldn’t
10 be entitled to now essentially raid the fund to pay all
11 outstanding fees claimed under the contractual
12 arrangements pending this holding the ring . Can we put
13 something in? Should you be allowed to , and if not,
14 what do you propose to prevent that?
15 MR FULTON: May I just take instructions , my Lord. (Pause)
16 My Lord, yes, I ’ m instructed there is no intention
17 to raid the fund in respect of accrued fees so far as
18 the Quantum vehicles are concerned. It may well be
19 necessary to use funds to pay already accrued legal
20 expenses, particularly in circumstances where at this
21 stage , my Lord, no interim payment is being made on
22 account of those costs , my Lord.
23 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well, how can we reformulate
24 the order if what I want to do is to have a shorter
25 period of notice that enables you to make third party
60
transcripts@opus2.com
0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 payments of the kind you have been identifying but does 1 the proprietary element be subject to the legal fees and
2 not permit you to use the fund for accrued fees? 2 ordinary use of business carve out.
3 MR FULTON: Well, my Lord, if it that ’ s your Lordship’s 3 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: But then you go back to
4 intention , I ’ m sure we can agree something, my Lord. 4 the difficulty of your saying , ”Well, the payment of our
5 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, I just rise to say we offer two days 5 fees in accordance with the contractual arrangements is
6 for this temporary period of time. For 14(a), which 6 in the normal course of business and we can have it out
7 requires 14 days advance advanced notice, if it assists , 7 of the proprietary funds ”.
8 we’ ll take two days advanced notice in that respect . 8 MR FULTON: Plus a carve out to the carve out to make clear
9 MR FULTON: There’s a logic in that in that it ’ s the same 9 that we wouldn’t be seeking to use that as a provisional
10 time period which will apply in relation to the −− 10 order in order to extract IMA or LPA fees . It is −−
11 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: So if we leave 14(a) in but change 11 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: I’m sorry, how are you suggesting we
12 14 days to two days, how then do we deal with the old 12 achieve that by the drafting ?
13 14? 13 MR FULTON: ”Save in respect of monies which are claimed as
14 MR FULTON: Well, my Lord, we would ask that we still 14 fees under the IMA or LPA ...”
15 nevertheless adopt your Lordship’s suggestion, so that 15 So they wouldn’t be within the carve out, my Lord,
16 the −− 16 so they would be protected.
17 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: That would then overlap with 14(a) 17 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: So that’s the proviso at
18 and allow you to raid the fund on two day’s notice , 18 the beginning of 14, you’re suggesting?
19 wouldn’t it , for your fees? This is a drafting point 19 MR FULTON: Yes, my Lord.
20 rather than a substantive point . 20 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: But if we just call them ”the fees”
21 MR FULTON: My Lord, one way would be to amend the opening 21 for the moment, we’ll define them. You would have 14
22 words of 14 so that it reads: 22 say:
23 ”Save in respect of monies alleged to be due under 23 ”Save in respect of the fees the order does not
24 the IMA or LPAs ...” 24 prohibit dealing with or disposing of any of the assets
25 And so that it couldn’t then be used in order to 25 in the ordinary and proper course of business on two

61 63

1 claim any fees to the Quantum Group companies which are 1 days written notice .”
2 said to be due under those agreements, my Lord, which 2 And then one wouldn’t have a separate 14(a) at all .
3 I understand to be Mr McGrath’s primary concern. 3 MR FULTON: Yes, my Lord.
4 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: But that would be a replacement for 4 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Because you would be entitled to use
5 14(a), otherwise you’ve got two overlapping provisions , 5 proprietary assets for payments not just to third
6 haven’t you? 6 parties but to yourselves, if they were in the ordinary
7 MR FULTON: Yes, my Lord. 7 course of business, except −−
8 It ’ s the proprietary element which causes 8 MR FULTON: Except −−
9 the primary problem, my Lord, I think . But if 9 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: −− for the fees, as I’ve been
10 your Lordship was of the view that the personal freezing 10 describing them.
11 order was sufficient to protect my learned friend ’ s 11 MR FULTON: My Lord, yes.
12 interest during the short period in which he seeks 12 (Pause)
13 permission to appeal, then to dispense with the 14(a) 13 MR MCGRATH: Sorry, my Lord. Subject to defining the fees
14 regime, the notification regime, even on the shorter 14 and making sure that (inaudible) that we should trouble
15 notice , but then to deal with it all under the rubric of 15 your Lordship with, as I understand what’s being
16 14, may strike a fairer balance. 16 suggested, we put in that :
17 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: I’m not attracted at the moment by 17 ”Save in respect of the fees ...”
18 the suggestion that the temporary order shouldn’t have 18 At the beginning the 14.
19 a proprietary order at all , which is I think , broadly 19 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes.
20 speaking, what you’re suggesting, and if it has 20 MR MCGRATH: And then 14(a) goes completely.
21 a proprietary order, then one has to work out what 21 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes.
22 restrictions apply to the use to which arguably 22 MR MCGRATH: And that would be for the purposes of
23 proprietary funds can be used. 23 the temporary order only, and obviously we’re not −−
24 MR FULTON: Well, no, my Lord, my suggestion was not that 24 that ’ s all we’re talking about here is your Lordship’s
25 there not be a proprietary element, but that 25 order for the next 10 days.

62 64

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

1 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: I’m only concerned with the order 1

2 I ’ m going to make. If the Court of Appeal says the full 2
3 order must continue, that ’ s a matter for someone else. 3
4 MR MCGRATH: I know, it’s just these things tend to take 4 INDEX
5 a life of their own that −− if that ’ s then how someone’s 5
6 happy to proceed. As long as it ’ s absolutely clear , and 6
7 it ’ s on the transcript , that this is an agreement to Submissions by MR AULD ..............................23
8 cover the temporary period only −− 7
9 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Well, I’m not going to treat it as Submissions by MR ANDERSON ..........................30
10 a consent order. I ’ ve said what I ’ ve said in giving you 8
11 a steer as to what I ’ m going to decide, and you are Submissions and Applications by MR ..................32
12 helpfully helping me try and work out what the drafting 9 MCGRATH
13 is in order to achieve that . I ’ m not saying , and it 10 Submissions by MR AULD ..............................39
14 can’ t be said against you, that this was a consent 11 Submissions by MR FULTON ............................41
15 order. 12 Submissions by MR ANDERSON ..........................41
16 MR MCGRATH: My Lord, agreed. 13 Submissions by MR MCGRATH ...........................42
17 And in terms of fees , all I really wanted to stress , 14 Submissions by MR AULD ..............................45
18 that it isn ’ t just the IMA and the limited partnership 15 Submissions by MR FULTON ............................50
19 agreement, we then have those advisory agreements that 16 Submissions by MR MCGRATH ...........................51
20 shoot off from the limited partnership agreement. So 17 Submissions by MR FULTON ............................57
21 just so it ’ s understanding the fees are just wider than 18
22 just two agreements. 19
23 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: It’s the two consultancy agreements 20
24 and the five service agreements, is it ? 21
25 MR MCGRATH: No, but it’s also −− for each limited 22
23
65
24
1 partnership you had a manager agreement, and then you 25
2 had an advisory agreement, and they were Quantum 67
3 entities appointed to those as well . So the limited
4 partnership agreement spreads out. We’re talking two 68
5 about Quantum entities.
6 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes.
7 Do we think we have −−
8 MR FULTON: My Lord, I think we can find a definition . It
9 may be something along the lines of :
10 ”Save in respect of fees payable to any of the D3 to
11 20 ...”
12 And so the point is it ’ s the recipient of the fees ,
13 and we shan’t be using this as a means of dipping into
14 that fund in respect of fees as distinct from necessary
15 ordinary course payments and the payment of legal
16 expenses to third parties , my Lord.
17 MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: Yes, well, that sounds sensible.
18 Right , anything else? No, all right . Thank you all
19 very much, and I ’ ll let you have such further reasons
20 when I can.
21 (4.45 pm)
22 (The hearing adjourned)
23
24
25
66

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

10:7 12:17 18:19 anything (9) 6:1 29:22 arguments (3) 2:10 38:11 39:4 44:25 broadly (2) 55:3 62:19 civil (1) 31:7
A
25:15 32:4 34:2 30:12 43:10 44:19 25:2 48:13 47:17 50:10 63:3 brought (1) 44:17 claimant (4) 28:12
against (11) 8:3 14:16 45:20 54:16 56:19 arise (2) 14:7 57:16 backstop (2) 37:17,21 bundle (1) 23:23 31:3,4 45:25
able (6) 38:13 39:10 19:3 31:16 40:10 66:18 arises (2) 24:5 60:2 balance (3) 18:11 39:25 burden (1) 29:11 claimants (26) 1:15
48:2,4 50:13 53:4 41:21 42:5 59:4,19,23 anyway (2) 30:22 50:22 arrange (1) 49:2 62:16 business (14) 9:19 2:4,20 5:21,25 9:25
above (2) 18:6 33:6 65:14 apart (2) 9:2 11:19 arrangements (3) 56:7 ban (1) 31:8 52:2,21 53:13 10:9 11:4 12:13 17:2
absence (1) 30:9 aggregate (1) 9:22 apologise (1) 30:8 60:12 63:5 banco (3) 9:9,18 10:5 55:13,16,25 56:16 20:5,21 21:1,9,11,25
absolute (1) 31:7 agree (5) 29:17 34:6 apparent (4) 9:2 10:16 articulated (1) 40:11 bank (3) 8:18 9:9 11:16 57:1,15 63:2,6,25 64:7 22:2 23:4 27:11,13
absolutely (3) 38:19 49:22 51:23 61:4 12:16 16:1 ask (15) 25:12 27:15 banks (1) 33:7 businesses (1) 58:3 28:20 40:12 41:22
40:21 65:6 agreed (2) 1:20 65:16 apparently (4) 3:19 6:3 29:6 34:16 36:2,4,6 barrage (1) 46:7 47:14,22 48:18
accept (3) 15:6 26:3 agreement (8) 20:15 8:24,24 38:2,25 39:8 42:16 based (2) 13:4 35:20 C claimed (2) 60:11 63:13
57:14 59:12 65:7,19,20 appeal (40) 2:6,7,8 44:2 45:14 48:25 basis (10) 35:22,23 claims (4) 1:20 20:14
accepted (4) 2:11 12:24 66:1,2,4 34:14,17 35:10,12,25 61:14 39:19 40:10,20 calculated (1) 17:16 60:1,3
15:1 16:19 agreements (11) 1:21 36:1,2,19,22,25 asked (5) 6:17 21:12 46:9,17 47:9,21 48:21 calibre (1) 8:17 clarification (1) 58:21
access (2) 17:24 55:19 59:3,5,14,15,24 62:2 37:1,2,16,18,23 38:7 24:12 27:3 43:14 bastos (12) 3:14 5:1,8 call (2) 55:19 63:20 clarify (1) 44:15
accidental (1) 22:10 65:19,22,23,24 39:12 40:10,12,16 asking (4) 36:23 39:7 8:6 9:2 10:12,20 came (1) 34:25 clarity (1) 26:21
accommodated (1) ah (1) 54:3 42:12,14 43:18 42:9,15 21:14,22 55:9 56:21 candidates (1) 8:17 clear (16) 1:9 2:10 12:4
56:12 ahead (1) 25:2 44:7,8,17,20 45:16 aspect (5) 17:6 20:25 59:23 cannot (2) 15:6 40:12 18:23 19:11 21:7
accordance (2) 14:10 allegation (7) 13:25 46:3,16,17 50:15 23:17 34:19,20 bears (1) 34:20 cant (2) 49:22 65:14 29:19 36:15 44:10,16
63:5 19:6 59:4,19,21,22 53:7,9 58:15 62:13 aspects (3) 4:21 34:17 became (1) 2:24 capital (2) 13:7 16:20 45:3 46:5,19 55:17
account (3) 6:13 39:8 60:7 65:2 53:15 becomes (2) 36:5 42:11 capitalisation (4) 8:16 63:8 65:6
60:22 allegations (5) 10:8 appeals (1) 44:10 asserted (1) 14:1 before (25) 4:10,12,17 9:4,5 10:1 clearly (1) 32:21
accountants (1) 32:1 14:17 15:7 21:16 23:3 appear (2) 25:24 34:9 assertion (1) 6:7 5:5,8,10 6:19 8:14 careful (2) 27:25 32:5 client (2) 46:6 52:13
accounted (3) alleged (2) 2:25 61:23 appears (2) 9:15 17:17 assessment (1) 11:25 11:18 13:10 16:24 carefully (1) 30:23 clients (14) 24:21
18:7,10,24 alleging (1) 22:11 appetite (1) 18:1 asset (8) 3:17 8:18,25 20:23 22:3 24:13 25:3 carrying (1) 11:2 25:7,8 27:12 40:8 41:2
accounts (6) 12:2,7 allow (3) 19:12 55:19 applicants (1) 24:7 27:10,22 34:3 40:23 34:18,25 35:10,12 carve (6) 50:19,21 48:14 50:11
17:1,8,21 19:12 61:18 application (31) 1:6 2:8 46:7 37:18 38:25 39:15 63:2,8,8,15 59:3,4,13,18 60:6,9
accrued (5) 55:20 56:3 allowed (6) 42:23 53:17 4:13 6:20 7:17 assets (12) 3:25 9:8,10 41:5 43:17 46:8 carved (1) 51:11 close (1) 8:6
60:17,19 61:2 55:25 56:25 57:21 14:20,21 15:13 16:3,5 40:8 41:22 42:3 53:18 beginning (2) 63:18 cases (2) 37:11 40:17 collective (2) 13:7,12
accurate (1) 46:3 60:13 22:2,14,20 34:13 55:7,11 56:19 63:24 64:18 cash (4) 17:12 41:13 come (12) 1:7 18:2
accurately (2) 9:6 21:5 allowing (1) 57:12 35:15 36:14,19 64:5 behalf (1) 30:10 50:11 51:2 20:22 32:12 33:10
achieve (3) 26:20 63:12 along (3) 33:23 51:4 37:1,13 38:14,23 assist (2) 16:3 50:4 being (23) 2:23 5:18 cashlike (1) 17:12 38:11 48:18 49:10
65:13 66:9 40:19,24 41:5 42:19 assistance (2) 39:9 49:2 6:16 7:6 12:18 13:23 castro (1) 4:6 50:10 55:10,25 57:3
achieves (1) 32:11 already (4) 5:7 8:21 43:15,17,20 44:7 assists (1) 61:7 15:8 18:23 19:11 catch (2) 39:2,3 comes (1) 26:14
across (2) 51:6 55:4 54:7 60:19 51:1,3 associate (1) 21:14 20:21 21:12,21 23:3 category (1) 15:14 comfort (1) 31:22
action (1) 19:12 also (16) 5:17,24 applications (5) 32:19 associated (2) 5:1 21:21 29:13 33:18 36:16 caught (3) 20:14 53:18 commenting (1) 43:11
activities (1) 11:1 7:12,14 12:8 14:15 35:7 38:7 39:10 67:8 association (1) 8:6 39:10 42:5 49:19 53:2 59:6 commercial (1) 49:15
acts (1) 45:1 17:13 27:15,17 32:12 applied (1) 5:21 attaching (1) 14:5 56:3 60:21 64:15 cause (3) 38:18 commission (1) 6:18
actually (1) 47:19 50:15 53:16 58:1,1,23 applies (3) 52:12 attempt (1) 4:12 believe (2) 34:22,23 59:16,24 commitment (1) 4:4
addendum (4) 4:24 65:25 53:15,16 attention (10) 1:13 5:13 bell (1) 51:6 caused (2) 44:11 56:20 commitments (1) 57:2
5:4,15,18 alternative (1) 51:10 apply (6) 29:21 50:25 11:5 12:14 13:2 16:23 below (2) 54:15,16 causes (1) 62:8 committed (1) 16:20
addition (1) 54:21 alternatives (1) 51:5 51:6 55:4 61:10 62:22 18:13,20 19:25 44:17 benefit (2) 21:14,21 causing (1) 1:8 common (1) 16:20
additional (1) 28:8 although (10) 2:3 7:5 applying (1) 44:22 attracted (1) 62:17 benefits (1) 5:8 ceased (1) 24:11 commonly (3) 12:25
additionally (1) 10:10 10:10 12:14 21:7 23:7 appointed (3) 5:9 8:21 audience (1) 11:3 between (6) 20:14 35:3 ceases (1) 24:7 13:6,21
address (6) 2:11 4:15 35:9 41:6 45:12 57:10 66:3 audit (1) 13:14 48:5 50:4 56:23 59:22 central (6) 8:2 19:2 companies (3) 5:1
26:18 29:15 37:7 always (1) 38:6 appointing (2) 6:14 audited (1) 12:7 beyond (3) 11:4 22:10 21:15,25 22:10 23:5 42:22 62:1
42:18 amend (1) 61:21 21:17 auditing (1) 11:10 46:13 certain (2) 43:16 51:2 company (4) 4:1,9 7:15
addressed (8) 6:15 amended (1) 5:5 appointment (7) august (4) 5:6,14 billion (12) 3:25 4:2 certainty (1) 26:20 13:9
11:17 12:13 19:17 amendments (2) 52:16 6:22,23 7:13 8:5,7 14:4,18 9:10,11 16:13,15 certifying (1) 12:1 compelled (1) 28:6
20:6,6 47:5 57:9 53:24 9:20 11:1 auld (35) 23:20,21 17:11 20:20 22:12 cetera (4) 33:7 35:16 complaint (3) 12:22
adduced (1) 41:22 amongst (1) 14:18 appointments (2) 3:9 24:2,20,23 25:21 34:19 35:2,13 45:2 56:1 13:10 17:4
adjourned (1) 66:22 amount (11) 7:23 26:3,10,20 27:7,20 billions (1) 8:19 chairman (5) 2:23,24 completely (1) 64:20
adopt (2) 52:24 61:15 16:12,13,20,21 18:15 appreciate (2) 41:17 28:2,23 29:17,24 30:5 bit (2) 32:5 38:5 4:20 5:12 8:4 complexion (2) 8:9 22:1
advance (2) 20:22 61:7 21:3 35:13 36:24 48:16 39:13,14,15 40:2 board (14) 4:1 chairmanship (2) 8:8,22 complexity (2) 22:7
advanced (4) 1:10 47:2,18 48:20 approaching (1) 9:22 45:22,23 47:2,5,25 7:1,4,6,8,15 9:1 challenge (1) 23:16 37:20
12:18 61:7,8 amounting (1) 5:19 appropriate (5) 25:16 48:9,16 49:8,21 50:4 11:7,12 14:16 15:25 chance (2) 37:13 43:25 compliance (1) 12:1
advantage (1) 16:4 anderson (13) 26:13 27:1 35:15 52:12,25 67:6,10,14 39:11 51:7 55:4 change (4) 19:15,19 complied (1) 46:22
advice (1) 53:13 30:11,13,14 31:2,9,17 46:12 austin (1) 19:17 bodies (1) 11:8 20:9 61:11 comply (1) 33:18
adviser (1) 7:2 32:3,8 33:25 41:16,17 approved (2) 2:2 29:10 authorities (3) 12:4 body (4) 11:10,20,24 changed (3) 13:11 conceded (1) 17:3
advisers (5) 1:15 9:25 67:7,12 arbitration (2) 1:19,21 13:17 41:25 12:4 20:23 53:17 concern (8) 32:6
23:4 25:7,9 andor (3) 28:12,15 55:7 arbitrations (1) 50:18 authority (1) 25:11 both (8) 13:19 19:13 characterise (1) 5:24 55:18,24 56:7,8 57:9
advising (2) 11:12 31:25 angel (1) 51:6 areas (1) 43:16 availability (1) 16:4 20:16 27:11 52:18,20 charge (1) 16:20 60:8 62:3
advisory (4) 11:8,9 angola (6) 9:9,18 10:5 arent (5) 43:7,24 45:6 available (4) 10:17 16:2 53:11 57:25 charged (5) 16:7,12 concerned (5) 3:10
65:19 66:2 11:17 30:18 41:24 50:18 56:19 22:22 38:10 bottom (1) 31:13 18:15 19:2 21:20 26:21 60:6,18 65:1
affidavit (12) 4:17,23 angolan (2) 9:9 41:24 arguable (2) 22:6 40:9 aware (3) 15:2,23 17:19 bound (1) 44:19 checks (3) 25:4,25 26:6 concluded (2) 20:18
5:3 6:2 7:7 9:14 another (3) 14:16 19:2 arguably (1) 62:22 awful (1) 50:16 breach (2) 2:16 21:8 chicken (1) 38:5 23:12
14:2,14 19:22 20:4 54:8 argue (1) 2:6 breaches (4) 1:12 chief (1) 3:16 conduct (2) 6:25 12:15
23:7 28:18 answer (1) 22:2 argued (1) 48:4 21:4,5 23:12 choice (1) 48:5 conferring (1) 5:8
B
afford (1) 20:22 antoine (1) 4:6 argument (13) 4:17 breath (2) 39:2,3 chosen (1) 12:23 confidential (5)
afraid (2) 15:6 32:16 anybody (5) 31:19 5:21,25 8:14 11:18 breathtaking (3) 5:20 circle (1) 30:24 27:10,24 28:1,3 34:3
africa (1) 9:19 40:25 42:3 45:20 12:14 13:10 16:12 b (5) 24:3,6 29:4 30:14 16:10 18:22 circumstances (9) 4:13 confidentiality (1) 28:9
after (5) 5:11 30:2,4 49:20 17:13,14 19:24 20:5 33:17 brief (2) 1:24 48:19 7:12,22 15:18 20:23 confine (1) 17:6
44:13 49:7 anyone (1) 24:8 60:1 back (11) 27:4 30:17 brings (1) 34:10 27:13 33:21 41:10 confined (3) 30:15,24
again (9) 3:6 6:4 9:24 32:25 33:10 35:15 60:20

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

41:24 correspondence (6) define (1) 63:21 disputes (1) 22:4 eliminate (1) 12:23 excess (1) 16:15 64:9,13,17 65:17,21
confirm (3) 25:6,14 20:12,17,24 28:18 defined (2) 28:16,17 disseminated (4) else (6) 40:25 43:10 excuse (3) 15:3,15 23:9 66:10,12,14
55:10 46:7 50:3 defining (1) 64:13 31:18,19,24 33:17 49:20 50:16 65:3 exercise (1) 4:14 feet (2) 28:23 33:12
confirmation (2) 25:10 costs (11) 29:25 41:12 definition (2) 27:25 dissemination (2) 31:8 66:18 existed (1) 15:17 fell (2) 15:14 57:5
31:20 49:9 50:14,19 66:8 33:6 elses (1) 42:3 existence (1) 6:23 felt (3) 44:20 48:2,4
confirmed (1) 32:25 51:13,23 52:10 56:25 delay (1) 50:3 dissipation (12) 19:23 elsewhere (2) 9:19 58:1 existing (1) 57:2 few (2) 21:9 39:9
confirming (2) 25:16 58:2 60:22 delete (2) 28:13 52:18 20:6,19 21:2,15 eminence (1) 9:3 expect (5) 12:12 26:25 field (1) 4:8
26:23 couldnt (2) 52:23 61:25 deleted (1) 33:1 39:19,20,22,25 40:23 emphasise (1) 23:7 38:13,14 45:24 fielding (1) 3:16
conflict (3) 13:25 14:7 counsel (4) 11:9,9,9,24 deleting (4) 41:19,23 emphasised (1) 5:3 expected (1) 48:17 fifth (4) 7:7 10:6 13:24
21:23 counter (1) 14:10 55:5,9,11,13 distinct (1) 66:14 employed (1) 9:1 expense (1) 15:17 16:2
conflicting (1) 20:14 course (21) 2:1,3,13 deliberate (1) 21:8 distinguish (1) 56:23 enable (2) 36:24 38:19 expenses (14) 43:6 figure (2) 48:19,23
conflicts (4) 14:3,5,5,9 16:24 29:5,20 31:2 deloittes (4) 12:7,7 document (2) 3:19 enables (2) 56:11 60:25 52:7,21 53:12 figures (4) 18:8,25
conjunction (1) 9:12 43:9 44:19 52:2,6 13:14,19 28:13 end (1) 49:23 55:8,20,25 35:20 39:1
connection (1) 25:9 53:13 55:13,16 56:16 departments (2) 30:18 documentation (1) 9:15 engaged (2) 3:4 42:2 56:11,13,15,25 57:15 fill (1) 33:21
connote (1) 23:17 57:1 58:17 63:6,25 31:5 documented (1) 6:1 engagement (1) 3:6 60:20 66:16 final (2) 29:25 36:18
conscious (3) 1:5 25:1 64:7 66:15 depend (1) 31:12 documents (8) 14:18,23 enquiries (7) 7:24 10:3 experience (5) 3:17,24 finally (1) 47:13
38:17 courts (1) 37:25 described (7) 6:2 20:3 22:25 28:19,21 12:17 15:24 22:24 4:7 8:25 9:3 finance (1) 11:14
consent (2) 65:10,14 cover (2) 57:17 65:8 8:12,15 10:13 13:3 34:11 45:15 23:8,10 explain (1) 47:15 financial (2) 6:18 42:2
consequent (1) 21:15 covered (1) 21:3 16:9 18:22 does (8) 18:3 23:9 30:6 enquiry (6) 23:5 explained (2) 8:20 9:3 find (4) 21:7 33:3 54:4
consequential (2) criminal (2) 10:12 31:7 describes (2) 7:5 18:14 40:22 45:20 48:11 29:7,12,18,23 34:6 explanation (1) 18:3 66:8
49:4,13 criticism (5) 13:15,16 describing (1) 64:10 61:1 63:23 entered (4) 3:2 5:5 express (1) 19:13 findings (1) 46:14
consequentials (1) 49:8 14:14 17:6,15 description (1) 23:18 doesnt (4) 33:9 34:8 59:16,24 expressly (2) 14:6 46:2 fine (5) 10:14,19,19,23
consider (4) 1:4,17 criticisms (2) 13:22 destroy (3) 27:14 28:12 52:3 57:14 entertain (1) 50:23 extend (3) 43:13 44:9 28:24
15:16 22:25 15:20 45:15 doing (3) 46:4 48:5 57:6 entire (2) 47:14 48:20 59:12 firm (1) 44:18
considerable (2) 1:8 cross (2) 59:25 60:3 destroyed (2) 30:25 dollars (3) 8:19 9:10,18 entirely (5) 4:19 27:3 extended (3) 15:24 first (19) 2:18 4:16,23
27:9 crossundertaking (1) 33:1 done (8) 5:14 11:5 35:14 40:7 46:21 44:18,21 9:14 14:2 19:21 20:4
consideration (1) 22:18 29:19 destruction (4) 32:13 26:5,15 33:21 39:18 entirety (4) 1:11 2:14 extensive (2) 4:7 8:25 23:7 24:5 27:7 29:9
considerations (1) 40:9 culpable (2) 21:7 23:13 33:19 34:11 45:14 48:5 52:23 17:10 58:19 extent (2) 6:3 10:25 33:3 34:8 46:18 51:21
considered (1) 23:1 cumulatively (1) 21:6 detail (2) 9:6 31:12 dont (19) 24:16 25:23 entities (4) 3:4 21:21 extra (1) 39:9 54:11,18,22 57:23
consolidated (3) current (1) 20:9 detailed (8) 1:4 3:8,19 28:10 29:25 30:5,6,6 66:3,5 extract (2) 17:9 63:10 fiscal (2) 11:9,24
54:2,12,20 custodial (1) 10:16 4:2,9 6:5 8:8 12:6 35:24 36:4,15,18 entitled (4) 26:22 58:17 extracting (1) 5:2 fits (1) 54:6
conspiracy (2) 21:13 details (1) 25:1 38:14 39:6 45:9,14 60:10 64:4 extraordinarily (1) five (2) 13:17 65:24
59:16 D development (1) 11:16 50:2 53:25 54:17 entity (1) 8:13 21:19 flow (2) 41:13 51:2
conspirator (1) 2:25 developments (1) 35:17 57:24 entrusted (1) 9:22 extraordinary (2) 16:10 flows (1) 50:11
conspired (1) 59:23 d2 (1) 56:24 device (1) 40:13 dos (13) 2:22 4:19 epithet (1) 5:20 18:23 focus (1) 32:17
constant (1) 46:6 d20 (1) 56:24 devote (1) 15:9 5:7,16 6:12 8:4 11:4 equity (7) 3:4,11,23,24 eye (1) 16:10 focused (1) 40:7
consternation (1) 44:11 d3 (1) 66:10 didnt (4) 32:16,17,20 14:15 17:21 21:13,16 9:11 13:1 18:1 follow (3) 20:11 45:19
constitute (1) 2:14 daily (1) 46:9 55:10 41:19 59:23 equivalent (1) 7:14 57:19
F
constraints (1) 15:16 damages (1) 29:6 difference (2) 41:9 double (1) 39:1 equus (1) 4:24 followed (1) 40:15
consultancy (1) 65:23 danger (1) 57:16 59:22 doubt (1) 49:12 ernst (12) 6:8 9:6 11:19 following (5) 2:17 8:8
consultation (1) 11:10 date (3) 1:6 9:20 16:16 different (3) 8:9 22:1 down (3) 16:21,25 36:6 13:2,19 16:21 18:13 face (2) 17:23 46:16 11:6 29:1,21
contain (1) 15:10 dated (2) 3:6,10 54:12 dr (9) 2:24,25 3:3,7 22:19 32:12,24,25 facesaving (1) 40:13 footing (1) 48:12
contained (2) 4:2 12:11 day (1) 39:4 difficult (2) 36:6 56:22 5:12,16 7:20 8:7,22 35:21 factor (1) 43:14 force (1) 46:24
contemplated (1) 6:15 days (27) 37:6,17,21 difficulties (2) 29:2,8 drafting (3) 61:19 63:12 error (2) 4:21 5:17 fail (1) 42:13 foreign (1) 32:1
contentious (1) 57:25 38:3,8,9,10,25 39:9,15 difficulty (3) 37:21 65:12 errors (1) 22:6 failed (2) 2:20 47:23 foremost (1) 57:23
contents (1) 6:20 41:8 42:10,15 44:2,3 38:15 63:4 draw (5) 1:13 5:13 11:5 especially (1) 15:18 failing (1) 1:13 form (10) 24:4 27:21
context (2) 36:7 41:4 52:23 55:22 57:20 diligence (1) 37:24 28:25 50:4 essentially (5) 32:6 48:5 failure (6) 8:10 10:24 28:18 32:10 40:7 44:6
continuation (6) 2:7 58:9 61:5,7,8,12,12,18 dipping (1) 66:13 drawdown (1) 17:8 51:6 52:9 60:10 15:15 19:8 23:9 47:14 47:22 49:23 50:5 58:7
37:1 42:25 44:23 64:1,25 directed (1) 41:7 drawing (1) 16:25 estate (1) 4:7 fair (5) 1:16 8:11 10:25 formed (1) 47:19
48:19 59:7 de (3) 9:9,18 10:5 director (2) 4:7 14:16 drawn (7) 12:14 13:2 et (4) 33:7 35:16 45:2 15:12 19:4 former (1) 51:16
continue (5) 27:5 40:13 deal (21) 22:4 29:2 discharge (7) 1:7,18 16:21,23 18:12,20 56:1 fairer (1) 62:16 formula (1) 27:18
44:5 46:12 65:3 30:1,2,3 32:15 33:12 34:12,14,18 35:5 19:25 even (7) 5:8 9:21 17:11 fairly (4) 6:12 19:9 formulate (1) 1:4
continued (2) 42:5 46:8 35:24 36:1,13,17 45:11 dubious (1) 42:2 35:5 40:6 41:8 62:14 20:13,18 forthwith (1) 28:12
continuing (7) 25:4 37:13 38:1,7 46:11 discharged (6) 1:11 due (5) 1:25 2:13 56:6 event (7) 10:1,20 12:16 fairness (2) 48:17 52:12 fortunato (3) 14:16
38:17 40:6 46:19 49:3,9,13 50:1 61:12 36:9 39:17 45:3 46:2 61:23 62:2 15:23 20:21 30:24 falling (1) 55:7 15:23 16:1
47:3,10 58:7 62:15 58:18 during (4) 47:6 56:2 35:16 false (1) 6:7 forward (2) 4:25 53:1
contract (4) 4:23 dealing (5) 33:2 42:3 discharging (3) 2:15 57:16 62:12 every (2) 41:23 46:10 far (8) 22:9 26:21 36:5 found (2) 30:17 36:21
5:6,15,18 48:10 52:21 63:24 23:14 40:20 duty (5) 1:12 2:16 everybody (1) 45:6 39:23 40:8 47:20 founded (1) 10:9
contracts (1) 4:25 dealt (8) 2:12 14:9 34:3 disclose (2) 2:20 11:4 15:12 21:4 23:13 everyones (1) 38:23 60:6,17 four (2) 6:9 21:15
contractual (2) 60:11 46:19 47:13 48:13 disclosed (3) 8:1 14:8 everything (2) 56:22 favour (1) 48:14 fourth (1) 12:19
E
63:5 51:13 55:8 15:2 57:17 february (1) 19:10 francs (3) 8:16 9:5
contrary (1) 17:7 december (3) 5:4,15 disclosing (1) 14:6 e (1) 52:4 evidence (16) 4:22 fee (2) 4:4 18:14 10:22
contrasted (1) 8:17 22:19 disclosure (16) 1:13 earlier (1) 5:6 6:19,21 7:21 11:18,21 feel (3) 20:10 34:2 free (3) 40:19 56:18
control (3) 12:24 17:2 decide (3) 50:1 51:23 2:17 14:2,11 19:18 economy (2) 11:15 12:13,21 16:3 22:3,20 44:20 58:18
41:20 65:11 20:3 21:4 22:1 27:22 17:24 40:22 41:6,23,25 58:5 feeling (1) 35:25 freezing (29)
controversial (1) 27:9 decided (4) 39:24 41:18 28:5,15,22 30:19 edeys (1) 30:9 evidential (1) 29:11 fees (53) 5:2,17,21,22 1:7,10,11,25 2:5,7,15
convenience (1) 44:21 48:14 53:8 32:22 46:8,20 effect (3) 24:7,11 40:8 exactly (1) 44:14 16:7,8,12,20 17:10,16 15:8 16:17 21:3 22:12
convenient (1) 49:19 decision (4) 1:22,24 dishonest (1) 21:12 egg (1) 38:5 examining (1) 15:10 18:6,8,15,21,22,24,24 23:2,14,17,25
conviction (1) 10:12 48:3 58:25 dishonestly (1) 8:5 either (1) 27:9 example (9) 4:22 5:1 19:2 21:20 35:13 41:4 34:12,14,18 35:10
copies (2) 28:19 32:11 decree (1) 11:7 dishonesty (2) 22:11 electronic (1) 28:14 12:5 32:11,23 47:8,23 47:17 48:20 53:3 36:9,24 37:2 40:18
copy (5) 24:15,18 28:13 defendants (13) 1:8 8:3 23:3 element (3) 62:8,25 54:15 56:21 55:20 56:1,3,5,6 41:21 53:15 56:9
54:8,9 19:3 28:14 35:4,4 40:5 dispense (1) 62:13 63:1 except (2) 64:7,8 57:13,18,24,25 59:8 58:24 59:6 62:10
corporate (1) 41:13 41:13 47:5 53:11 56:6 disposing (1) 63:24 elements (6) 8:3 16:18 exception (1) 55:4 60:11,17 61:2,19 62:1 fresh (2) 1:11 23:15
57:13,18 19:3 21:25 22:11 23:5 63:1,5,10,14,20,23

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

friday (7) 24:12,21 24:9 29:9 31:2,4,5 hell (1) 33:10 impropriety (2) 12:21 13:1,7,12 look (1) 54:3
L
44:9,12,12,13,14 33:7 36:21 38:16 helpful (1) 49:21 14:17 investments (7) looking (2) 53:21,22
friends (5) 33:2,7,13 39:23 40:3 46:13 49:7 helpfully (2) 54:1 65:12 inaccurate (2) 11:19,20 3:5,11,12,24 9:11 12:9 lack (1) 10:7 lordship (52) 23:23
53:22 62:11 gives (1) 7:20 helping (1) 65:12 inappropriate (3) 12:23 57:11 lang (1) 9:12 24:2,3,14 25:13,16
front (7) 24:15 42:13 giving (5) 5:6,22 10:14 helps (1) 28:4 13:20 21:23 investor (1) 13:13 large (2) 5:2 22:23 27:15 28:17,25 29:6
44:1 46:8 49:3,18,19 49:11 65:10 here (5) 32:23 33:4 inaudible (1) 64:14 involve (3) 55:5,11,13 largely (1) 19:17 30:1 34:7,19 35:11,23
fsdea (19) 2:24 5:5 6:25 global (1) 9:16 43:7 51:8 64:24 inclined (2) 26:12 29:23 involved (4) 6:5,16 12:5 lasalle (1) 9:12 36:3,21,23
7:2 8:4 9:23 goes (5) 22:9,10 hes (2) 40:19 52:9 include (1) 11:11 38:23 last (4) 38:24 41:5 42:1 37:7,10,11,15 38:3
11:3,7,12,13 12:5,15 47:9,10 64:20 high (1) 21:19 included (2) 14:11 involvement (1) 14:24 50:16 39:7,17 40:2,22
14:3,4,8 19:11,14 going (26) 17:20,23 himself (2) 7:6,9 18:21 involves (1) 29:12 late (2) 7:15 46:10 41:3,11,17 42:9,17
31:16 32:1 27:24 28:25 31:14,14 history (1) 58:19 includes (3) 11:14 30:16 involving (2) 3:24 21:22 lately (1) 47:16 43:12,14,15 45:14
fsdeas (5) 11:25 32:14 36:17 42:8 hold (1) 39:7 59:1 irregularities (1) 12:3 later (1) 11:21 46:9,14 47:6,7,16
12:2,2,7,24 43:21 44:1,4,5,6,25 holding (2) 53:3 60:12 including (5) 3:18 6:10 irrespective (2) 20:25 lawyers (1) 32:1 48:10 49:1 50:11,15
fulbright (5) 14:23 45:5 49:23 50:16 holiday (2) 39:6 40:4 12:9 16:1 28:17 23:15 leads (1) 36:17 51:25 54:1,21 56:10
15:2,5,9 22:23 51:21 53:1 56:8 57:8 hoof (1) 28:24 incomplete (1) 23:10 isnt (7) 27:8 28:1 30:15 learned (6) 40:11,18,23 58:24 62:10 64:15
fulbrights (1) 14:19 58:3 65:2,9,11 hope (4) 30:22 32:10 increasing (1) 17:23 39:20 42:20 45:10 47:6 58:15 62:11 lordships (15) 25:18
fulfil (1) 15:12 goldman (1) 4:8 50:1 58:12 incumbent (2) 15:8 65:18 least (12) 1:9 2:17 7:22 32:23 36:10 40:10
full (11) 4:5 16:12 19:4 goncalves (7) 7:1,7,9,20 hotel (6) 3:5,12 4:6 23:4 issues (5) 1:16 2:5 9:17 11:22 13:17 17:9 43:20 46:1 47:12,20
25:14 29:9,21 30:2,4 11:21 17:18 18:3 14:11 18:9,19 independent (1) 9:1 41:13 45:23 48:3 22:18 26:22 31:17 49:2 50:23,24 54:6
40:3 48:8 65:2 gone (2) 32:7,11 hour (1) 24:13 indestroyed (1) 32:7 item (1) 29:25 33:20 39:1 61:3,15 64:24
fullblown (1) 51:3 good (1) 22:5 hours (1) 25:14 index (1) 67:4 its (56) 1:11 6:20 8:23 leave (1) 61:11 loss (1) 29:12
fuller (1) 2:1 government (2) 30:18 housing (1) 37:14 indicated (4) 16:25 9:20 11:1,10,17 13:14 leaves (1) 37:22 lost (2) 2:5 17:2
fullest (1) 23:5 31:5 however (2) 1:5 6:22 42:12 43:16 51:25 15:3,15 17:24 23:23 left (1) 50:3 lot (2) 50:3,16
fully (3) 15:22 19:9 56:8 governor (1) 11:16 hundred (1) 9:17 indicating (1) 34:22 24:20 25:22 26:13,20 legal (22) 1:15 9:25 lpa (2) 63:10,14
fulton (38) 30:6,7,8 grant (4) 1:19 37:4 hurdle (1) 22:5 indulgence (1) 58:13 27:1,23 28:21 29:21 10:2 21:9 23:4 25:7 lpas (1) 61:24
41:1,2 45:21 50:8,9,10 38:19 53:9 infer (2) 21:12,14 30:17 31:23 35:18 43:6 50:14,19 luanda (1) 14:12
51:9,15,17 52:24 granted (4) 1:12 14:8 I inform (1) 24:8 38:8,10,12 39:8 40:7 52:7,10,21 53:13 lunchtime (1) 34:21
57:20,22,23 58:8,12 37:16 58:14 information (11) 10:18 42:10,11,15 44:5 56:5,11,13,15 lynch (1) 3:18
59:13,21 60:2,15 granting (1) 23:14 idea (1) 2:4 12:12 22:16 27:10 46:11 47:5,20 48:23 57:24,25 60:19 63:1
61:3,9,14,21 62:7,24 grateful (2) 44:24 48:9 identified (12) 4:3 6:17 30:16,17,21,22 31:18 49:1 52:4,5 53:8 56:22 66:15 M
63:8,13,19 64:3,8,11 gratefully (1) 52:24 7:25 8:23 14:13 18:16 32:21 34:4 57:7 58:7,18 59:21,25 lengthy (1) 6:12
66:8 67:11,15,17 gravity (1) 15:7 19:6,23 22:9 26:24 informed (2) 24:23 60:2 61:9 62:8 less (1) 10:10 making (8) 40:23
fultons (1) 52:9 great (1) 39:9 56:10 60:9 25:17 65:4,6,7,21,23,25 let (4) 32:14 39:13 43:3,15 46:19 53:19
fund (12) 2:22 3:2 6:17 greatest (1) 36:11 identify (2) 33:20 51:10 infrastructure (5) 66:12 54:25 66:19 55:3 58:16 64:14
7:19 17:23 18:1,17 grounds (5) 15:4 23:15 identifying (3) 27:19 3:5,12,22 18:7,18 itself (2) 23:9,22 lets (3) 36:1 42:18 54:3 manage (1) 5:9
60:10,17 61:2,18 24:10 36:15,22 33:16 61:1 initially (1) 8:7 ive (12) 26:11 27:4 29:9 letter (18) 6:14,18 7:25 managed (4) 9:8,17,21
66:14 group (2) 4:9 62:1 identity (1) 25:4 injunction (13) 1:18 34:4,24 36:15 43:13 14:11,14,18 15:1,24 58:13
funding (1) 22:22 groups (1) 21:5 ie (2) 6:10 10:19 42:4 44:5 46:2 47:3 49:7 51:24 64:9 19:16 20:1 management (9) 1:23
funds (25) 5:9 9:21,22 guilty (1) 2:25 ifc (1) 8:18 48:6 50:14,20 51:8 65:10,10 24:14,16,21 25:3,20 3:18 6:16 8:18,19,25
12:2 16:16,25 ignores (1) 6:4 53:19 59:7,8 60:5 26:23 27:4 34:3 11:2 12:1 17:10
17:20,24,25 18:2 H ill (4) 29:19 43:4 54:9 insofar (2) 38:21 50:20 J letters (3) 3:6 19:9,21 manager (2) 2:21 66:1
19:12 21:20 22:16 66:19 instance (1) 59:2 level (6) 18:5,24 19:2 managers (2) 6:10
41:21 42:23 43:2 half (2) 18:24 24:13 illiquid (12) 12:6,11,20 instead (1) 4:16 jersey (2) 6:15,18 21:20 58:23 60:5 12:12
50:13 51:1 52:20 hand (1) 24:13 13:4 14:1 16:8,11 instructed (1) 60:16 joint (3) 19:13 35:3,16 liability (1) 13:8 manuel (7) 2:24,25
55:15,19 57:21 60:19 handed (2) 24:19 54:10 18:5,10,11 41:20 instructing (1) 46:10 jones (1) 9:12 liberty (1) 50:25 3:3,7 5:12,16 7:20
62:23 63:7 handling (1) 35:5 59:10 instruction (1) 19:13 judge (11) 1:16 4:12 life (1) 65:5 manuels (2) 8:7,22
further (16) 4:21 9:1,10 hands (1) 37:25 im (30) 15:6 26:12 instructions (6) 7:16 6:19 8:14,20 13:18 lift (1) 35:15 many (1) 22:18
16:11 17:17 25:4,6,25 happened (1) 30:25 29:19,22 32:16 20:11 35:3 41:6 43:4 16:18 17:17 18:12 light (3) 30:20 35:9 march (4) 7:8 19:10,16
26:13,18,22,24 29:22 happening (1) 43:19 33:12,23 35:23 36:22 60:15 20:17 44:1 51:24 20:1
30:8 43:14 66:19 happens (1) 22:15 38:12 39:3,7 42:14 intend (2) 23:17 25:10 judges (6) 11:5 12:14 like (5) 31:13,17,20 material (17) 1:13
happy (3) 28:11 44:20 43:13 44:6,9,24 45:3 intended (2) 19:15 13:1 16:23 18:20 40:14 47:1 10:17
G
65:6 48:1 49:11 58:23 53:17 19:25 likely (3) 6:23 7:12 15:10,11,14,19,21
gago (2) 7:14,18 hard (1) 28:13 60:16 61:4 62:17 intention (3) 20:9 60:16 judgment (15) 1:4 20:18 19:5 22:7 23:10
gap (2) 33:20,22 hasnt (7) 26:5 34:8 40:2 63:11 65:1,2,9,11,13 61:4 2:2,11,13,16 23:16 limited (11) 8:15 27:14,22,24 28:3
gareth (1) 3:16 41:17 45:3 47:7,12 ima (9) 3:2 4:14 5:5 inter (1) 43:22 29:21 30:2,4 40:3,10 12:20,25 13:8,11,18 32:24 33:17 37:24
gates (1) 55:18 havent (5) 26:15 48:2,4 6:24 59:9 61:24 interest (7) 13:25 47:12 48:8 49:7,11 44:6 65:18,20,25 66:3 matrix (2) 6:2,3
gathered (1) 32:7 56:1 62:6 63:10,14 65:18 14:3,5,6 21:23 40:5 july (3) 1:1 2:22 3:3 limits (1) 23:8 matter (14) 10:11 13:16
gave (5) 4:18 6:12 18:4 having (11) 8:15 10:13 imagine (1) 26:21 62:12 jurisdiction (3) 1:23 line (1) 36:6 14:13 17:5,15 18:20
37:17,20 17:21 29:12 37:16,22 immediately (3) 10:22 interested (1) 38:12 25:8 40:17 lines (3) 33:24 51:4 66:9 22:17 27:3 34:1,21
general (1) 50:24 46:10 48:6 53:8 55:9 24:7 26:9 interests (1) 9:19 jurisdictions (1) 25:8 liquid (6) 3:11,15 9:10 39:16 48:17 49:5 65:3
generally (1) 13:8 57:3 imminent (1) 22:15 interim (2) 42:4 60:21 12:10 16:16 41:20 matters (12) 1:14 7:23
generated (1) 9:15 head (1) 3:22 implied (1) 6:10 interlocutory (1) 44:8 K list (6) 1:6 24:12,22,23 8:2 9:24 21:10,10 22:4
generous (2) 59:1 60:6 hear (5) 32:14 37:3 importance (1) 12:17 interplays (1) 34:13 25:14 33:6 23:22 49:4,9,17 50:2
get (7) 36:25 37:17 39:12,13 45:16 important (7) 8:2 9:24 interrogated (2) keep (4) 47:16 57:8 listing (1) 49:18 mauritian (2) 12:25
38:13,22 39:2,4 50:3 heard (5) 34:4 36:3 13:22 19:4,7 39:16 15:21,22 58:2,24 literally (1) 39:4 13:17
gets (1) 39:15 38:9 41:3 50:16 47:19 into (13) 5:5 17:8,20,25 key (2) 4:3 35:7 little (1) 32:4 mauritius (2) 50:17
getting (4) 35:12 36:21 hearing (14) 16:24 25:2 importantly (1) 7:8 23:5 34:25 39:1,4,7 kick (1) 45:2 living (4) 53:12 55:8 58:4
37:24 58:12 29:1 38:16 41:5 46:8 imposed (1) 13:9 57:3 59:16,24 66:13 kind (1) 61:1 56:11,15 mcgrath (61) 15:1
give (14) 1:24 18:1 47:6 49:3,6,9,24 50:5 impossible (1) 15:17 introductory (1) 55:11 know (11) 24:16,17 logic (4) 55:2 59:7,11 16:24 24:16 28:4
19:14 20:8 36:22,23 51:14 66:22 impression (4) 4:18 5:7 invested (2) 14:12 25:23 28:10 30:1,6 61:9 32:14,19,20 33:23
39:2,11 48:2,7 heart (2) 10:8 21:11 6:7 10:15 16:14 31:17 39:6 53:23,25 logically (1) 45:18 34:1 35:1,20 36:2,20
49:11,12 50:24 53:8 heavy (1) 38:23 improper (2) 17:7,9 investment (9) 2:21 65:4 long (2) 24:23 65:6 37:7,10 38:21
given (18) 10:14 13:22 held (3) 15:10 16:16 improperly (2) 5:7 3:16 4:3 11:2,13 12:12 known (7) 1:15 6:24 longer (5) 38:2,19 42:6,7,8,21,24
15:6 17:19 20:21 23:2 20:20 21:13 7:1,14 9:24 10:2 12:15 39:11,11 42:11 43:4,9,11,23,25

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

44:12,15,24 45:7,10 8:12 9:13 10:3,17 notification (13) 56:16 57:1,15 58:17 people (5) 24:22,23 position (18) 5:11 9:13 prohibit (1) 63:24
46:24,25 50:12 14:1,14,20 15:20 16:2 19:15,20 20:22 26:5 63:2,25 64:6 66:15 25:17 32:1 46:9 13:14 19:15,20 25:21 project (6) 9:16
51:19,20,21 19:22 20:4 23:7 34:2,11 45:1,13 52:3 organisation (1) 2:23 percentage (1) 48:21 26:4,15 29:14,20 14:11,24 15:14,19
52:4,6,15,18 53:1,20 most (1) 17:11 53:14 56:20 58:20 original (1) 53:22 perfectly (1) 31:23 35:14 37:15 41:2,20 16:14
54:5,9,20 55:17 move (1) 37:23 62:14 otherwise (5) 1:21 4:16 performance (1) 11:25 48:2,7 52:15 53:8 projects (5) 3:5,12 4:6
56:6,17,24 60:9 61:5 movement (2) 19:12 notified (2) 25:5 27:4 29:16 39:23 62:5 perhaps (3) 21:5 22:8 possession (2) 14:19 13:25 14:9
64:13,20,22 22:15 notify (3) 45:5,7,10 otto (1) 3:23 28:24 30:16 promised (1) 30:9
65:4,16,25 67:9,13,16 much (2) 16:14 66:19 number (4) 2:20 14:6 ought (12) 1:14 10:1 period (24) 7:2,4 possible (5) 25:6 27:15 promises (1) 49:11
mcgraths (2) 40:4 62:3 must (5) 12:15 22:20 39:15 45:23 12:16 15:1 31:19,21 25:13,15 33:16 37:5,8 42:16 49:1,4 promptly (1) 49:25
mean (6) 38:6 44:12 45:9,10 65:3 numerous (1) 21:10 36:9 42:12,19,22 56:9 42:9,16 44:18,21 potential (2) 6:9 14:5 proper (7) 21:17,25
47:7 48:11 49:7 59:19 myself (1) 38:14 58:16 45:15 46:21 53:10 potentially (2) 6:16 52:6 55:12,15 57:1
means (3) 53:2 57:6 O ourselves (1) 35:3 55:22 56:2,12 57:16 50:13 63:25
66:13 outstanding (1) 60:11 58:14 60:25 61:6,10 practicably (1) 27:14 properly (1) 21:18
N
meantime (2) 40:21 object (1) 43:2 outweigh (1) 40:8 62:12 65:8 practicality (1) 39:8 property (1) 9:12
44:23 obligations (7) over (9) 14:22 18:8,24 peripheral (1) 21:10 precipitated (1) 22:14 proposal (1) 6:11
measure (2) 42:15 59:1 nacional (3) 9:9,18 10:5 28:9,16,22 30:19 21:2 24:2 33:6 41:20 permanently (1) 28:13 prefer (2) 30:3 51:16 proposals (4) 3:8 6:9,24
measured (1) 42:10 namely (3) 11:8 17:19 32:22 46:20,22 53:9,21 permissible (1) 31:24 prejudice (4) 1:8 38:18 8:23
mechanism (2) 56:10,11 21:16 obliged (1) 20:10 overcharged (2) 47:24 permission (17) 2:6,9 40:5 46:21 propose (2) 1:18 60:14
meet (3) 51:2 55:19 names (1) 24:24 observation (1) 50:12 48:22 34:14,17 35:24 premises (1) 58:4 proposed (3) 4:4 32:16
56:25 narrative (2) 19:22 20:2 obtained (1) 32:22 overlap (1) 61:17 36:1,2,14,22,23 preparation (2) 22:21 34:5
members (3) 9:2 10:4 national (1) 11:16 obviously (21) 13:22 overlapping (1) 62:5 37:1,16 44:7 46:15 38:24 proprietary (25) 22:12
15:25 natural (1) 28:7 15:23 22:17 26:2,16 overseeing (1) 12:1 53:9 58:20 62:13 prepare (2) 38:22 43:12 23:18 43:3 47:8,10
merely (1) 21:10 nature (2) 32:2 46:14 28:4 36:5 38:22 41:10 overseen (1) 11:8 permit (1) 61:2 prepared (5) 33:12,12 50:21 51:8,12 52:20
merit (1) 4:16 necessarily (1) 2:14 43:5,17 45:8,15 oversight (1) 12:5 permitted (2) 52:22 38:3 44:9 54:1 53:18,19 55:5,10,15
merits (1) 22:5 necessary (9) 20:24 47:9,11 48:9 49:22 own (3) 7:5 42:3 65:5 53:11 preparing (4) 10:6 56:19 57:5,12
merrill (1) 3:18 22:24,24 23:9 35:17 52:12 53:20 55:17 owned (1) 21:21 personal (2) 41:22 14:21 22:6,13 62:8,19,21,23,25
met (2) 11:20,21 38:19 55:21 60:19 64:23 62:10 present (4) 11:23 19:8 63:1,7 64:5
metropolitan (1) 37:14 66:14 occasional (1) 22:6 P persuade (2) 37:22 58:7 60:4 prospect (2) 36:10,16
might (11) 15:10 need (12) 25:19,25 october (2) 3:6 7:6 49:18 presentation (15) 1:16 protect (1) 62:11
20:9,10 27:21 33:20 37:13 46:5 49:17 odd (2) 22:10 37:13 pages (2) 4:10,11 persuading (1) 42:14 2:19 3:15,21 4:2,5,10 protected (1) 63:16
37:13 39:12 42:13 50:12 51:2,3 oddly (1) 5:25 paid (4) 56:3 59:2,9,10 petroleum (4) 2:22 3:2 8:11 10:25 12:19 provide (3) 28:6 31:22
48:21 55:25 57:11 54:14,14,17 57:11 offer (2) 13:8 61:5 painful (1) 58:21 7:19 18:17 15:12 16:7 19:5 22:8 57:10
million (12) 5:18,19 9:4 needed (3) 22:25 39:5 officer (1) 3:17 paragraph (23) 4:22 5:3 phillips (3) 4:18 11:18 23:10 provided (8) 7:3 12:8
14:12 16:9 18:8,25 55:21 old (1) 61:12 6:8 7:9 8:13 9:13 17:5 presentations (8) 25:7 27:11,22
19:1 35:20 44:6 47:21 needs (4) 32:4,24 once (1) 11:22 16:22 17:14,18 18:13 picken (1) 37:20 3:10,13 6:5 7:11,13,23 28:14,21 32:23
48:23 51:3,11 onesided (1) 23:11 20:2,4 24:5 27:23 29:5 place (8) 8:7 15:25 8:8 18:16 provides (1) 15:15
mind (1) 52:17 neither (2) 2:11 15:17 ongoing (2) 56:25 58:2 30:14,20 52:5 38:20 48:7 53:7 55:23 presented (2) 17:5 18:9 providing (1) 25:10
minded (4) 37:4 38:18 never (4) 6:11 9:20,21 opaque (1) 6:1 54:19,20 55:6,7,12 57:3 58:25 preserved (1) 30:23 provisional (1) 63:9
42:17 58:24 11:20 open (2) 29:21 55:18 paragraphs (2) 17:13 plainly (1) 39:20 president (2) 11:11,12 provisionally (1) 31:25
minds (1) 44:22 nevertheless (1) 61:15 opening (3) 52:19 55:6 52:18 planning (1) 11:15 presidential (1) 11:7 provisions (2) 27:23
minister (3) 11:14,14,15 next (7) 36:18 38:11 61:21 part (8) 5:10 8:22 14:22 plans (2) 39:6 40:4 pressed (1) 17:3 62:5
mischaracterisation (1) 49:2,16 55:21 57:20 operated (1) 7:19 16:14 21:8 47:19 plus (6) 18:6,9,14,17,19 pressure (2) 17:23,24 proviso (5) 51:6 52:2,19
10:11 64:25 opportunity (1) 20:22 50:25 60:7 63:8 pretty (1) 49:25 57:4 63:17
mischaracterise (1) night (2) 46:10,10 opposed (4) 37:23 53:1 partes (1) 43:22 pm (4) 1:2 25:3 44:9 prevent (2) 58:16 60:14 provisos (1) 55:4
20:12 nondisclosure (9) 2:18 55:21 56:3 particular (12) 1:12 66:21 previous (1) 53:2 published (1) 2:3
mischaracterised (1) 8:10 10:24 13:24 15:3 opposition (1) 18:4 10:13 11:25 27:1 28:8 policy (3) 11:13 14:6,10 previously (2) 56:1 purpose (2) 15:21 17:7
9:13 16:6 21:1 39:24 43:16 oppressive (1) 40:14 29:1 33:21 39:18 popplewell (99) 1:3 57:17 purposes (10) 2:2 9:16
misleading (3) 4:18,21 nondisclosures (4) 19:6 order (95) 1:7,10,11,25 41:19 50:17 51:11 24:1,15,17,22 25:19 primary (2) 62:3,9 11:23 17:9 31:6 42:23
5:24 21:24 36:4,7 2:5,7,15 15:8 16:17 60:8 26:1,4,11,25 27:18,21 principle (4) 32:9 39:16 50:14 55:22 60:4
model (4) 12:20 13:4,21 none (3) 3:13 12:13 21:3 22:12,12 particularly (4) 19:4 29:8,18 30:3,7,11 42:19 50:2 64:22
18:14 39:24 23:2,14,17,18,22,25 30:20 41:9 60:20 31:1,4,10,23 32:4,9 principles (1) 36:8 pursuant (4) 27:22
models (1) 13:6 nonsense (1) 47:20 24:6,9,11 25:6,18 parties (13) 20:16 25:5 33:14 34:24 35:18,24 prior (12) 2:22 4:7 6:23 28:15,22 30:18
modified (1) 44:5 nor (6) 2:12 4:13,14,14 26:14 26:24 34:22 37:3 45:1 36:13 37:3,9 38:5 19:14,20 20:8,10 puts (2) 8:9 51:12
moment (13) 25:22 13:16 23:10 27:2,11,12,21,23 46:1 48:3 57:2,8,10 39:13,21 40:25 41:15 52:2,22 53:14 56:20 putting (1) 17:1
26:11,13 29:14 41:12 normal (5) 27:12 28:4,25 29:7,23 30:19 64:6 66:16 42:6,18,22,25 57:3
Q
50:18 52:1 53:5,15,16 52:2,21 53:13 63:6 31:14,16 32:5 33:18 partnership (10) 43:8,10,21,24 private (6) 3:4,22,24
56:18 62:17 63:21 northern (11) 34:12,15,18 12:20,25 13:11 44:4,14,16 45:5,9,18 9:11 13:1 18:1 qc (1) 15:1
monday (1) 1:1 19:9,10,16,19 35:6,10,11,19 17:1,8,20 65:18,20 46:18 47:4,25 48:11 privilege (1) 25:11 qgim (1) 3:2
money (2) 41:3 53:11 20:7,10,14,20 34:21 36:9,11,24 37:2,5,17 66:1,4 49:6,10,22 50:7 probably (1) 31:23 qgims (2) 3:16,22
monies (7) 35:2,5 55:7 35:7 39:22 39:17,18 partnerships (1) 13:18 51:5,10,16,18 problem (5) 31:12 33:3 qualified (1) 21:19
57:4,12 61:23 63:13 norton (16) 14:19,23 40:1,11,14,21 41:21 party (3) 59:15,18 60:25 52:1,5,8,14,17 53:5 56:21 58:6 62:9 quantum (37) 2:21
monthly (2) 5:22 12:9 15:2,5,9 22:23 24:14 43:1 44:23 45:3 46:1 pause (5) 43:5,9 55:1 54:3,8,19,25 proceed (3) 23:6 48:12 3:3,8 5:8 6:6,10,11,14
months (6) 5:4,19,23 25:14 26:6,23,25 47:10,11 48:19 49:23 60:15 64:12 56:5,14,18 57:19 65:6 8:5,9,12,14,20,23
22:18 42:1,10 30:16 31:3 33:15 46:7 50:5,20 51:2,12 52:1 pay (3) 10:21 60:10,19 58:6,10 59:11,18,25 proceedings (5) 25:9 9:1,4,8,16 10:1,7 11:1
more (13) 3:23,25 58:21 53:6,15,23 54:12 56:9 payable (3) 10:23 57:1 60:8,23 61:11,17 31:7 50:17 52:10 12:8 14:4 15:20 19:14
11:23 13:13 20:8 note (1) 32:16 58:18,24 59:6 60:24 66:10 62:4,17 63:3,11,17,20 57:25 21:17,18 27:12 35:4
21:5,24 27:25 31:15 noted (1) 16:22 61:25 62:11,18,19,21 paying (2) 57:11,13 64:4,9,19,21 65:1,9,23 process (15) 2:19 42:22 47:5,15,19
36:5 37:6 48:18 49:19 nothing (3) 30:8 63:10,10,23 64:23,25 payment (5) 10:19 57:7 66:6,17 5:10,12,24 6:4,4,13 60:18 62:1 66:2,5
moreover (5) 5:13 6:12 59:3,13 65:1,3,10,13,15 60:21 63:4 66:15 portfolio (17) 3:15 8:21,23 21:18 25:22 quantums (3) 4:6 8:11
9:8 18:5,15 notice (18) 4:13 6:19 ordering (2) 29:11,18 payments (5) 58:3,17 12:6,9,10,11,21 13:4 34:7 38:20 40:13,14 20:11
morgan (1) 4:8 7:17 14:20 15:13 16:5 orders (5) 23:19 26:18 61:1 64:5 66:15 14:1 16:8,11,13 processes (1) 46:12 quarterly (1) 12:10
morris (20) 4:16,22 20:8 23:6 24:9 42:20 27:15 28:17 40:18 pe (2) 13:6 18:14 18:5,7,11,18,19 59:10 procured (1) 8:5 question (6) 33:3 34:10
5:2,13 6:2,21 7:7,16 52:22 58:9 60:25 ordinary (15) 50:19 52:6 pending (7) 2:7,8 35:11 portfolios (1) 18:10 proffered (1) 31:16 41:12 42:18 50:10
61:7,8,18 62:15 64:1 53:12 55:8,12,15,24 37:2 44:7 58:25 60:12 58:20

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

questions (2) 6:17 regime (3) 57:5 responsible (2) 11:24 seek (4) 31:15 34:17 since (4) 3:17 9:5,21 stress (1) 65:17 talking (13) 28:5 39:4
49:13 62:14,14 21:17 35:9,11 22:18 strike (1) 62:16 43:6,12,13 52:9 55:20
quickly (1) 48:10 regimen (1) 55:14 rest (1) 49:16 seeking (2) 58:20 63:9 single (2) 6:2 58:25 structure (7) 4:4 12:23 56:5,14,15 57:15
quite (5) 26:6 32:5 regular (2) 11:24 12:8 restricted (1) 27:24 seeks (1) 62:12 sitting (3) 17:11 35:2 13:15,23 17:15 64:24 66:4
33:12 46:25 54:3 regularly (1) 11:3 restriction (5) 22:22 seems (5) 6:23 7:12 49:15 18:18,19 task (1) 21:19
reinforced (1) 6:7 30:21 31:6 51:7,12 28:24 44:11 45:18 situation (1) 46:25 structures (3) 12:25 tatneft (1) 37:20
R reiterated (1) 19:19 restrictions (3) 28:7 seen (3) 37:10,11 47:18 six (2) 5:19,23 13:3,20 taylor (1) 37:15
rejected (1) 2:12 31:10 62:22 sees (1) 54:21 sixth (1) 16:6 subject (15) 1:21 13:16 team (6) 10:2 14:21
raid (3) 60:10,17 61:18 relate (1) 21:9 result (4) 2:3 14:24 selected (1) 2:21 size (6) 8:17 15:7,15 14:13 29:22 35:3 46:3 21:9 22:23 39:7 40:4
rainbow (4) 9:16 14:24 relates (1) 41:21 20:25 56:1 selection (13) 2:19 22:7 23:2 37:20 47:22 50:13,19,21 telling (1) 47:16
15:14,19 relating (1) 58:4 resulted (1) 4:21 4:14,15,19 5:10,11 skeleton (8) 4:17 53:14,23 56:20 63:1 temporary (12)
raise (2) 26:17 30:11 relation (30) 1:22 return (2) 1:6 18:6 6:3,4,13 7:23 8:9,21 5:21,25 8:14 17:12,14 64:13 35:11,18 36:24
raised (1) 34:2 3:4,9,15,22 4:5 9:25 revealed (2) 7:24 10:3 21:18 19:24 20:5 subjected (1) 46:6 37:5,17 40:1 53:6 56:9
raises (1) 22:4 10:12 13:17,24 14:8,9 revenues (1) 4:1 selfstanding (1) 40:16 skim (1) 34:24 submit (1) 50:5 61:6 62:18 64:23 65:8
rate (1) 18:6 16:11 18:9,11 26:14 revert (1) 25:5 sending (1) 25:3 slightly (2) 25:22 53:21 submitted (2) 3:8 47:13 ten (2) 55:21 57:20
rather (8) 16:21 27:25 29:11,16,20 39:22,25 reviewed (1) 14:25 senior (1) 10:4 slip (1) 22:10 subparagraph (1) 5:16 tend (1) 65:4
30:1 31:7 32:18 48:18 40:17 47:15 51:8 rid (1) 58:12 sense (1) 53:19 slowness (1) 37:23 subsequent (5) 6:21 tenday (5) 42:16 53:10
51:7 61:20 53:18 55:9,15 59:5 rigidity (1) 13:9 sensible (4) 27:4 small (1) 10:21 7:3,10 17:18 22:3 55:22 56:12 57:16
rationale (1) 6:13 60:2 61:10 ring (1) 60:12 48:18,20 66:17 smaller (1) 16:14 subsequently (3) 2:23 terms (16) 4:3 28:6
reached (4) 1:9 3:25 relatively (2) 31:21 37:5 rise (4) 10:14 18:4 sensibly (1) 27:6 solely (2) 21:16 41:21 10:6 29:3 33:5 34:1,6 37:19
34:8 36:15 release (1) 51:1 49:12 61:5 sent (1) 34:24 solicitors (5) 19:17 substantial (1) 21:6 42:14 43:15
read (3) 20:13 34:25 relevant (5) 7:4 8:25 risk (11) 19:23 20:6,19 sentence (3) 28:15 46:10 51:24,24 substantive (1) 61:20 45:1,11,12,13 46:1
54:25 15:11,25 46:21 21:2,15 10:14,16,19 someone (1) 65:3 success (2) 36:10,16 53:6 54:11 65:17
reads (1) 61:22 relied (2) 15:19 18:25 39:19,20,21,24 separate (3) 27:3 55:14 someones (1) 65:5 suddenly (3) 22:16 56:2 territorial (1) 11:15
real (7) 4:7 9:11 20:19 relief (2) 23:15 44:8 41:18,23 64:2 something (7) 33:23 57:12 thank (5) 23:21 33:25
33:4 36:10,16 41:13 remain (1) 53:7 role (3) 7:14 10:7 11:17 september (2) 6:14 39:1 50:22 54:15 suffered (1) 29:13 41:15 55:2 66:18
realistic (1) 48:21 remained (1) 15:5 rose (15) 14:19,23 7:25 60:13 61:4 66:9 suffering (1) 41:8 thats (28) 26:1 27:7
really (11) 28:5 31:18 remaining (1) 16:15 15:2,5,9 22:23 24:14 serious (3) 21:6 23:13 sometimes (1) 22:15 sufficient (4) 15:9 20:21 31:9,14 32:24 33:9
32:17 34:10 36:20 remains (1) 7:2 25:14 26:6,23,25 31:3 46:14 soon (3) 25:5 27:14 22:5 62:11 34:19 35:22 36:13,20
38:12 41:8 50:1,2 reminded (1) 58:23 33:15 46:7 58:21 service (6) 49:4 sufficiently (1) 23:13 42:12 45:8 46:21,25
57:13 65:17 remit (1) 11:10 roses (1) 30:16 59:2,5,12,14,15 65:24 sort (2) 12:11 31:15 suggest (4) 18:3 26:15 49:19,21,23 52:8
reason (4) 26:11 27:5 render (1) 35:17 rothschild (1) 3:18 services (4) 4:24,25 sorted (1) 49:17 47:21 51:21 56:20 57:13,17
42:4 53:21 renewing (1) 43:17 rubric (1) 62:15 6:18 57:10 sorts (1) 52:11 suggested (6) 17:7 58:10,14 61:3 63:17
reasonable (9) 7:24 rent (1) 58:3 ruled (2) 47:7 59:20 set (4) 14:22 18:17 27:1 sought (6) 15:3,8 21:13 20:13 22:16 34:4 40:6 64:24 65:3,5
10:2 12:17 15:4,24 repeated (1) 12:21 run (1) 41:3 35:20 23:2 40:1 42:5 64:16 themselves (1) 38:9
24:8 26:8 38:13 53:12 replaced (1) 1:25 sets (1) 24:21 sounds (1) 66:17 suggesting (7) 11:20 thereby (2) 5:6 17:2
reasonably (3) 1:14 replacement (1) 62:4 S setting (1) 14:4 sovereign (1) 5:9 53:10 54:6 55:3 62:20 therefore (5) 1:18 2:13
24:10 25:6 report (8) 6:8 9:6 11:20 seven (7) 2:17 13:18 spare (1) 24:17 63:11,18 23:12,19 38:18
reasoned (1) 48:8 13:3 16:22 18:13 sachs (1) 4:8 21:4 37:6 38:3 41:8 speaking (2) 55:3 62:20 suggestion (7) 22:21 theres (19) 27:9 32:10
reasons (14) 22:19 35:21 salaries (1) 58:2 44:3 specialised (1) 30:23 33:13 43:19 52:24 33:20 34:16 36:10
1:4,10,22,24 2:1,13,14 reported (1) 11:3 same (6) 37:15 52:12 seventh (1) 19:8 specifically (6) 11:17 61:15 62:18,24 38:5 41:6,18 42:25
17:19 29:10 36:4 reporting (2) 2:2 12:3 53:25 59:25 60:2 61:9 several (2) 9:17 16:18 16:23 18:12 33:2 41:7 suitability (2) 8:12 10:7 50:15 54:17,22 55:24
39:23 41:10 47:20 reports (6) sanction (1) 10:18 shall (3) 28:12 36:13,14 51:11 suitable (2) 13:12 25:13 57:16,23 58:1 59:4,17
66:19 12:3,6,8,9,10 13:15 santos (13) 2:22 4:19 shant (1) 66:13 specified (2) 18:6 33:15 sum (4) 10:22 16:15 61:9
recalls (1) 54:1 requested (2) 6:9 25:1 5:7,16 6:12 8:4 11:4 shoot (1) 65:20 spend (1) 53:11 35:18 53:12 theyll (4) 38:9,10 43:25
receipt (1) 22:18 requests (1) 19:18 14:15 17:21 21:13,16 short (5) 37:5 38:16 spoken (1) 10:4 summarised (1) 20:18 57:17
receipts (1) 60:7 required (1) 10:21 41:19 59:23 56:12 60:4 62:12 spreads (1) 66:4 sums (4) 39:22 52:11 theyre (4) 38:8,10
received (2) 14:23 requires (2) 58:9 61:7 sat (1) 3:25 shorter (2) 60:24 62:14 staff (2) 8:24 10:4 59:2,6 50:21 56:18
24:12 reserve (1) 1:22 satisfactory (1) 33:10 shortterm (2) 50:11 stage (8) 4:15 26:19 supervising (1) 11:12 theyve (6) 25:24 26:4
recipient (1) 66:12 reserving (2) 29:20 satisfied (1) 15:11 51:2 29:23 34:8 41:23 42:1 supervisory (1) 4:1 27:3,4 41:3 53:3
recipients (1) 25:2 35:14 satisfy (1) 29:14 should (22) 1:10 2:4,10 49:10 60:21 supplied (1) 30:18 thinks (2) 25:13,16
recognise (2) 40:17 resist (1) 50:14 save (8) 10:21 47:16 5:14 7:24,25 8:19 9:3 stampa (1) 4:24 support (2) 20:7 22:11 third (9) 10:24 20:1
47:11 resources (1) 15:9 55:6 61:23 63:13,23 11:5 13:18 15:22 stance (2) 19:8 34:22 suppose (1) 33:3 45:25 57:2,8,10 60:25
record (3) 8:11,15 30:15 respect (33) 1:20,24 64:17 66:10 16:19 18:21 26:18 standard (3) 8:18 13:4 supposing (1) 24:10 64:5 66:16
recorded (1) 9:7 2:19 3:11 10:21 16:7 saying (3) 9:14 63:4 32:6,12 33:15 37:19 24:4 sure (8) 26:2 33:23 thorough (1) 3:20
records (1) 7:18 19:5 20:2 21:2 27:7 65:13 44:22 53:11 60:13 standby (1) 38:7 38:22 43:18 53:24 though (1) 17:11
recover (1) 33:9 36:11 38:21 40:1,3,12 schedule (4) 24:3,6 64:14 stanley (1) 4:8 54:5 61:4 64:14 thought (2) 29:15 32:13
recovered (2) 48:22 43:19 44:25 45:25 29:4 30:14 shoulder (1) 53:22 start (2) 25:3 57:13 surmount (1) 22:5 threat (1) 22:15
56:2 55:6 57:2,4 59:2,6,8,9 schemes (3) 13:7,11,12 shouldnt (2) 60:9 62:18 starts (1) 23:24 surprise (1) 18:4 three (1) 3:10
recovering (1) 53:2 60:17 61:8,23 scope (4) 32:5,12 33:5 shown (1) 20:17 statement (9) 7:3,5,18 surprising (1) 25:23 threshold (4) 29:11
reduced (3) 35:12 36:24 63:13,23 64:17 52:20 sic (1) 9:18 10:6 16:2 17:19 20:7 suspect (1) 27:8 54:17,22,23
40:7 66:10,14 screen (1) 54:10 side (4) 37:24 41:11 25:15,19 suspended (6) thresholds (1) 54:13
reference (2) 11:19 respectful (1) 46:13 second (6) 11:23 27:8 55:18,24 statements (1) 7:10 10:14,15,19,20,23 through (1) 26:5
17:10 respectfully (4) 25:12 29:10 34:20 54:16,23 sidley (1) 19:17 stay (1) 1:19 46:20 throughout (2) 7:2,4
referred (8) 4:23 6:20 29:6 34:6 38:2 secondly (2) 8:10 36:6 signed (5) 3:3,6 5:4,15 staying (1) 48:7 swiss (3) 8:16 9:5 10:22 thrust (2) 12:22 13:10
19:21,24 20:1,3 23:16 respectively (1) 3:13 secretary (1) 7:15 14:15 stays (1) 55:23 switzerland (1) 10:13 tied (1) 56:22
37:12 respects (2) 2:17 22:9 section (4) 1:19 significant (3) 10:11 steer (1) 65:11 time (27) 1:3,6 2:24
referring (1) 5:17 respondent (4) 19:22,23 52:4 38:15 41:9 steps (6) 20:15 24:8 T 5:12 7:17 14:19,22
refers (1) 7:9 54:16,18,22,23 sections (1) 20:5 significantly (1) 11:23 26:8 33:8,17 35:6 15:16 16:4 17:20 18:4
reformulate (1) 60:23 respondents (1) 54:13 securities (1) 17:12 signing (1) 14:10 still (1) 61:14 tab (2) 23:23 54:21 19:11 25:3 26:14
refuse (1) 36:14 responding (1) 24:20 see (13) 17:12,13 23:24 similar (1) 37:19 stopped (1) 57:17 taken (10) 1:5 13:14 33:16 34:9 37:8
refused (2) 37:16 39:17 responsibilities (1) 24:3,20,25 40:2 46:24 similarly (1) 4:5 straight (1) 39:2 16:4 21:5 33:8,18,18 38:12,17,21 39:2 42:9
regard (3) 23:24 36:16 11:11 49:18 52:5 55:1,2 57:7 simple (1) 31:21 strategy (2) 4:3 11:13 35:6 38:21 48:20 43:12,13 45:15
44:18 seeing (1) 7:10 takes (1) 52:19

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619
July 30, 2018 Angola v Jose Dos Santos Day 5

61:6,10 until (6) 40:14 44:9 whatever (3) 30:25 42:1 108 (1) 4:11 4 (3) 19:10 21:20 44:9
times (1) 15:25 45:16 47:11 48:7 53:7 55:22 10day (1) 58:14 41 (2) 67:11,12
timescale (1) 22:13 unusual (1) 42:2 whats (4) 40:6 54:6,11 11 (2) 5:4 27:23 42 (1) 67:13
timetable (1) 27:2 upon (2) 35:20 40:7 64:15 12 (1) 42:1 44 (1) 5:18
timing (1) 58:8 urgency (2) 22:17 29:16 whereas (2) 5:10 10:16 13 (8) 3:3 23:23 52:6,18 44000 (1) 5:22
today (5) 30:2,9 34:21 urgent (3) 22:13 34:9 wherever (1) 32:7 53:23 54:21,25 55:6 445 (1) 66:21
46:13 50:23 49:17 whilst (1) 58:14 13a (1) 54:25 45 (1) 67:14
todays (2) 37:12 50:5 urgently (1) 38:16 whole (7) 16:8 20:12,13 14 (20) 8:13 37:21 4500 (1) 10:22
together (4) 28:19 us1 (1) 9:11 36:8 47:9,21 49:15 38:25 52:5,6,16,19 47 (1) 24:23
37:12 38:14 56:22 us100 (1) 18:8 whom (7) 7:16 14:16 54:12,20,25 55:12 48 (1) 25:14
told (8) 7:19 13:19 us157 (1) 14:12 16:1 24:9 31:17 58:9 61:7,12,13,22 49page (1) 3:19
16:19 17:17,21 25:24 us23 (1) 9:10 33:6,16 62:16 63:18,21 64:18
38:8,10 us2634 (1) 18:25 whose (1) 11:11 147 (1) 20:2 5
took (2) 8:7 10:18 us3 (2) 16:13 17:11 wider (1) 65:21 14a (14) 55:1,14 56:24
topics (1) 7:21 us51584 (1) 19:1 willing (2) 50:23,24 57:4,9 58:6,7 5 (1) 55:7
total (4) 5:19,23 us550 (1) 16:9 wish (1) 2:6 61:6,11,17 62:5,13 50 (1) 67:15
18:22,24 used (9) 13:1,3,6,20,21 wishes (1) 40:18 64:2,20 500 (1) 47:21
track (2) 8:11,15 21:21 53:2 61:25 witness (8) 7:3,10,18 16 (3) 5:6 19:16 20:1 51 (1) 67:16
traditional (1) 18:14 62:23 10:6 16:2 17:18 165b (1) 17:13 53 (1) 18:13
transactions (1) 14:7 useful (1) 29:13 25:15,19 167 (1) 17:14 54 (1) 16:22
transcript (1) 65:7 users (1) 30:21 wondering (1) 28:10 17 (2) 14:4,18 560 (4) 35:13,20 44:6
transparent (1) 11:2 using (3) 29:12 43:2 wont (4) 25:20 26:12 18 (3) 3:10,21 5:4 48:23
treat (1) 65:9 66:13 27:5 37:11 190 (1) 20:4 57 (1) 67:17
treated (3) 2:2 13:20 usual (1) 51:7 wording (9) 28:11 29:2 1996 (1) 1:20
28:2 usually (1) 52:3 31:13,15,21 1i (1) 55:9 6
trouble (1) 64:14 32:10,17,17 33:11
true (3) 5:11 14:3 31:9 V work (6) 33:23 39:3 2 6 (3) 24:5 30:14 45:12
trust (10) 19:9,10,19 47:18 54:9 62:21
20:10,14,20 34:21 65:12 2 (5) 3:25 18:6,14,17
v (1) 37:14 7
35:7 37:14 39:22 working (2) 7:14 35:23 21:18
value (1) 12:1
trustees (1) 6:15 wouldnt (8) 43:2 20 (6) 18:6,9,14,17,19
variation (4) 45:6,7,13 7 (4) 30:20 31:6 38:8,9
trusts (2) 19:16 20:7 45:2,11 59:11 61:19 66:11
51:1 750 (1) 14:23
try (2) 31:13 65:12 63:9,15 64:2 2007 (1) 9:5
vast (1) 47:18
trying (1) 43:13 write (2) 33:15 51:22 2008 (1) 3:17
vehicles (3) 13:1,7 8
twostage (1) 34:7 writing (6) 1:5 24:8 2012 (24) 2:22
60:18
twothirds (1) 21:2 25:17 45:1,11,12 3:3,6,9,10,21 4:14
venture (1) 13:6 80odd (1) 59:9
typical (1) 46:25 written (10) 2:1,12 5:4,6,14,15
verifying (1) 12:2 88 (1) 4:10
3:8,21 19:13 27:4 6:5,22,24,24
version (1) 54:2
49:24 52:22 53:14 7:6,8,11,13,13,20,22
U versions (1) 4:9 9
64:1 8:22 18:17
vice (2) 16:25 17:3
wrong (2) 5:22 44:1 2013 (5) 4:20 6:14
visibility (2) 12:24 17:2 9 (1) 1:19
ubs (1) 8:18 wrongdoing (2) 3:1 60:7
volume (2) 9:22 27:10 7:15,25 17:21
ulrich (1) 3:23 wrote (2) 14:4 34:21 94a (1) 4:22
2016 (2) 7:16 14:4
unaware (3) 6:22 14:21 9has (1) 30:23
2017 (1) 22:19
15:5 W
Y 2018 (3) 1:1 19:10,16
understand (12) 25:21
21 (5) 35:2,13 37:17
26:6 32:6,9 35:25 wait (1) 48:6 years (3) 3:17,23 42:1 38:4,10
41:11 47:25 52:15 waive (1) 25:11 yeo (1) 54:1 22 (2) 16:15 20:20
56:8 57:24 62:3 64:15 waiver (2) 14:8,15 yet (10) 29:9 34:8 23 (3) 17:18 19:10 67:6
understandable (1) 26:1 wanting (1) 28:23 39:24 40:3 41:18 45:3 24 (1) 25:14
understanding (3) wants (1) 58:15 46:22 47:7 59:5,20 25 (3) 3:17 18:9,18
30:15 32:21 65:21 warning (1) 20:10 youll (1) 24:20 26 (1) 7:9
understood (1) 22:8 warrant (1) 23:14 young (12) 6:8 9:6 264 (1) 5:19
undertake (1) 27:13 warranted (1) 10:15 11:19 13:3,19 16:21 264000 (1) 5:23
undertaken (1) 26:16 wasnt (1) 31:5 18:13 22:19 27 (2) 6:14 7:25
undertaking (10) 24:3 watering (1) 16:10 32:12,24,25 35:21 280odd (1) 59:10
26:8 29:5,7 30:20 way (9) 23:11 30:17 youre (10) 26:15 29:13 29page (1) 3:21
31:2,6,11 43:1 45:2 34:3 35:25 46:3 51:13 31:14 35:25 36:12
undertakings (1) 35:16 55:9 57:18 61:21 43:21 45:5 56:5 62:20
3
undisclosed (1) 21:22 ways (1) 2:20 63:18
unfair (4) 2:18 12:19 wealth (1) 5:9 yourselves (1) 64:6
3 (5) 21:19 22:12 24:25
16:6 22:8 wed (1) 31:20 youve (4) 27:3 34:4
25:3 34:19
unfairly (1) 23:11 week (9) 38:11,24 41:5 38:8 62:5
30 (2) 1:1 67:7
unfairness (1) 40:5 44:10,12,14 49:16,16
300 (1) 1:2
unfortunate (2) 5:17 50:16 Z
31 (1) 6:8
10:11 weeks (3) 22:20 41:5
314 (1) 23:24
unfortunately (1) 33:11 42:10 zero (1) 41:22
32 (1) 67:8
uninvested (1) 16:16 wellqualified (1) 8:24
320 (1) 52:4
unjustifiably (1) 5:2 went (1) 38:25 1
325 (1) 24:2
unjustified (1) 21:20 werent (2) 57:12 59:14
326 (1) 24:6
unknown (1) 8:12 weve (5) 32:22 36:3 1 (4) 4:2 9:4 21:16 29:5
39 (2) 9:13 67:10
unless (1) 15:16 47:25 51:7 55:1 10 (3) 3:23 44:2 64:25
unquantified (1) 9:19 wfo (5) 28:7,16 55:23 10000 (2) 54:16,24
untested (1) 8:13 56:2 57:3 100000 (1) 8:16 4

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com

Official Court Reporters 0203 008 6619