Empyrean Protocol

Empyrean Intelligence Console

← Back to briefs

Agrofirma Oniks LLC & Anor v ABH Ukraine Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 300 (Comm) (24 January 2025)

Source: Open mirrored case · Original bailii.org

Sanctions ✓ Geo ✓

Executive Summary

  • Claimants Agrofirma Oniks LLC and Agro UG V LLC allege negligent advice and misstatements by Defendants, including Mikhail Fridman, regarding Loan Participation Notes (LPNs) issued by EMIS Finance B.V. and guaranteed by ABH Ukraine Ltd.
  • Claimants invested over $11.4m in LPNs based on assurances of safety and suitability for inflation protection; payments ceased post-February 2022.
  • Mr Fridman, a dual Russian-Israeli national and majority shareholder of Alfa Group (controlling ABH Ukraine and Alfa Bank Ukraine), is a central defendant.
  • Legal dispute includes service of proceedings on Mr Fridman at his London residence (Athlone House) amid his UK sanctions designation.
  • Court considers validity of service, jurisdiction challenges, and relief from sanctions applications.

Sanctions Highlights

  • Mr Fridman designated under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 on 15 March 2022.
  • Resulted in asset freezes and his classification as an "excluded person" under UK Immigration Act 1971.
  • Sanctions complicate service of legal documents and enforcement actions.
  • Claimants seek to serve Mr Fridman despite his known absence from usual residence due to sanctions-related restrictions.

Emerging Risks

  • Enforcement of judgments against sanctioned individuals like Mr Fridman faces procedural and jurisdictional hurdles.
  • Risk of non-compliance or delays in service of process due to sanctions and residence ambiguities.
  • Potential for increased litigation complexity where defendants hold multiple nationalities and reside across jurisdictions.
  • Financial exposure for investors in LPNs linked to sanctioned entities or individuals remains high.

Geopolitical Impact

  • Case highlights tensions involving Russian oligarchs under UK and EU sanctions regimes post-Ukraine conflict.
  • UK courts assert jurisdiction over disputes involving Russian nationals and entities linked to Ukraine.
  • Sanctions reflect broader geopolitical strategy by UK, EU, and US to isolate Russian economic interests.
  • Dual nationality (Russian-Israeli) and residence in London underscore complexities in enforcing sanctions and legal claims.

Economic Intelligence

  • Claimants’ losses exceed $11.4 million (~£8.7 million), reflecting significant financial impact on foreign investors in Ukrainian/Russian-linked financial instruments.
  • LPNs issued by EMIS Finance B.V., a special purpose vehicle, failed to deliver coupon and redemption payments since February 2022.
  • The case underscores risks in cross-border financial products tied to politically sensitive regions and sanctioned entities.
  • Currency exposure (USD/GBP) and inflation hedging strategies are central to claimants’ investment rationale.

Strategic Recommendations

  • Litigants should prepare for extended procedural timelines due to sanctions-related service and jurisdiction challenges.
  • Legal teams must verify current residence and sanction status of defendants to ensure valid service and enforcement.
  • Consider alternative dispute resolution or settlement given complexities and geopolitical sensitivities.
  • Monitor evolving UK, EU, and US sanctions lists for updates affecting parties and related entities.
  • Financial institutions should enhance due diligence on LPNs and similar instruments linked to sanctioned persons or jurisdictions.

---

**Source Notes:** *Sanctions Intelligence Digest* — [https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/300.txt](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/300.txt)

Brief metadata