Russian court practice on third-party disclosure orders in Russian proceedings at the freezing and interim relief stage: 2026 update

Following a period of incremental but consequential development in Russian court practice, the approach taken by arbitrazh courts to third-party disclosure orders at the freezing and interim relief stage has shifted in ways that materially affect how foreign creditors should structure their enforcement strategy in Russia. Through 2025 and into 2026, a discernible trend has emerged across multiple circuit courts: courts are more willing to impose disclosure obligations on third parties — including banks, registrars, and affiliated entities — as an ancillary step to interim relief, while simultaneously narrowing the procedural window within which those obligations must be invoked. Foreign creditors who rely on pre-2024 assumptions about the scope and timing of available disclosure mechanisms are likely to find the current landscape less forgiving than anticipated.

Before this development consolidated, third-party disclosure at the interim stage occupied an uncertain position in Russian civil and commercial proceedings. Creditors seeking to freeze assets would typically apply for interim measures under the arbitrazh procedure, and any request for information from a bank or registry would be treated as a separate, sequential step — brought only after interim relief had been granted and largely through administrative channels rather than as part of the same judicial application. Courts were reluctant to treat disclosure as a component of the interim relief package, and third parties facing such requests had considerable latitude to delay compliance.

The position has evolved. The prevailing approach observed in practice through 2026 is that arbitrazh courts in a growing number of circuits — particularly the Moscow and West Siberian circuits — have begun treating targeted disclosure requests as admissible ancillary relief at the interim stage itself. Where a claimant can demonstrate that the information sought from a third party is directly necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the freeze — for instance, to identify the specific accounts, registered assets, or ownership interests to be captured — courts have been willing to issue combined orders addressing both the freeze and the disclosure obligation in a single ruling.

The doctrinal basis for this shift draws on the principle that interim relief must be effective to serve its purpose. A freeze order that cannot be served on the right counterparties, or that cannot identify the asset class to be restricted, is treated as functionally meaningless. Courts have extended this reasoning to justify the inclusion of disclosure requirements addressed to banks, Federal Property Management Agency registries, and in certain matters involving foreign-held Russian entities, corporate registrars.

What has not changed — and this distinction is operationally important — is the procedural burden on the applicant. Courts have not lowered the threshold for granting interim relief itself. The applicant must still demonstrate a prima facie claim, a real risk of asset dissipation, and proportionality between the measure sought and the underlying claim. What has changed is the willingness to append a disclosure component to a relief application that meets those existing thresholds.

"[CTA bridge: For foreign creditors currently managing a live recovery matter in Russia, the narrow window between the filing of interim measures and any response by the debtor or affiliated third parties makes procedural timing critical.]"

If you are a foreign creditor or institutional investor seeking to enforce against Russian assets — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

The practical impact of this development is not uniform across creditor types. Those most directly affected fall into three categories.

Trade creditors with unsecured claims against Russian counterparties are the most immediately exposed. Where the debtor holds assets across multiple entities or legal forms — a pattern common in Russian commercial structures — the ability to obtain disclosure of account details and ownership interests at the interim stage can determine whether a freeze is served effectively at all. Without disclosure, a freeze order may be issued in terms that the debtor can circumvent by operating through an account or entity not named in the application.

Institutional creditors holding pledges or security interests over Russian assets face a different but related challenge. If the secured asset — whether real property, equipment, or a shareholding — has been transferred, restructured, or had its registration altered, a freeze without accompanying disclosure may capture a shell rather than the underlying value. Courts have shown willingness, in matters before the Moscow circuit arbitrazh courts and in several West Siberian District matters handled through 2025, to extend the disclosure obligation to registrars holding title or pledge records.

Foreign judgment and award creditors — those seeking to enforce a foreign arbitral award or court judgment through Russian recognition proceedings — occupy the most complex position. At the interim stage of recognition proceedings, the Russian court must assess whether to grant protective measures before formal recognition is complete. The courts have been cautious here: disclosure orders in this context are not routine, and their availability depends on the stage of the recognition process and the demonstrated urgency of the application. Creditors in this category should not assume that the broader practice shift described above automatically extends to their situation.

Under Russian insolvency legislation, creditors who have delayed initiating enforcement proceedings risk finding that the debtor has transferred assets beyond the reach of any freeze — and that by the time insolvency proceedings are filed, the three-year window for preferential transfer claims has not been preserved by timely action on interim relief.

The implications of this practice development are procedural as well as strategic. Three adjustments are worth prioritising.

First, frame disclosure as ancillary relief in the initial application — not as a follow-on step. The consolidating practice across the relevant circuits is that courts will consider a disclosure component only if it is argued as part of the interim relief package from the outset. A creditor who obtains a freeze order and then applies separately for third-party disclosure will face a court that has already assessed and granted the measures it considered necessary. Adding disclosure at that stage is procedurally harder and less likely to succeed.

Second, identify the specific third parties to be named in the disclosure request before filing. Courts are not receptive to open-ended disclosure applications framed as fishing exercises. The applicant must be able to identify the category of information sought, the third party holding it, and the direct connection between that information and the effectiveness of the freeze. Creditors with existing intelligence on the debtor's banking relationships or corporate structure are better positioned to meet this threshold. Where that intelligence is limited, pre-application investigative steps — including searches of publicly available registry data in Russia and in relevant offshore holding jurisdictions — should be completed before the interim application is filed.

Third, engage Russian counsel before, not after, the interim application is filed. The combined-order approach places significant drafting and tactical demands on the initial application. Courts have been critical of applications that raise disclosure in general or aspirational terms. The framing of the application — particularly the articulation of why the disclosure is necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the freeze — is a technical exercise that benefits from experience with the specific circuit's practice.

For matters involving assets held across multiple jurisdictions, including through holding structures in Cyprus, the Netherlands, or other jurisdictions commonly used in Russian corporate structures, the Asset Tracing & Recovery team at Vetrov & Partners works alongside trusted counsel in the relevant holding jurisdictions. Cross-border coordination at the interim stage — particularly where simultaneous or sequential freezes are sought — requires a sequencing strategy that accounts for the different procedural windows in each forum.

To discuss a recovery matter involving Russian assets, or to obtain a practice review of your current enforcement position — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

Q: What specifically changed in Russian court practice on third-party disclosure at the freezing and interim relief stage?

A: The principal change is one of sequencing and scope. Before this practice consolidated, requests for information from third parties — banks, registrars, affiliated companies — were treated as separate from the interim relief application itself and pursued through administrative channels after a freeze was granted. Courts in a growing number of circuits, observed through 2026, have moved toward treating targeted disclosure as admissible ancillary interim relief, capable of being included in the same judicial order as the freeze. The threshold for the underlying interim application has not changed. What has changed is the courts' willingness to attach a disclosure obligation to an application that already meets the existing threshold of prima facie claim, dissipation risk, and proportionality.

Q: Which categories of foreign creditor are most directly affected by these developments?

A: The development is most consequential for unsecured trade creditors — where the debtor's assets are spread across multiple entities or accounts and disclosure is essential to serve the freeze effectively — and for institutional creditors holding pledges or security over Russian assets that may have been restructured or transferred. Foreign award and judgment creditors seeking interim protection during recognition proceedings in Russian courts are in a more cautious position: disclosure at that procedural stage is not routine and depends on the specific facts of the recognition application. Creditors in all categories should reassess their enforcement strategy in light of how Russian courts are currently applying these principles.

Q: What is the recommended first step for a foreign creditor considering recovery action against Russian assets?

A: The most valuable first step is to obtain an assessment of the debtor's current asset position and the procedural options available at the interim stage — before any application is filed. Courts have shown little tolerance for interim applications, including disclosure components, that are not supported by specific intelligence about the assets to be frozen and the third parties holding relevant information. Pre-application investigation, combined with a review of the applicable circuit practice, is the foundation of an effective interim relief strategy. The firm's asset tracing and recovery practice provides that assessment at the outset of a matter. Foreign creditors should also review our practical guide to third-party disclosure orders in Russian proceedings and the accompanying deep-dive analysis for a fuller treatment of the procedural framework.

• A practical guide to third-party disclosure orders in Russian proceedings
• Deep dive: third-party disclosure orders in Russian proceedings
• Asset Tracing & Recovery: practice overview

Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009 and recognised by Pravo-300 — Russia's principal legal directory — for eight consecutive years. The firm is listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.

The firm's asset tracing and recovery practice advises foreign trade creditors, institutional investors, and distressed creditors on interim relief strategy, asset identification, and cross-border enforcement in Russian proceedings. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team provides direct partner-level involvement throughout the interim and enforcement stages — from pre-application investigation to post-freeze asset realisation.

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/