Regulatory update: interim relief applications in Russian courts for Korean creditors

In practice, the gap between a Korean creditor identifying recoverable assets in Russia and securing a court order that actually preserves those assets has always been narrower than it should be. Interim relief applications in Russian courts involve a procedural sequence that rewards speed and precision — and as of mid-2026, courts in Russia have refined how they assess and process these applications, particularly where the applicant is a foreign entity. Korean creditors with outstanding Russian claims, pending arbitral awards, or recognised judgments need to understand what has shifted and what it demands of them.

Before the recent procedural refinements, the Russian arbitrazh (commercial) court framework for interim relief operated on a broadly permissive basis: a creditor could file an application for asset preservation simultaneously with the statement of claim, and the court would assess whether the applicant had demonstrated a risk of enforcement difficulty or asset dissipation. The evidentiary threshold was, in practice, variable across circuits, and courts in different federal districts interpreted the proportionality requirement in inconsistent ways.

What courts have refined since the start of 2026 is the documentary standard expected at the point of application. The principal direction of change moves in two related directions. First, Russian courts — particularly at the cassation level — have issued clearer guidance on what constitutes sufficient evidence of dissipation risk. A bare assertion that the respondent may move assets is no longer treated as adequate. Courts now expect documentary evidence: financial statements showing deteriorating liquidity, filings indicating corporate restructuring, evidence of assets being transferred to related entities, or credible grounds drawn from the contractual breach itself.

Second, the treatment of counter-security — the sum a court may require an applicant to deposit as a condition of granting interim relief — has become more structured. Whereas courts previously had wide and largely unreviewable discretion over whether to require counter-security and in what amount, the emerging practice creates a closer nexus between the value of the claimed asset and the sum the applicant must be prepared to deposit. For Korean creditors whose principal concern is recovery of a debt or enforcement of a judgment, this means that the financial capacity to provide counter-security on short notice is now a threshold issue, not an afterthought.

The overall direction of these developments does not make interim relief unavailable to foreign creditors. It makes the preparation stage materially more demanding — and the window between asset identification and application materially more important.

The practical effect of these procedural shifts falls unevenly across different creditor types. Korean trade creditors — companies supplying goods or services to Russian counterparties under long-term supply or distribution arrangements — face the most immediate exposure. Where a Russian debtor is facing financial pressure, the sequence of events that precedes a formal insolvency filing often involves intercompany transfers, asset pledges to connected parties, and accelerated drawdown of receivables. The window during which an interim relief application can effectively freeze those assets is narrow. Creditors who delay initiating enforcement proceedings risk losing priority in an insolvency that may be filed unilaterally — and the refined evidentiary requirements mean that assembling the documentation pack now takes longer than it did previously.

Korean institutional creditors — including trading companies, financial institutions, and companies holding minority stakes in Russian joint ventures — face a second layer of complexity. Where the claim is not a simple debt but involves disputed asset ownership or a valuation dispute, the proportionality assessment courts now apply to the relief sought becomes a more significant obstacle. An application to freeze a Russian real-estate asset worth substantially more than the claimed debt may be scaled back or conditioned on additional counter-security.

Korean companies that hold recognition orders for foreign arbitral awards issued by Korean courts or international arbitral institutions — the KCAB, the ICC, or the LCIA — sit in a more favourable position in one respect: a recognised award provides the clearest possible evidentiary foundation for the dissipation-risk test. The debtor's non-compliance with the award itself is often sufficient. However, the counter-security requirement applies equally, and the documentation of the recognised award must satisfy Russian procedural requirements, including translation and apostille.

One dimension that Korean creditors often underestimate is the bilateral treaty framework between Korea and Russia. The Russia–Korea bilateral investment treaty — in force since the early 1990s — creates procedural protections and legitimate expectations that, where applicable, can strengthen the creditor's position on the dissipation-risk analysis. This is particularly relevant where the underlying dispute involves a Russian state-owned or state-adjacent entity. Counsel familiar with the treaty layer can deploy it as a framing device within the Russian court application even where a formal investment treaty arbitration is not on the agenda.

If you are a Korean creditor with recoverable assets in Russia, the time between now and your counterparty's next corporate action may be limited. Make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

The practical priority for any Korean creditor considering interim relief in Russian courts is an early-stage asset and procedure review. This means, at minimum, the following.

Identify and document the asset base before filing. Under the revised evidentiary standard, applications that arrive without supporting documentation of asset location, ownership, and value are returned or refused at first instance. For Korean creditors unfamiliar with Russian asset disclosure methods — including arbitrazh court judgments registers, Rosreestr property records, and corporate registry data — engaging Russian counsel at the investigative stage, before any court filing, is now a prerequisite rather than a recommendation.

Assess counter-security capacity. This is a financial planning question as much as a legal one. The amount a court may require as counter-security will be calculated by reference to the claimed debt or asset value. Korean creditors should establish, in advance of the application, whether they can deposit the required sum in a Russian account or satisfy the court's security requirement through an alternative mechanism. Counsel can advise on which mechanisms specific courts have accepted in practice, and this varies by circuit.

Review the treaty and jurisdictional position. Where the underlying claim has an investment treaty dimension — particularly where the counterparty has a state nexus — the available remedies extend beyond standard arbitrazh court enforcement. Korean creditors with treaty-eligible claims should have this assessed before committing to a purely domestic Russian enforcement strategy.

Coordinate with the insolvency timetable. If there is any indication that the Russian debtor is in financial distress, the coordination between an interim relief application and a potential creditor bankruptcy petition becomes critical. Filing interim relief before a creditor-initiated bankruptcy produces a materially different procedural position than filing after insolvency proceedings have commenced. Counsel managing the Asset Tracing & Recovery strategy needs to assess both routes simultaneously.

For Korean creditors who have already identified assets but have not yet filed, early engagement with Russian counsel to review the key risk points in interim relief applications — including the dissipation-risk threshold, counter-security mechanics, and documentation requirements — is the recommended first step. Our detailed analysis of key risk points in interim relief applications covers these issues systematically.

"The evidentiary threshold for interim relief in Russian courts has risen materially in 2026. Korean creditors who prepared their applications under older practice guidance may find that the documentation standard their Russian counsel applied no longer reflects what cassation-level courts expect." — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — Asset Tracing, Vetrov & Partners

For a review of your current enforcement position against a Russian debtor, make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

Q: What specifically changed in Russian interim relief procedure in 2026?

A: The principal development is a tightening of the evidentiary and procedural standards that Russian arbitrazh courts apply to interim relief applications. Courts — particularly at the cassation level — have issued guidance clarifying that a bare assertion of dissipation risk is not sufficient to secure an asset preservation order. Applicants are now expected to produce documentary evidence of dissipation risk (financial deterioration, intercompany transfers, asset restructuring) and to address counter-security in a structured way linked to the claimed value. The overall effect is that the preparation stage before filing is longer and more document-intensive than it was under earlier practice. The availability of interim relief for foreign creditors is not removed — but the margin for underprepared applications is substantially reduced.

Q: Which Korean creditors are most affected by the updated procedure, and what should they do now?

A: The creditors most immediately affected are Korean trade creditors with live debt claims against Russian counterparties showing signs of financial distress, and Korean holders of recognised arbitral awards or foreign judgments seeking enforcement against Russian assets. Both groups need to act before the asset base changes — Russian debtors in financial difficulty tend to restructure their asset positions in advance of formal insolvency. The practical steps are: first, conduct an asset-tracing exercise to identify and document recoverable Russian assets; second, assess counter-security capacity; third, instruct Russian counsel to prepare the application documentation under the 2026 evidentiary standard. Delaying this process until the debtor files for insolvency materially narrows the available remedies. The law and practice of interim relief applications and the matters handled by our team provide further procedural context.

• Key risk points in interim relief applications in Russia
• The law and practice of interim relief applications in Russian courts
• Asset Tracing & Recovery practice overview

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 and recovery practice advises foreign creditors — including Korean, Japanese, and European trade creditors and institutional investors — on interim relief applications, asset preservation orders, and enforcement proceedings before Russian arbitrazh courts. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines direct knowledge of Siberian and Ural circuit court practice with 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 — Asset Tracing, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/