Founder of GNT Group Volodymyr Naumenko: "Situation with our company is a reflection of what is happening in Ukraine"
Ukrainian entrepreneur Volodymyr Naumenko has been held in a Kyiv pre-trial detention center for three months. His arrest in May of this year was announced by the investment fund Argentem Creek Partners (ACP).
The conflict between ACP and GNT Group, owned by Serhiy Groza and Volodymyr Naumenko, which controlled the Olimpex and MetalsUkraine terminals in the Odesa port — facilities handling up to 5 million tons of cargo annually — has been ongoing since late 2022. The creditors (the investment funds Argentem and Innovatus) accuse the partners of allegedly disappearing with more than 100,000 tons of grain that had been pledged as collateral.
Olimpex Coupe International Terminal
GNT, in turn, insists that the loan was secured not only by grain, which had spoiled due to prolonged storage (the port was shut down for six months at the start of the war), but also by the stevedoring complex itself. Moreover, the Ukrainian entrepreneurs argue that the creditors allegedly never requested the return of the grain, and that what is happening is in fact an attempt to seize the entire GNT business, whose value is 3–4 times higher than the total amount of loans from Argentem and Innovatus ($95 million).
The court set bail for Naumenko at 557 million UAH, which his lawyers called absolutely unacceptable. While Naumenko remains in detention, Argentem has announced that it has taken control of the Olimpex terminal.
The creditors transferred it to the Austrian company Lavanda Spectrum, whose interests in Ukraine are represented by Karl Sturen. According to Sturen, he has effectively managed to gain control over 90% of the terminal, but has so far been unable to restart its operations.
At the same time, GNT calls what is happening a case of corporate raiding, claiming that Olimpex’s assets were resold for next to nothing.
People who have long known the founders of the terminal suggest that Naumenko’s arrest may have been an attempt to "sideline him" in order to gain control over the terminal, since he was the "driving force" of the business group.
His partner, Serhiy Groza, who has lived abroad since the 1990s, said that it was Naumenko who assembled the team that ensured the group’s operations. According to Groza, Naumenko is now seriously ill, yet he was "thrown into a common cell with criminals and brought to a medical examination in handcuffs."
Volodymyr Naumenko himself is not a public figure, but through his lawyers we were able to arrange his first interview for the Ukrainian media.
Volodymyr Serhiyovych, creditors recently claimed they had gained control over GNT’s assets in the Odesa port and transferred the "Olimpex Coupe International" terminal to the company Lavanda Spectrum, headed by Karl Sturen. Does this mean the business has a new owner?
They wanted to take control, but instead they simply destroyed the stevedoring business that had been built by GNT—by myself, Serhiy Groza, and our team—for nearly three decades. Let me explain how our business was created and what it represented.
In 1995, the management of the Odesa seaport realized that the state could not effectively compete with private terminals, which had just started to appear at the time. The idea of a public-private partnership emerged. The port provided its assets for lease (berths, lifting equipment, etc.), receiving rental payments, while private investors operated the stevedoring business.
The GNT Group comprised four companies: Inzerno, Omega terminal, Olimpex Coupe International, and MetalsUkraine. All of these companies were universal in scope—they could handle any type of cargo. We formed and trained personnel: a large number of people with specialized knowledge and skills. We organized a horizontally and vertically integrated system of contracts with carriers, shipowners, equipment manufacturers, fuel and spare parts suppliers, and many others.
In other words, we created a business mechanism that successfully competed on the market and provided jobs for thousands of people.
What assets did the creditors actually take over?
One of the types of cargo our business handled was grain. This required significant capital investment and the construction of a grain elevator. That is precisely what we implemented within Olimpex. But it is important to note that our stevedoring complex handled many different types of cargo. Transshipment of iron ore, metal, and other goods reached 1.5–2 million tons per year. And this in no way interfered with grain operations.
So, what did the creditor do? At the end of 2022, they decided to pursue enforcement and appointed their "particularly clever" lawyers as company directors, followed by an equally "qualified" insolvency administrator. There was no goal of maintaining the stevedoring business. They stopped paying salaries to employees and ceased transferring rent to the port. Naturally, under current legislation, the State Property Fund initiated the termination of these lease agreements, and they were indeed terminated.
The stevedoring business in the form of Olimpex, Inzerno, and MetalsUkraine ceased to exist. What GNT Group had built over 30 years was completely destroyed. Due to the total non-payment of wages, GNT employees scattered to other companies—which is entirely natural, since people need to survive and support their families.
Your partner Serhiy Groza suggested that the creditors would not be able to restore the full operation of the terminal. If that is true, what then is the business logic of the American fund ACP?
First of all, ACP was not our creditor. Our creditor was its agent in the Cayman Islands — Madison Pacific Trust. The real question is for the U.S. fiscal authorities: what income do they actually report in the United States? It is entirely possible that our loan has already been written off in the U.S. as a bad debt.
Now, to your question. The creditors were interested exclusively in the grain elevator. They believed this facility could operate on its own. And it was precisely for this reason that they completely destroyed GNT’s business and transferred the most valuable assets to their controlled entities. The Omega terminal was sold for 1 franc, and Olimpex — for $5 million. That is not even a joke. It is 30–50 times lower than a fair valuation. They sold an asset worth more than $100 million to some LLC with charter capital of 5,000 UAH, which had been registered just days earlier in Kirovohrad region.
And now ACP, through Karl Sturen, intends to resell the facility. They are not hiding it at all and even announce it publicly in the media. This is how corporate raiders act — trying to "offload" property they have seized so that the rightful owners can no longer claim it.
We have reliable information that they have gone "across all of Ukraine," approaching every major company with an offer to sell. But without success. I am confident: no major company that respects itself will enter into a deal with ACP.
How did the partnership with Argentem come about? Do you consider it a mistake?
I do not see it as a mistake — it was a coincidence of circumstances. We never regarded ACP as a financial partner. Or as a partner at all. It was bridge finance — short-term funding provided to cover immediate needs until long-term financing or major cash inflows are secured.
We were in a time crunch: we were "parting ways" with CHS (a major American agribusiness company that had invested in Ukraine until 2019, before abruptly changing its strategy and exiting Eastern Europe) while also finishing construction of the fourth stage of the terminal. That was a very costly project — tens of millions of dollars. We simply could not handle both at once.
CHS was the only company in GNT Group’s history that had ever been a partner. It held 26%. I still have great respect for this company and truly regret that we went our separate ways. We had counted on a partnership with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), but then the bank’s agribusiness department underwent a leadership change. When they learned about our negotiations with Argentem, the EBRD refused further financing and demanded repayment of their loan.
Therefore, all the funds from Argentem went to buying out CHS’s stake and repaying the EBRD loan. We understood well — and had been warned — that Argentem were very aggressive lenders, but we believed we had bought time to find a new, full-fledged partner.
Creditors claim they have taken control of GNT Group’s grain assets, yet they continue to accuse you of crimes. Why?
They believe I am the key figure moderating all processes related to defending GNT Group. In fact, this is an attempt to remove the operational manager. That is why I was thrown into prison. In this process, ACP also involved another fund — Innovatus. Their sole aim is to fabricate a criminal case and showcase it in the United States, to present us as fraudsters.
But GNT Group has existed for more than 30 years and worked with all major European banks — Swiss, French, British. EBRD, Barclays, BNP, and others. And we always met our obligations with every bank. At the time we began working with ACP, we had credit lines totaling €120 million across four European banks. Literally within two months of starting cooperation with Argentem, all of these banks approached us requesting repayment of the loans — and we did exactly that.
Our opponents in the press actively spread stories that my partner and I supposedly hid millions or even billions somewhere. But if you think about it, such capital-intensive facilities could only have been built by reinvesting profits. It is not difficult to calculate the value of all GNT Group’s assets and compare it with the enormous amount of funds that had to be invested there.
Serhiy Groza claims that you never refused to repay the debt to Argentem. Why then did the creditors decide to seize the assets to cover the debt?
Here’s how it happened. At the start of the war, the Odesa port was completely blocked. GNT Group had absolutely no source of income. Despite this, we continued paying salaries to our employees and making all required payments to the state. This lasted until August, when the "grain corridor" opened. During wartime, it was simply impossible to find any financial institution willing to refinance the loan.
I called Mr. John (John Patton — ACP’s regional manager), who, by the way, recorded that conversation and submitted it to the London arbitration. In that call, I offered him a repayment plan of $2 million per month, since the "grain corridor" had begun operating. Of course, that was far from the full capacity we could have had. Other cargo operations were still absent, but it was at least a way to start meeting our obligations.
I also told John that we were not against finding a buyer for a portion of our shares that would have been enough to settle ACP’s loan. Patton promised to consult with his "partners in crime"—because I can’t call them otherwise. After that, he never spoke to me again. And just a few days later, the events unfolded as they did.
The legal entity was re-registered in the so-called "maritime capital of Ukraine" — Lviv. Why there? I suspect they had particular influence over the judicial and law enforcement systems in Lviv. In general, the creditors’ maneuvers across different Ukrainian jurisdictions (re-registering GNT companies in Lviv, selling assets to an LLC registered in Kirovohrad region) strongly resemble the classic methods of corporate raiding — when company registrations are shifted to "friendly" courts, notaries, or state registrars who conveniently turn a blind eye to violations of the law.
After that, as I already mentioned, they appointed lawyers as directors, who effectively destroyed the business. And now the situation has been driven into a dead end. And this was done personally by Mr. John Patton.
Your creditors have publicly thanked the Ukrainian authorities for their support. Why do you think that is?
We tried to convey our position through the media, through personal appeals, but we were not heard. John Patton keeps saying that he has "the American flag behind him," but that’s simply not true: our creditor is registered in the Cayman Islands. This can easily be verified in open sources. Because of this, Mr. John started appearing at various roundtables, telling everyone that "the Americans are being mistreated." The Ukrainian authorities did not dig into the situation and instead took the side of this dubious "investor," using "remote-controlled" courts and "remote-controlled" law enforcement agencies.
Obviously, restarting business during wartime is difficult, as is selling it at a good price. Did your creditors propose restructuring the debt, as many other companies did at the beginning of the war?
They never made such proposals. The only proposal came from us — in my personal conversation with John. I had hoped my offer would influence the creditors. It was logical, it was clear: they would get their money. Until the very end, I believed they would abandon the aggressive scenario. But once they launched the enforcement procedure, there was no turning back. They sent us an official letter demanding full repayment of the loan within 24 hours.
The criminal case against you is connected to the second creditor — the Innovatus fund, which was brought in by Argentem. According to public information, Innovatus held grain as collateral, which allegedly disappeared. What is your position on this case?
Innovatus became a hostage of the situation. They had two forms of collateral — one was grain, and the other was real estate. We were in talks with Innovatus, preparing to repay their loan under a specific formula that was under discussion. But we had one condition — that they exit the pari passu arrangement (where all creditors or security holders have equal rights to receive payments, with none given priority over another). In this case, Argentem likely pressured them, because they needed Innovatus to stay in pari passu — it was the only way to "pull in" a criminal case.
Coming back to your question — Innovatus never once requested the return of grain. More than that, I asked my friend, the late Adnan Kivan (a well-known developer, founder of KADORR Group), to buy out this debt, and he approached them with an offer. The fund initially responded and asked for guarantees that he had the necessary funds. Kivan easily provided bank certificates confirming the money was on his accounts. After that, Innovatus disappeared. They never returned — neither for the money nor for the grain.
Exactly the same thing happened with ACP. Many people actually approached them with offers to buy out the debt. They didn’t even try to negotiate — they just vanished. They didn’t want the money; they didn’t want to solve the issue that way. Their goal was to "take" the asset, devalue it, and then sell it off somehow.
You remained in Ukraine even after the criminal case was opened. Why?
I have worked in Ukraine all my life and stayed here from the very beginning of the war. I was involved in supporting the defense forces protecting Odesa. I never intended to leave. We played an honest and open game, and I saw no reason to hide.
Your partner Serhiy Groza has said you have health issues. How serious are they, and are you receiving proper care?
To put it briefly — I have a heart condition. I have undergone numerous serious surgeries. Being in a penitentiary facility, which under any circumstances is a stuffy, poorly ventilated place, does not help my condition. Moreover, I am not receiving — and cannot receive — the full scope of medical care I need. In pre-trial detention, this is simply impossible. And that was clearly the opponents’ calculation. But forcing me to retreat or give up — that will not happen.
Your lawyers argue that the charges are unlawful, since they involve relations between foreign companies outside Ukrainian jurisdiction. Why?
The charges are utterly absurd. The contract in question was between two non-resident companies. One Canadian, the other based in Dubai. The contract stipulated that U.S. law would apply in case of disputes, and any arbitration was to take place in the United States. How I personally became a party to this agreement is unclear. I am not an officer of the company, I had no authority to sign the contract. I was "pulled in" as a beneficiary.
There are no grounds for my prosecution — neither formally nor factually. Innovatus received collateral in the form of real estate and corporate rights, valued at three times the loan amount. Not only were our assets taken, they also initiated a criminal case.
We worked for 30 years and repaid every creditor in full — and we would have done the same with ACP and Innovatus. But someone saw a "window of opportunity" for a corporate raid — and that is exactly what they pursued.
The conflict between ACP and GNT is widely discussed in the business community. What do your colleagues say?
The situation with our company is a reflection of what is happening in Ukraine. The Ukrainian authorities showed they were not even willing to attempt to understand the case or defend Ukrainian business. For the sake of other interests, they were ready to let us be trampled. For Ukrainian business, there is nothing good in this.
The port industry needs support now more than ever. Enemy strikes on infrastructure are intensifying. We have lost the ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk, and effectively lost the ports of Mykolaiv and Kherson. And yet the remaining ports are underutilized. Grain is just one of the few types of cargo still left. There is no metal, no iron ore. Instead of supporting those who know how to work and are willing to develop the industry even under such conditions, we were simply crushed.
It is known that you filed an application with the ECHR. When do you expect a response?
Yes, that’s correct. We have applied to the European Court of Human Rights and are awaiting its decision. The case is titled "Naumenko v. Ukraine." Of course, I am not "against Ukraine" — I am for Ukraine. I am against the system that exists today: the judicial system, law enforcement, and the system of protecting Ukrainian business.
Will the conflict between ACP and GNT continue?
The business they destroyed was worth several times more than the remaining real estate assets. But even the real estate alone is worth twice the size of the loan. Even if we take into account the decision of the London arbitration — with which I disagree — the maximum debt is $150 million. In that case, after selling the assets, the creditors should already owe us. Yet they continue to demand more and keep adding interest.
That is why our goal — as Serhiy Groza has said — is to achieve justice. And we will continue working in that direction.
