Executive Summary
- The case involves Agrofirma Oniks LLC and Agro UG V LLC (Claimants) versus ABH Ukraine Limited (ABHU), EMIS Finance BV, and others (Defendants) concerning loan participation notes (LPNs).
- The Claimants must provide security for costs related to jurisdictional challenges by ABHU and EMIS.
- Due to Ukrainian sanctions on ABHU, the Claimants face difficulties transferring funds out of Ukraine to meet security requirements.
- The court granted a limited extension for providing security, increasing the amount to £580,000, with funds held by the Claimants’ UK lawyers under strict conditions.
Sanctions Highlights
- ABHU is subject to sanctions in Ukraine, complicating financial transactions.
- Ukrainian banks have blocked transfers of funds potentially benefiting ABHU or related entities, including EMIS, despite EMIS not being sanctioned.
- The court order explicitly restricts release of security funds to any sanctioned party without court approval.
- Sanctions create a direct operational barrier to fulfilling court-ordered financial obligations.
Emerging Risks
- Prolonged delays in transferring funds due to sanctions risk the Claimants’ ability to present evidence, potentially prejudicing their case.
- The interlinked sanctions impact on non-sanctioned entities (EMIS) due to perceived relationships increases transactional risk.
- Potential for further sanctions-related banking restrictions could exacerbate litigation delays and costs.
- The Claimants’ late recognition and response to sanctions-related transfer issues highlight risk of inadequate sanctions compliance planning.
Geopolitical Impact
- The case underscores ongoing geopolitical tensions involving Ukraine and related sanctions regimes.
- Sanctions on Ukrainian entities reflect broader international responses to conflict and political instability.
- The legal and financial entanglements illustrate how sanctions affect cross-border commercial litigation and dispute resolution.
- The court’s cautious approach to fund release reflects sensitivity to geopolitical sanctions enforcement.
Economic Intelligence
- The dispute centers on LPNs used to finance loans, indicating significant cross-border financial flows.
- Sanctions disrupt normal banking operations, increasing transaction costs and legal expenses.
- The increased security amount (£580,000) reflects indemnity costs and heightened litigation risk.
- Financial institutions’ cautious stance on transfers linked to sanctioned parties may constrain liquidity and credit access for affected entities.
Strategic Recommendations
- Parties should proactively assess sanctions risks early in litigation involving sanctioned jurisdictions or entities.
- Legal teams must coordinate closely with compliance and banking partners to ensure timely fund transfers.
- Consider alternative payment mechanisms or escrow arrangements compliant with sanctions regimes.
- Monitor evolving sanctions policies affecting Ukraine and related entities to anticipate operational impacts.
- Courts and litigants should maintain transparency and flexibility to balance sanctions enforcement with fair legal process.
---
**Source Notes:**
Sanctions Intelligence Digest
[https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/2046.html](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/2046.html)