ROSHEN DENIES FAR FETCHED ALLEGATIONS OF BRITISH ARCHITECT
6 March 2015
ROSHEN company denies false allegations of Mr Hudson, the British
architect, brought in the articles of Newsweek and Kyiv Post.
ROSHEN confirms the cooperation with Mr Hudson in the framework of the
contract, signed between D’ESTATE and Vinnitsa Confectionery Factory, on the development
of administrative building of Vinnitsa Milk Processing Factory.
Sketch plan was developed by D’ESTATE company, accepted and paid by
During the design development phase D’ESTASTE made numerous and
constant errors, including serious deviations of national construction rules and
regulations, which made abidance of construction approval procedure at public authorities
In accordance with the Contract provisions ROSHEN terminated it.
The payment under the contract covered the services accepted by ROSHEN. Moreover,
ROSHEN incurred additional expenses, as there was no other option as to order the design
development by other architect bureau.
Therefore ROSHEN is extremely rebelled with the naked assertions of Mr
Hudson such as ‘intimidation’, ‘gangster mentality’ and ‘mafia management’, which are
deeply mixed with political events and personalities of Ukraine, indistinct hints and
quotations, and thetic distrust to the state authorities of Ukraine.
ROSHEN fails to get a sense of Mr Hudson’s true intentions and motives
of his statements:
Why hasn’t he expressed his claims not a single timefor the last two
years, but now?
Why does he, being a professional architect, consider national construction rules and
regulations as ‘minor details’?
Why did he not file the claim with the court till the self-declared term of February 27,
2015? (article Newsweek Explosive Court Case Puts Ukraine's Chocolate King in Dock, by
Maxim Tucker / February 19, 2015 10:39 AM EST)
Why does Mr Hudson allow himself to evaluate a nonexistent court process?
Why does Mr Hudson call ROSHEN’s proposal to settle the dispute in court, in the presence
of world mass media, ‘gangster mentality’?
What are genuine intentions of Mr Hudson: to settle a business dispute or to
Thus we once more invite Mr Hudson to defend his rights, which
he considers infringed, through the courts.
We invite in advance media representative to court hearings what allow
them to form independent opinion on the proceedings and the outcomes.
We call architect Hudson for dropping to compose “political detective
stories”, and we believe that he realizes the responsibility for damaging ROSHEN’s