Recover in Russian: the decision of the Moscow court brought down the shares of the Italian company

The sanctions shield is collapsing — it is becoming increasingly difficult for Western companies to hide behind the "toxicity" of Russian counterparties and refuse to fulfill contracts. A striking example was the situation with an Italian engineering company that disrupted its obligations to build a large fertilizer plant in the Leningrad Region. They explained the refusal with sanctions, hoping that the decision of the Russian court would remain on paper. But it became clear that the world had changed when the holding's shares sank on the stock exchange. About how the legal situation is changing — in the material of Izvestia.

Business relations as a mirror of international relations

The dispute between the Russian company Eurochem North-West-2 (a subsidiary of Eurochem), which hired the Italian Tecnimont (Maire Group) to build a fertilizer plant in the Leningrad region, has become a new point of international conflict. The contractor took the advances, started work, and then, citing sanctions, actually stopped the project. According to the plaintiff, instead of a conscientious withdrawal from the project — transfer of documentation, refund of funds and a clear completion plan — delays and disputes over formalities followed.

The Moscow Arbitration Court sided with the Russian customer and ruled to jointly recover a significant amount from the Italian company and its subsidiary in Russia. The Russian side says it is ready to enforce the judgment not only in Moscow, but also in friendly jurisdictions where the foreign contractor has assets and contracts.

In addition, at the end of November, the Moscow prosecutor's office used its right to enter into the process "to maintain a balance of public and private interests," referring to presidential decrees on economic measures and the fact that Italy has been on the list of unfriendly countries since March 2022 (the statement is available to Izvestia).

In fact, this is a legal watershed: the state has stated that the subject of consideration is not only the money of a particular company, but also the fundamental guarantees of fulfillment of obligations to the Russian industry and the financial system.

The Italians insist that the Russian side is seeking to "unlawfully" influence the share price of Maire and actually close all credit lines of the company. So, on November 28, its quotes fell by more than 7% during the month, analysts attribute this to the undisclosed risks of a lawsuit exceeding half of the company's market capitalization. According to the interpretation of European lawyers, this is an "aggressive tactic", however, the Russian side believes that this is a legally provided protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the plaintiff, and now the public interest. Of the Russian Federation.

Milan — Moscow: Emotions versus facts

The panic of Maire investors that occurred after the Russian wave of legal proceedings apparently came as a surprise to the management of the holding, although we are talking about amounts comparable to its capitalization. The Italian side tried to ease the tension with soothing press releases and references to parallel processes in London. But the press releases do not cancel the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court to recover 171.1 billion rubles (including losses, unjustified enrichment and interest) and interim measures on property.

At the same time, Eurochem is not the only one involved in the Russian case. According to experts, the involvement of the prosecutor's office means that the question is raised more broadly — about the discipline of international contractors, about the inadmissibility of a "sanctioned alibi" as a pretext for non-fulfillment of obligations, about Russia's right to enforce its own judicial acts abroad. And this is no longer a corporate, but a government position.

A precedent from South Africa

Western companies that ignore the Russian court's decision ignore the new reality. South Africa has already demonstrated how a Russian judicial act can be recognized and enforced in a BRICS country.: The high-profile story with Google has shown that Russian decisions are no longer limited by national borders.

In South Africa, the Russian side achieved recognition and enforcement of the Russian court's decision against Google: the local High Court allowed the recovery and seizure of the company's assets in the country, and the appeal confirmed the legality of such a step.

Experts emphasize that this case has become a guideline for the BRICS jurisdictions: political rhetoric remains outside the brackets, and the enforceability and equality of the parties before the law come to the fore. For Western companies, this means that the Russian decision can be ignored only in those countries where they have no assets.

For those who work in the markets of the Global South, this is no longer a hypothetical possibility, but part of the operational risk — with real asset seizures, account freezes and supply disruptions. The exchange is also responding to these signals, as clearly evidenced by the failure of Maire shares against the background of the decisions of the Russian court. In fact, the risk is understood in Milan itself, judging by how nervous the theses about "credit lines" and "stock price" sound.

The London arbitration field still plays an important role, but it is no longer the only one. If the Russian court has ruled, the plaintiff has the right to go to friendly jurisdictions with a request for recognition and enforcement. Judges in the BRICS countries and more broadly in "non—Western" economies do not look at such appeals through an ideological prism, comparing the volume of obligations and the actual picture of non—fulfillment.

The precedent that happened is also a matter of prestige: Russia is defending not just a large chemical project, but the enforceability of its court's decisions in the global legal space.

The "sanctions umbrella" is leaking

The thesis of European lawyers is clear: sanctions have complicated logistics, bank settlements, and equipment supplies. But sanctions are not a clause in the contract to release from all obligations and not an indulgence to "freeze" a construction site. The Russian industrial policy, enshrined in regulations after 2022, is directly based on the need to protect financial stability and ensure the implementation of strategic projects. The court reasonably takes this framework into account when assessing the behavior of a contractor who missed deadlines and failed to ensure a good-faith exit from the project. That is why the accusation against the plaintiff, who allegedly intentionally "brings down" the shareholder value of Maire, sounds like a substitution of concepts.: The share price is a derivative of risk, and risk is a derivative of unfulfilled obligations.

Maire's communication with the market, judging by the available materials, remained silent on Russian sums and procedural decisions until late autumn. This made it possible to smooth out fluctuations in quotations for a while. But as the invoice of the Russian jurisdiction becomes public, investors inevitably move from emotions to documents.: to the amounts of recovery, to interim measures, to the routes of potential execution. And then it will become clear that the attempt of the Maire leadership to silence the story has failed. In recent years, the Russian judicial system has been building up a practice of protection against unfair procedural moves "abroad". South Africa's precedent against Google shows: This strategy is working and is perceived by BRICS partners as a normal part of legal cooperation, rather than "political pressure." The Italian side may continue its policy of silencing the issue, but this will not reverse the decision and will not remove the risks of execution outside the EU.

The Russian side, both as a plaintiff and as a state interested in the systematic protection of its rights in the international legal field, made it clear that the issue would be brought to its logical conclusion: from the decisive part of the decision in Moscow to its actual execution where the interests of Maire and the jurisdiction of the Global South come into contact.