The American investment fund Argentem Creek Partners (ACP) is attempting to influence the Ukrainian authorities—particularly the Office of the President—through political and diplomatic channels in order to gain control over a strategic grain terminal in the Odesa seaport, which belongs to the group of Ukrainian companies GNT Group.
This is reported by the news outlet kp.ua.
“The fund (Argentem Creek Partners – ed.) decided to act through political mechanisms, using the American Chamber of Commerce (ACC) as a channel to pressure the Ukrainian authorities. Documents indicate that the ACC appealed to the Office of the President of Ukraine, insisting on a review of the terminal’s ‘lease’ issue. However, an analysis of the letter reveals that it is essentially an attempt to carry out a corporate raid on the assets,” the article states.
According to the publication, between 2019 and 2021, the fund provided GNT Group with $95 million in financing. The funds were secured by part of the infrastructure assets related to the grain terminal. However, the money was not directed toward development but rather used to buy out a previous partner’s share and to settle obligations with the EBRD. In effect, GNT Group did not receive any free capital to operate with—the funds were used to refinance existing debt.
After the start of the full-scale war and the sharp decline in the value of Ukrainian assets, ACP changed its position. Although the fund had previously officially agreed to release the mortgage on part of the property and allow it to be pledged to Ukrainian banks Pivdennyi and Vostok, it later began to challenge these actions.
According to the outlet, documents signed by the fund’s agent—Madison Pacific Trust Limited—explicitly confirm that the release of encumbrances was a mutually agreed decision that raised no objections from ACP at the time.
Between 2022 and 2023, the fund filed several lawsuits—both in Ukraine and in the United Kingdom. In particular, the case is being considered by the High Court in London, where ACP is attempting to prove that some of the assets were allegedly removed from collateral unlawfully.
At the same time, case materials indicate that GNT Group had proposed a debt repayment schedule, including monthly payments; however, these proposals were not supported by the fund.
According to the publication, this may suggest that ACP’s true interest lies not in recovering the funds, but in gaining control over the assets, which are worth more than three times the collateral—an estimated $350 million.
Moreover, ACP has publicly accused GNT Group of allegedly misusing grain reserves stored at the terminal. However, as noted in the article, the grain stocks were not part of the collateral, and some of them were lost or spoiled due to military actions and disrupted logistics.
“The final outcome of this conflict could have significant implications not only for GNT Group or Argentem Creek Partners, but also for the overall investment climate in Ukraine. If an international investor is able to force the government to revise an agreement that it had previously acknowledged as valid, it would create a dangerous precedent—undermining the stability of contracts and the legal protection of businesses,” the article states.
Background
Argentem Creek Partners is an investment fund specializing in debt instruments. The fund often enters companies with the aim of restructuring or gaining control over assets.
GNT Group is a Ukrainian agro-logistics group engaged in transshipment, storage, and export of grain. It owns a grain terminal in the Odesa port, which holds strategic importance for agricultural exports—especially during wartime. Prior to the conflict with ACP, the group actively attracted financing from both international and Ukrainian banks to develop its infrastructure.
In 2022–2023, amid worsening financial conditions caused by russia’s full-scale invasion, the practice of voluntary debt restructuring became common in Ukraine. Many foreign creditors agreed to deferments or to revise loan terms. ACP’s actions contrast with this trend—the fund not only rejected restructuring proposals but also filed a series of lawsuits in both Ukrainian and UK jurisdictions.