Following amendments to judicial cooperation frameworks that courts in Russia began applying consistently from early 2026, foreign creditors holding claims against Russian pharmaceutical companies — or against debtors with pharmaceutical assets — face a materially different enforcement landscape than they did twelve months ago. The shift concerns the coordination of enforcement measures across Russia and foreign jurisdictions: specifically, how Russian courts treat the sequencing of asset-freeze applications, the recognition of enforcement acts issued abroad, and the interaction between Russian enforcement proceedings and parallel processes in EAEU and CIS member states. For creditors relying on the pharmaceuticals sector as either the source of the debt or the locus of recoverable assets, the 2026 developments carry direct consequences for strategy and timing.
Until recently, Russian courts treated enforcement proceedings as a fundamentally domestic matter. Applications to freeze Russian assets were considered on their own terms, with limited regard to whether a parallel enforcement process was already under way in a foreign jurisdiction. Coordination — where it occurred — was informal, slow, and largely dependent on the initiative of the creditor's local counsel in each jurisdiction.
Two developments changed this dynamic in 2026. First, Russian arbitrazh courts hearing pharmaceutical-sector disputes have begun applying a more explicit sequencing logic when creditors bring multi-jurisdictional claims. Courts now evaluate — at the interim measures stage — whether the applicant creditor has initiated or intends to initiate enforcement steps in jurisdictions where the debtor holds registered assets, including trademark portfolios, distribution licences, and pharmaceutical marketing authorisations. Where a creditor's strategy is patently uncoordinated, Russian courts have shown greater willingness to adjourn or condition interim relief on clarification of the foreign enforcement plan.
Second, and of greater practical consequence, Russian courts have adopted a more structured approach to the recognition of foreign enforcement acts — particularly those originating from EAEU member-state courts — in pharmaceutical-sector insolvency and enforcement cases. Under the developing practice, a foreign enforcement order obtained in a jurisdiction with a functioning mutual recognition treaty relationship with Russia may now be filed as a supporting document in Russian enforcement proceedings, with courts treating it as evidence of the seriousness and multilateral character of the creditor's claim. This does not amount to automatic recognition, but it materially strengthens the creditor's procedural position.
For offshore assets held by Russian pharmaceutical debtors in structures routed through Cyprus, the Netherlands, or UAE holding vehicles, the position remains more uncertain: Russian courts continue to treat foreign asset-freeze orders as of limited direct effect domestically, though the evidentiary use of such orders has increased.
"
"The 2026 shift is not yet a codified rule — it is a pattern of judicial behaviour that coordinated, well-advised creditors can use to their advantage, while uncoordinated claimants are increasingly penalised."— Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners
" — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners
The 2026 changes are of greatest immediate relevance to three categories of foreign creditor.
Trade creditors holding unpaid supply claims against Russian pharmaceutical distributors or manufacturers are most directly affected. Where a debtor has assets — principally pharmaceutical licences, marketing authorisations, registered trademarks, or stock-in-trade — spread across Russia and EAEU states such as Kazakhstan, Belarus, or Armenia, the new sequencing logic means that a creditor who moves first, and moves in a coordinated fashion, is materially better placed than one who proceeds jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction without a unified strategy.
Institutional creditors and distressed-asset investors who have acquired claims against Russian pharmaceutical companies should note that the practical window for coordinating enforcement has tightened. Under Russian insolvency legislation, preferential transfer claims may be brought for transactions completed up to three years before a bankruptcy filing — a window that creditors unfamiliar with Russian law frequently underestimate and which, once a bankruptcy is opened unilaterally by the debtor, forecloses certain pre-insolvency enforcement options.
Licence and royalty creditors — typically foreign pharmaceutical originators or patent holders receiving royalties from Russian licensees — face a distinct variant of the same problem. Where a Russian licensee has defaulted and holds both Russian-registered intellectual property and foreign sub-licences, the question of how to coordinate enforcement over the IP portfolio and the sub-licence income stream simultaneously has become more procedurally complex since early 2026. Russian courts have shown a greater readiness to treat the entire IP portfolio as a single enforcement object, which can benefit a well-prepared creditor — or disadvantage one who has not identified and ring-fenced the relevant assets in advance.
Foreign creditors with claims touching on EAEU or CIS cross-border supply chains — including those involving Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, or Armenia as intermediate jurisdictions — should also assess whether the debtor's pharmaceutical assets straddle the Russian and EAEU regulatory frameworks, as this may affect the available forum and the enforceability of interim measures.
For trade creditors or distressed investors assessing a pharmaceutical-sector claim with Russian asset exposure — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
Three immediate priorities follow from the 2026 developments.
First, creditors should map pharmaceutical assets across all relevant jurisdictions before initiating any enforcement action. The sequencing logic now applied by Russian arbitrazh courts rewards creditors who can demonstrate — at the interim measures stage — that they have a coherent, multi-jurisdictional enforcement plan. An uncoordinated application risks being adjourned or refused on grounds that it does not account for assets held in EAEU member states or in offshore holding structures. Asset mapping in the pharmaceutical sector requires attention to marketing authorisations, registered trademarks (particularly those registered through Rospatent for Russia and through the relevant national authorities in Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Armenia), and any in-force distribution agreements capable of generating income that can be attached.
Second, creditors who have already obtained enforcement orders or asset-freeze injunctions in foreign jurisdictions should consider whether those orders can be filed in Russian proceedings as supporting evidence. The developing court practice — particularly in EAEU-connected cases — increasingly treats foreign enforcement acts as material to the Russian court's assessment of the creditor's position. Engaging experienced local counsel in Russia at this stage, rather than after the Russian proceedings have commenced, is the more effective sequencing.
Third, creditors holding claims that are approaching limitation should take particular care. Limitation periods under Russian civil law differ from those in common law and continental civil law systems, and the interaction of Russian limitation rules with the procedural timelines in EAEU member states creates genuine complexity. A limitation clock running in Russia is not paused by the commencement of enforcement proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction.
For matters involving both Russian and foreign pharmaceutical assets, the Asset Tracing & Recovery practice at Vetrov & Partners advises creditors on coordinating enforcement strategy across jurisdictions, including EAEU and CIS member states. Further context on the key risk points in coordinating enforcement across Russia and foreign jurisdictions is set out in our earlier analysis: Key risk points in coordinating enforcement across Russia and foreign jurisdictions and Coordinating enforcement across Russia and foreign jurisdictions: a practical framework.
The firm has also acted in matters involving creditor-side enforcement against Russian pharmaceutical debtors with EAEU-connected asset structures — see the Matters page for representative examples. Where insolvency proceedings have been opened by the debtor, the Restructuring & Insolvency practice works alongside the asset tracing team.
If your claim involves a Russian pharmaceutical debtor or pharmaceutical assets spread across Russia and foreign jurisdictions — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
Q: What specifically changed in Russian court practice on coordinating enforcement in the pharmaceuticals sector in 2026?
A: Russian arbitrazh courts handling pharmaceutical-sector enforcement matters adopted two notable developments in 2026. First, courts have begun applying an explicit sequencing logic at the interim measures stage: creditors are expected to demonstrate awareness of where the debtor's assets are held across jurisdictions and whether parallel enforcement steps are planned. Second, foreign enforcement acts — particularly those from EAEU member-state courts — are increasingly admitted as supporting evidence in Russian proceedings, giving a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional enforcement strategy a tangible procedural advantage over a purely domestic approach. Neither development amounts to a formal legislative change; both reflect a discernible shift in the approach of Russian courts and should be factored into strategy from the outset of any enforcement action.
Q: Which foreign creditors in the pharmaceuticals sector are most affected by the 2026 changes?
A: Three groups face the most direct impact. Trade creditors with unpaid supply claims against Russian pharmaceutical companies need to act with awareness of the new sequencing expectations before filing for interim relief. Institutional creditors and distressed investors who have acquired pharmaceutical claims need to act before the debtor files for insolvency, as the bankruptcy opening forecloses certain pre-insolvency enforcement options. Royalty and licence creditors holding claims against Russian licensees need to address the IP portfolio and sub-licence income stream as a coordinated enforcement object rather than in separate proceedings. Creditors whose claims touch on EAEU supply chains — particularly through Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, or Kyrgyzstan — face additional complexity stemming from the interaction of Russian and EAEU regulatory frameworks.
Q: What practical steps should a foreign creditor take now to protect its enforcement position?
A: Three steps are advisable in the current environment. First, map the debtor's pharmaceutical assets across all relevant jurisdictions before initiating Russian enforcement proceedings — Russian courts now expect creditors to demonstrate a coordinated plan at the interim measures stage. Second, file any foreign enforcement orders or asset-freeze injunctions already obtained as supporting evidence in Russian proceedings, particularly if those orders originate in EAEU member states. Third, verify the limitation position under Russian law independently, as Russian limitation periods are not suspended by the commencement of enforcement proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. Engaging Russian counsel who advises specifically on cross-border pharmaceutical enforcement — rather than general commercial litigation counsel — is advisable at the earliest stage.
Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009. The firm is recognised by Pravo-300 – Russia's principal legal directory – for eight consecutive years, and is listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.
The firm's Asset Tracing & Recovery practice advises foreign creditors — including trade creditors, institutional investors, and distressed-asset acquirers — on identifying, ring-fencing, and recovering assets held in Russia and across EAEU member states. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines deep procedural knowledge of Russian enforcement law with direct partner involvement on every engagement.
Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom
This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.
— Elizaveta Razina Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/