Global law firm McDermott Will & Schulte, alongside local counsel, Quillon Partners, advised Tecnimont S.p.A. (“Tecnimont”), a subsidiary of Maire S.p.A., in successfully opposing LLC EuroChem North-West-2’s (“EuroChem”) application to the Bombay High Court seeking an interim injunction restraining Tecnimont from dissipating any of their assets in India up to €2.06 billion (RUB 171,115,220,555.00). 

The underlying dispute between the parties concerns the construction of an ammonia and urea fertiliser plant near the Russian town of Kingisepp (the “K2 Project”), in respect of which EuroChem engaged Tecnimont (and its Russian subsidiary, LLC MT Russia (“MTR” and, together with Tecnimont, the “Contractors”)) as EPCC contractors. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the imposition of increased trade and financial sanctions measures (including the designation of the ultimate owner and controller of EuroChem, Mr Andrey Melnichenko) the Contractors suspended their performance under the relevant contracts. EuroChem disputed the lawfulness of that suspension and terminated the contracts. The Contractors thereafter commenced London-seated arbitration under the ICC Rules (the “Arbitration”). 

On 31 July 2025, Mr Justice Bright, sitting in the English Commercial Court, gave judgment in a parallel claim brought by EuroChem against two international banks (ING and Société Générale) seeking payment under six on-demand bonds that were issued by the banks to secure the performance of the Contractors’ obligations in respect of the K2 Project. Tecnimont was joined to the proceedings as a non-cause of action Defendant and was represented by McDermott. The English High Court dismissed the claim and ruled in favour of the banks and Tecnimont, determining that EuroChem is owned and/or controlled by Mr Melnichenko and therefore payment under the bonds would be unlawful (the “Bright Judgment”).  

As the ink was drying on the Bright Judgment, EuroChem threatened and issued proceedings in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court, replicating counterclaims that it had already brought and was continuing to pursue in the Arbitration (the “Moscow Action”). Then, in October 2025, EuroChem issued anti-arbitration applications in the St Petersburg Court attempting to restrain and torpedo the Arbitration altogether. These steps were part of a change of strategy following the adverse Bright Judgment by which EuroChem has sought to avail itself of the infamous Russian counter-sanctions ‘Lugovoy law’, which enables the Russian Courts to unilaterally assert exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings involving Russian parties impacted by sanctions, notwithstanding those Russian parties having agreedthat the dispute should be determined elsewhere. In this case, EuroChem sought to move its entire dispute with the Contractors to the Russian Courts, despite being bound by exclusive arbitration agreements and in circumstances where it had engaged in the Arbitration for over three years, including through the prosecution of substantial counterclaims, and continues to engage in the Arbitration to this day. 

In response, the Contractors have obtained numerous orders from the tribunal in the Arbitration (the “Tribunal”) recognising that the Moscow Action and other Russian proceedings were brought in clear breach of the arbitration agreements between the parties and ordering EuroChem to withdraw them. When those orders were not complied with, the Contractors obtained an injunction from the English Courts requiring EuroChem to comply immediately with the Tribunal’s orders, which injunction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. 

Seemingly undeterred, in breach of the Tribunal’s orders and the injunction made by the English Court, EuroChem continued with its unlawful Russian campaign. On 27 November 2025, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court gave judgment against the Contractors in the Moscow Action in an amount of approximately €2 billion (the “Russian Judgment”). On 10 December 2025, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court granted the anti-arbitration orders sought by EuroChem and imposed significant statutory penalties in the amount of approximately €900 million in the event of non-compliance (the “Anti-Arbitration Injunctions”).  

In the meantime, on 27 November 2025, the Contractors successfully obtained further relief from the Tribunal in the form of an anti-enforcement order restraining EuroChem from taking any steps to enforce the Russian Judgment, the Anti-Arbitration Injunctions and certain other orders it had unlawfully obtained from the Russian Courts. Notwithstanding this, on 22 December 2025, EuroChem ignored the Tribunal’s order and issued proceedings in India seeking to enforce the Russian Judgment, including applying for an interim freezing injunction to restrain Tecnimont’s subsidiaries in India from moving assets out of the country. Shortly after, EuroChem applied for further freezing relief from the Malaysian High Court in respect of assets held by Tecnimont in that jurisdiction. 

On 9 February 2026, the Contractors successfully obtained a further order from the English Courts, this time enforcing the Tribunal’s anti-enforcement order, and specifically restraining EuroChem from continuing the Indian and Malaysian actions. Once more, EuroChem ignored the English Court’s order and continued undeterred in both India and Malaysia.  

On Monday 8 June 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed EuroChem’s application for an interim injunction. In her judgment (the “Bombay Judgment”), Justice Gauri Godse noted on several occasions the existence of the underlying arbitration agreements between the parties, the various orders of the Tribunal and the English Court (which EuroChem had omitted to disclose) and the fact that EuroChem was actively participating in the Arbitration (finding that there is “no dispute that the Russian judgment pertains to substantially the same claim as that in the international arbitration proceedings in which the plaintiff had also filed a counterclaim”). Based on these and other factors, the Judge found, amongst other things, that the “the competence of the Moscow commercial court in entertaining the plaintiff’s claim [underlying the Russian Judgment] is doubtful”. This is ultimately an issue that will be determined conclusively at trial before the Bombay High Court, though the Judge did observe that there was an “absence of any prima facie case in favour of [EuroChem]”. 

The Bombay Judgment provides a strong signal that the Russian Lugovoy law will not be treated as conferring immutable protection on Russian parties impacted by sanctions. While those parties may be able to gain favourable treatment from the Russian Courts, Russian parties will not necessarily be able to benefit from judgments obtained from those Courts, particularly where those judgments have been obtained in breach of binding arbitration agreements and orders of the underlying tribunal and supervisory national court. Rather, central tenets of natural justice and international law should prevail, including, not least, the primacy of a party’s agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, the Bombay Judgment is significant and may well give some comfort to international operators in dispute with Russian counterparties, particularly where that dispute involves sanctions. 

Milo Molfa, co-head of the McDermott London trial team and the lead partner on the EuroChem matters, commented: “The decision of the Indian court is critically important not only for Maire, but for the wider international business community. It underscores that even in turbulent times, the supremacy of international law and the parties’ agreement to arbitrate will be upheld, and that attempts to sidestep those principles through opportunistic proceedings will not succeed.” 

The Contractors in the Arbitration and parallel English court litigation are represented by the disputes team of McDermott Will & Schulte, led by partners Milo Molfa, Alfonso Annibale De Marco, Jack Thorne, and David Kiefer, supported by associates  James McGlaughlin, Jonathan Robb, Alison Morris, William Merry, and William Evans in London, Mariafiore Miniussi in Milan, Maxime Delabarre in Paris, and Maria Cristina Rosales del Prado and Ignacio Zabala Alonso in Washington DC. The Maire entities in the Indian proceedings are represented by Vikram Nankani SA and Quillon Partners, led by partner Alok Jain, supported by associates Samarth Saxena, Ria Garg, and Mihir Beradia, acting with support from McDermott Will & Schulte UK LLP.

Leading organizations turn to global law firm McDermott Will & Schulte for a better way to address legal challenges, connect with those at the forefront, and drive stronger outcomes. Working across more than 20 offices globally, our 1,700+ lawyers act on data-driven insights, deep relationships, and unmatched industry experience to deliver on our commitment of Always Better.