The conflict between the agro-industrial holding Astarta-Kyiv and the ex-directors of its leading agricultural enterprises — LLC "Agricultural company "Dobrobut" and LLC "Agricultural company "Dovzhenko" — lasts more than a year. Addressing this case, the participants of the "agro-divorce" process reveal more and more new details. This time Latifundist.com gave a hearing to the version of the ex-director of Agricultural company "Dovzhenko" Viktor Skochko.

After an interview with the Director for Legal Issues of Astarta-Kyiv, Liliya Timakina, there was a concern that the conversation would be about past achievements and nostalgia for the old-school Astarta ... But in response to the accusations, the former director of the agrofirm told about the concealed part of the company's iceberg. Viktor Skochko spoke about financial schemes in the agricultural holding and warned shareholders of Astarta that the company could suffer the same fate as Mriya's default in 2014.

— In an interview with a representative of the holding, it was stated that you were agitating people from the agricultural enterprises you headed to protest against the central administration. Is this information true?

— To be honest, I thought that in a year the dust would settle, but the problem only turns more acute. Moreover, that, to put it mildly, lie that was voiced, made me address with comments on this interview.

I worked in the company for 18 years and I do not understand how I can be blamed for the fact that people were switching to my side. I would like to remind that at that time in order to purchase a dryer, a combine harvester or a tractor, I pledged my personal property, a car. Because then the company had nothing more to provide the bank as a pledge.

In late August 2017, I had a conversation with the management of the company. We agreed that I would finish the work I had begun and go private — I would create a company where I could make decisions and take responsibility. Given the fact that there was such a conversation, it is not clear to me why I had to be discharged from my position with the scandal.

I arranged the meeting with the staff after I had been fired (after November 15). Thanking people for their work and trust, I did not call anyone to follow me and did not force anyone to resign from the agricultural firm. These people have effective contracts with Astarta for the lease of land. Therefore, speaking about the fact that I was enticing people, the company's representatives are obviously sly.

— It is curious that the Warsaw Stock Exchange informs about Astarta's conflict with minority shareholders, but company representatives say that you parted peacefully.

— Actually, there was a conflict. In all the years when I worked in the Agricultural company "Dovzhenko", we did not receive dividends, all funds were invested in development. I believed that there was my share in the agrofirm and that it worked. After they decided to dismiss Aleksandr Kovalenko and me, Astarta's Financial Director, Viktor Gladkyi, offered a rather unacceptable amount, which was not justified by an objective valuation. Therefore, I, in turn, suggested Viktor Ivanchyk to conduct an independent assessment. In order, as they put it, to part in a civilized European way.

The company paid me the part that it considered fair. But the authorized company carried out another assessment. And I insist on the payment of the amount indicated by an independent evaluator. Now I am preparing a lawsuit for Astarta. Сonditions were created for Kovalenko and me to leave the company. We became unwelcome. When the head of the legal department speaks of our bonuses and salaries, it should be clarified that all this was charged by the decision of the central office. We personally did not charge anything to ourselves. If we speak about salaries, then for comparison: last year Viktor Gladkyi was paid more than EUR 500 thousand including all bonuses. And there is a significant number of such employees with huge salaries who do not work the land.

In fact, the situation in the company within the last 4-5 years was on the margin of the law. Significant funds were withdrawn in the form of irrevocable financial assistance, we were forced to procure inventories for ten years ahead. How can I implement these decisions when I am a director and bear direct financial responsibility? I have repeatedly said that I can be a manager having no authority of sign. Then I will comply with any decision. That is, both Kovalenko and I opposed the implanted control system, so they decided to get rid of us.

— What schemes are we talking about?

— After Viktor Gladkyi was appointed Financial Director, the company's policy became dirty. This person tried hard with the owners of the company. Having great skills in all sorts of ventures, he offered the majority owners an effective scheme for earning money from their own company.

The scheme is simple. While the majority shareholder convinced minority shareholders that there was no need to pay dividends, and the funds were indispensable for the development of the company, he himself withdrew money through credit schemes in the form of paying interest to himself.

For instance, in the annual financial report for the year 2013, in section 35 "Related Party Transactions", it is noted (without disclosing related parties) that the majority shareholder provided a US$ loan to the company at 9.4% p.a. Interest was paid regularly.

The same can be seen in the reports of consecutive years. It is significant that, for example, in 2014 and 2015, the so-called WAIR in dollars for the company amounted to 6.50% and 7.47% respectively, the majority shareholders created the possibility of paying the same 9.4% p.a. from the company's funds. And only in 2017, the interest rate on the shareholder loan decreased.

By the way, the situation is particularly interesting with minority shareholders. For example, the company voted on the issue of dividend payment. However, for all the time of its existence, it has never paid a cent to its shareholders. The explanations for this were legitimate, though not always logical. And all this was called with fancy words — the Dividend Policy.

— What schemes are we talking about?

— No, it was not. Another "invention" is the payment of a so-called Payments to shareholders for pledged shares, i.e. for agreeing to transfer part of shares as collateral for the loan attracted by the company. All this information is in the company's annual reports. But if one gets right down to it, then what is the compensation for? What losses or costs did a shareholder have to compensate? How can it be determined or who documented those costs or losses?

To make it clear what amounts we are talking about, in 2014 the company paid such compensation of more than EUR 2 million. This is despite the fact that the company completed 2014 with huge losses! If we add to this amount the interest on "one's" loans and the amount of official salary, we can conclude that the year for the majority shareholder was not so bad.

A different focus is another "financial optimization scheme" by the financial director — the so-called "financial support".

— What sort of sum are we talking about?

— In 2015-2017, Agricultural company "Dovzhenko" provided almost UAH 900 million of non-repayable financial support ... Although the company's statute says that it was created for profiting and development, and the distribution of this profit among its shareholders. How does one identify this item of expenditure when UAH 320 million annual income is transferred in the form of non-repayable support? What kind of charity is this?

I was told that it was not my business. But how is it not mine if I am a shareholder? At the same time, I would rather direct part of this profit to the purchase of machinery and technologies, invest in the development of processing, as well as the social sphere.

— Were these funds used to support less profitable agricultural enterprises in the Holding's structure?

— Almost all agricultural enterprises were profitable. I think that the funds were transferred to other businesses of Astarta. It is known that the majority owners have another business — construction. And the construction of Astarta Organic Business Center in Podol in Kyiv has nothing to do with agribusiness.

— Did agricultural enterprises transfer non-repayable funds to the parent company or offshore?

— To the parent company. And it, in turn, sold agricultural products at reduced prices in offshore areas to the Cyprus company Ancor Investments Limited. As a result, the company's operating profit at the end of the year amounted to UAH 500-700 million, whereas the balance sheet shows a total of UAH 190-240 million. The rest was in the expenditures part.

I remember that when the price for winter wheat was UAH 4.5 thousand per ton, we sold it at UAH 3.5-3.6 thousand per ton. If in the domestic market one ton of corn cost UAH 4.5-4.6 thousand, we sold it to Ancor Investments Limited at UAH 3.4-3.5 thousand. That is, each ton of grain lost UAH 1 thousand of income. See for yourself. Agricultural company "Dobrobut" sells 50-60 thousand tons of wheat and 70-80 thousand tons of corn to a Cyprus company. That is, "Dobrobut" only transferred off-shore UAH 120-160 million.

Agricultural company "Dovzhenko" produced even more, and the scheme was the same. If we take all the enterprises of the company, then we are talking about the withdrawal of billions of hryvnias only due to transfer pricing when selling under-priced products.

In the sugar beet processing season, plants bought beets at UAH 1.2 thousand per ton from third parties, and from holding companies — at UAH 0.85 thousand per ton. What is that called? Is it make an example of your own to send a message to others? Thus, the financial performance of the agricultural enterprise was underestimated.

— Did you express dissatisfaction with such company policy too? It is rather strange that you speak about it just now.

— Kovalenko and I were undesirable for Ivanchyk and Gladkyi. We have always had the dignity and the will to say what we think. I sincerely regret that the company where I worked has changed so much. All these disputes do not increase its capitalization. I would like to tell the shareholders of Astarta to be cautious as a situation may arise like the one with Mriya.

— Let's get back to the share situation. When are you going to file a lawsuit against Astarta-Kyiv?

— The lawyers are getting the documents ready. In May, I suppose. I want to warn minority shareholders and stakeholders that they can be deceived like Kovalenko and I were. Therefore, I recommend that the Canadian fund Fairfax and shareholders of the Warsaw Stock Exchange be attentive.

If speaking about the share, I clearly remember that the assets of Agricultural company "Dovzhenko" on December 31, 2017, were worth UAH 2.2 billion. In January, they were re-evaluated and amounted to UAH 3.2 billion. I wrote a resignation letter on February 1, 2018. And my share was calculated on the basis of the June assets value. What kind of partnership and trust can we talk about? I am not ashamed to defend my rights because I earned this money honestly.

That is why I hired a company to conduct an independent evaluation, paid money, concluded an agreement as a director of Agricultural company "Dovzhenko". And as a shareholder under the Statute, I had the right to do so. It does not matter that someone has a 97% share in the agrofirm, and I have only 1%. Independent experts conducted an evaluation. But Astarta did not accept it as the result did not coincide with the view of the financial director.

It turned out that it was useless since there could be no alternative opinion.

— That is, your share was estimated at UAH 19 million. You agreed with this assessment. Were there any problems with the payment?

— No. The payment was made as provided for by the Statute of the agrofirm — on the final hour of the last day of the year preceding the withdrawal from its shareholders.

— Has the company management ever voiced the idea that your loyalty to the company can be converted into certain dividends that you can get?

— No, nothing of the kind. They just decided to pay the amount they considered right. Although indicative in this regard is the promise of Viktor Ivanchyk back in 2006 (when the company was listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange) to introduce Management share option plan. By the way, that's when Viktor Ivanchyk promised that we would build a model under which everyone who takes an active part in the development of the company will become a co-owner. But this did not happen. Perhaps pathological greed is the reason.

Today, a humiliating attitude towards the managers of agricultural enterprises dominates in Astarta-Kyiv. It seems to me that Viktor Ivanchyk lost means of influence on the company. Previously, he was actively building a business, could count a few steps forward. He was a smart and far-sighted businessman. I do not know what is happening today.

I'm being watched. Astarta's security service is constantly on call near my office. A lot of people come to me every day both as a deputy and as a director of an enterprise. After all, I am building another company that will manage three thousand hectares. Today, 900 hectares are already cultivated. Eventually, we will increase the land bank.

It is for life to decide who is right and who is not. I was not my intention to start a fight, and today it is difficult for me to act against the company that I myself was building. It did not work the right way, so we will fight. At the last meeting with Viktor Ivanchyk, I said that Kovalenko and I would not give up. They have to negotiate with us.

— Are there any land conflicts with Astarta?

— There are none. We work on our own, reasonably and within the law. We established a new farm "BBC" in the Shishatsky district of Poltava region. Those whose contracts expired, those who inherited the share can come to us.

— Agricultural company "Dovzhenko" has a large land bank of 50 thousand hectares. What is happening with these plots?

— Agrofirm continues working. And of course, I can't speak for everyone. But there are those who are skeptical and conclude no agreements with the holding as there is no trust and dialogue on its the part.

Each land lease agreement is concluded individually, but for this one needs to communicate with people, work with the community. In short, one needs credibility. I cannot say that the agrofirm today has no authority among shareholders. But at the same time, the risks are growing that the company will lose a significant part of farmland. Possibly, it is a misunderstanding or incompetence. But I know that today many people are not happy with this situation.

— How much farmland has Agricultural company "Dovzhenko" lose lately?

— By my count, it lost around 1.5 thousand hectares. This includes 600 hectares that people leased to our newly established farm.

— So just to conclude, you worked in Astarta-Kyiv for almost 20 years, and left the company, to put it mildly, in a situation of mutual misunderstanding?

— For me, Astarta is like my own child. This is my project, my home, which we built together. The company will still have a bit of my soul. I did not just work there but lived. My wife was even jealous of Astarta. And I would like Astarta to remain on the market and continue working successfully. But I do not believe in its management today. Management that does not exist. What does exist is fake signatures, falsification, non-compliance with the terms of the contract. That is what worries me. And the main problem of Astarta today is the top management based in Kyiv.

By the way, there are about half a thousand people working in the Kyiv office. At the same time, the land bank has not grown that much over the years to increase the staff so.

The problem is not with the land. On the contrary, it can be grateful. And the people who live on it, too. People living in villages of Poltava region are very generous and trusting people. One can work with them. The only question is how to manage this valuable resource.

Together with these people, we helped Astarta grow into a good company. Together with Kovalenko and the original team that left the holding today. We handed over a powerful, structured agribusiness company to the new team.

What will happen to it in the future? For me personally, it is a big question. It depends solely on Astarta.