In a ruling handed down on February 11, 2025, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales revoked the anti-suit injunction that German bank UniCredit Bank GmbH had obtained against Russian company RusChemAlliance LLC (RCA). This case, which is emblematic of the tensions between international arbitration and sanctions, highlights the challenges faced by economic actors operating with Russian counterparties. Teynier Pic acted as expert in French law before the English courts in this case.
The dispute arose from UniCredit’s failure to perform its obligations under a first demand guarantee. Although the contract contained an ICC arbitration clause with Paris as the seat of arbitration, RCA brought the case before the Commercial Court of Saint Petersburg. In doing so, RCA relied on a provision of Russian law allowing national courts to declare themselves competent when a contractually agreed dispute resolution method becomes inoperative due to sanctions.
In response, UniCredit obtained an anti-suit injunction from the High Court against RCA, prohibiting it from continuing the legal proceedings in Russia, invoking compliance with the arbitration agreement. In return, RCA obtained a counter-injunction in Russia prohibiting UniCredit from relying on the English injunction, under penalty of a civil fine of €250 million, and requiring it to take all measures to prevent the English anti-suit injunction from taking effect. To avoid the fine, the bank was forced to request the lifting of the anti-suit injunction it had initiated.
In the decision in question, the Court granted UniCredit’s request to revoke its injunction. The Court considered that, in a dispute between private parties, there is nothing to prevent a party that has obtained an injunction, even if it has become final, from requesting its revocation in the event of new circumstances. According to the Court, public policy considerations could not preclude the revocation of the injunction in the circumstances of the case; nor did British sanctions legislation appear to be impeded.
This decision highlights the complexity of litigation strategies in cases involving Russian entities. It also illustrates how sanctions can indirectly affect the enforcement of arbitration agreements and give rise to jurisdictional conflicts that are difficult to anticipate. For businesses, this case serves as a reminder of the need to anticipate the effects of extraterritorial measures on dispute resolution mechanisms in their contracts and to surround themselves with teams capable of coordinating their efforts across multiple judicial and arbitral forums.
