Executive Summary
- The case concerns Agrofirma Oniks LLC and Agro UG V LLC (Claimants) versus ABH Ukraine Ltd and others (Defendants) regarding loan participation notes (LPNs) issued by EMIS Finance BV to fund loans to ABH Ukraine Ltd (ABHU).
- The Claimants seek an extension to provide security for costs due to difficulties transferring funds from Ukraine caused by sanctions on ABHU.
- The court granted a limited extension to 14 August 2025 for security payment, increasing the amount to £580,000 total, with strict conditions on fund handling by the Claimants’ solicitors.
- Failure to provide security by the deadline bars the Claimants from submitting evidence on jurisdiction.
Sanctions Highlights
- ABHU is subject to Ukrainian sanctions, complicating the Claimants’ ability to transfer funds out of Ukraine.
- The Claimants’ Ukrainian bank refuses transfers potentially benefiting ABHU or EMIS due to perceived connections.
- Security funds must be held by Fieldfisher LLP under court undertakings, preventing release to sanctioned parties without court approval.
- The sanctions regime directly impacts procedural compliance and financial flows in this litigation.
Emerging Risks
- Prolonged delays in providing security risk the Claimants’ ability to participate in jurisdictional hearings.
- The Claimants’ failure to anticipate sanctions-related transfer issues may lead to adverse procedural consequences.
- Potential for further sanctions-related banking restrictions affecting litigation finance.
- Risk of increased costs and complexity if security funds cannot be transferred timely.
Geopolitical Impact
- The case highlights the ongoing impact of Ukraine-related sanctions on cross-border commercial litigation.
- Sanctions enforcement by Ukrainian banks reflects heightened scrutiny of financial flows linked to sanctioned entities.
- The dispute underscores the intersection of UK commercial courts with geopolitical sanctions regimes affecting Ukrainian entities.
- The court’s careful balancing of sanctions compliance and procedural fairness illustrates judicial adaptation to geopolitical realities.
Economic Intelligence
- The increased security amount (£580,000) reflects indemnity costs incurred by Defendants due to delays.
- Sanctions impede capital movement, affecting the Claimants’ liquidity and ability to meet court-ordered financial obligations.
- The case exemplifies how sanctions can indirectly increase litigation costs and financial risk for foreign claimants.
- The involvement of multiple financial and legal intermediaries (banks, solicitors) adds layers of complexity and cost.
Strategic Recommendations
- Claimants should urgently engage with Ukrainian banks and legal advisors to expedite sanctioned fund transfers.
- Consider alternative payment routes or escrow arrangements compliant with sanctions and court orders.
- Maintain transparent communication with the court and Defendants to manage expectations and avoid further sanctions-related delays.
- Defendants should monitor compliance closely and prepare for potential enforcement actions if security is not provided.
- Legal teams must stay updated on evolving Ukraine sanctions to anticipate and mitigate procedural risks in cross-border disputes.
---
**Source Notes:**
Sanctions Intelligence Digest
[https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/2046.txt](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/2046.html)