Legal developments in freezing orders and interim relief in Georgia in the technology and software sector

Recent amendments to Georgian procedural legislation and a series of appellate-court decisions handed down in late 2026 and early 2027 have materially changed the landscape for foreign creditors seeking freezing orders and interim relief against technology and software companies operating in Georgia. For investors and trade creditors whose debtors hold digital assets, software licences, source-code repositories, or receivables from Georgian technology clients, the procedural route to asset preservation has become both more accessible in certain respects and more demanding in others. Understanding what shifted — and what has not — is now a practical prerequisite for any cross-border recovery strategy that includes Georgian assets.

Until recently, Georgian civil procedure treated all categories of assets through a broadly uniform interim-measures framework. A creditor seeking a freezing order over the assets of a Georgian-registered debtor would apply to the court of first instance, establish a prima facie claim and demonstrate a risk of asset dissipation, and await the court's discretion as to whether to grant the order — a process that, in practice, could take several business days even on an urgent footing and required the posting of a security deposit calibrated to the value of the claim.

What changed in the period under review affects this framework in three distinct ways. First, Georgian courts have moved toward a more differentiated treatment of digital and intangible assets — including software licences, revenue-generating application assets, and contractual receivables owed to technology companies — accepting that these can be the proper subject of a freezing order and, critically, that their dissipation risk is materially higher than that of registered immovable property. This shift has reduced the threshold showing required to obtain an order over such assets in cases where dissipation risk is clearly arguable.

Second, the security deposit requirement has been recalibrated. For claims by foreign creditors against technology-sector debtors where the claim is supported by a written contract governed by Georgian law or a foreign law recognised under Georgian private international law rules, courts have shown greater willingness to accept alternative forms of security — including bank guarantees issued by banks registered in EU or OECD jurisdictions — rather than requiring a cash deposit held with a Georgian institution. This development is practically significant for foreign creditors who are not already capitalised in Georgian currency.

Third, and most consequentially for the recovery timeline, the period within which a respondent debtor may challenge an ex parte freezing order has been tightened, and the grounds for challenge have been more clearly codified in the appellate jurisprudence. The result is a faster and more predictable trajectory from order to enforcement — but also a harder evidentiary standard for the initial application if the creditor wishes to avoid a successful challenge within the first ten days.

"The evolution in Georgian courts' treatment of intangible technology assets marks a genuine inflection point for cross-border creditors. The procedural standards are now precise enough to plan around — but they reward early engagement and penalise imprecise applications." — Giorgi Kavtaradze, Contributing Regional Analyst — Georgia · Commercial Disputes and Enforcement

The changes described above are most directly relevant to three categories of foreign creditor operating in or through Georgia's technology sector.

Trade creditors who supplied software, SaaS licences, API services, or technology infrastructure to Georgian companies — and whose counterparty is now in payment default or restructuring — will find that the assets of their debtor are more readily capturable under Georgian interim relief procedure than was previously the case. A Georgian technology company's primary assets are typically contractual in nature: recurring revenue contracts, client receivables, software licence fees owed by downstream users, and intellectual property registrations held with Georgian IP authorities. All of these are now more clearly within the scope of an interim freezing order, provided the creditor can articulate the dissipation risk with sufficient specificity.

Investors in Georgian technology ventures — including those who have extended shareholder loans, mezzanine finance, or convertible instruments to Georgian-registered software companies — face a dual exposure. On one side, where their debtor is now in default and the investor wishes to preserve assets, the improved framework works in their favour. On the other, where the investor is the Georgian-registered entity and a foreign counterparty is bringing a claim, the narrower window for challenging an ex parte order demands faster legal response: in a technology business, ten days of frozen banking access can be operationally disabling.

Foreign companies with ongoing commercial relationships with Georgian technology companies — as clients, distributors, or joint-venture partners — should note that the threshold for obtaining interim relief against them has, in effect, been lowered. A counterparty who perceives a contractual dispute may now move to a freezing application more readily than before, and may succeed at the ex parte stage even without hearing from the company. Contractual governing-law and jurisdiction clauses are therefore more consequential than they may appear in a standard software distribution or development services agreement.

[CTA: If you hold a claim against a Georgian technology company and need to understand whether a freezing order is available over its assets — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76]

The procedural window for acting on a freezing order application in Georgia is not indefinitely open. Georgian civil procedure imposes a limitation framework within which interim measures applications must be brought in relation to the underlying claim, and the courts' current receptiveness to technology-asset freezing orders reflects a specific phase of doctrinal development that may evolve further as appellate decisions accumulate.

For creditors currently holding a live claim or a matured contractual right against a Georgian technology debtor, the immediate priority is a preliminary assessment of what assets are available for preservation, whether the debtor is showing signs of dissipation activity — including restructuring of its client contracts, transfer of IP registrations, or conversion of receivables into intercompany positions — and whether the governing law and jurisdiction of the underlying contract are compatible with a Georgian interim relief application.

For investors in Georgian technology companies who hold security over the company's assets, the current environment makes it an appropriate moment to review whether existing security registrations under Georgian law accurately capture the intangible asset categories now recognised by the courts, and whether the enforcement rights under their facility documents are consistent with the updated procedural framework.

For foreign companies operating as clients or partners of Georgian technology businesses, the practical implication is straightforward: governing-law and dispute-resolution clauses in commercial contracts with Georgian technology companies should be reviewed for their interaction with Georgian interim relief procedure. A contract that defaults to Georgian jurisdiction — or one that is silent on jurisdiction — is now more likely to expose the foreign party to a unilateral freezing application than it was two years ago.

In cross-border matters that involve both Georgian assets and assets in other post-Soviet jurisdictions — including Kazakhstan (/jurisdictions/kazakhstan/asset-recovery/), Uzbekistan (/jurisdictions/uzbekistan/asset-recovery/), or Armenia (/jurisdictions/armenia/asset-recovery/) — coordinated interim relief strategies are worth considering, since procedural timelines and evidentiary standards differ materially across these jurisdictions, and a freezing order granted in Georgia does not automatically extend across borders.

Foreign creditors concerned about enforcement risk in Georgia may also find it useful to review the broader asset tracing and recovery framework for Georgia (/jurisdictions/georgia/asset-recovery/), the available routes for enforcement of foreign judgments and awards in Georgia (/jurisdictions/georgia/enforcement/), and the procedural context for cross-border disputes involving Georgian counterparties (/jurisdictions/georgia/disputes/).

[CTA: For a preliminary assessment of your recovery position against a Georgian technology-sector debtor — contact the team: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76]

• Asset tracing and recovery in Georgia (/jurisdictions/georgia/asset-recovery/)
• Enforcement of foreign judgments and awards in Georgia (/jurisdictions/georgia/enforcement/)
• Cross-border disputes involving Georgian counterparties (/jurisdictions/georgia/disputes/)
• Asset recovery in Kazakhstan — a comparative overview (/jurisdictions/kazakhstan/asset-recovery/)

Q: What specifically changed in Georgian interim relief law for technology-sector cases?

A: Georgian courts, through a series of appellate decisions in 2026–2027, have clarified that digital and intangible assets — including software licences, contractual receivables, and registered intellectual property — are proper subjects of a civil freezing order. The showing required to establish dissipation risk for these assets has been adjusted to reflect their inherent mobility, and the security deposit mechanism has been expanded to accept guarantees from foreign-registered banks in certain cases. The practical effect is a more accessible and more procedurally predictable route to asset preservation for creditors whose debtors hold technology-sector assets.

Q: Which foreign creditors are most directly affected by the changes to Georgian freezing order practice?

A: Trade creditors who supplied software, SaaS services, or technology infrastructure to Georgian companies on deferred payment terms are most immediately affected, since their debtors' primary assets — receivables, licence fees, and IP registrations — are now more clearly capturable under interim relief procedure. Investors holding shareholder loans or convertible instruments in Georgian technology ventures are also affected, both as potential claimants and as potential respondents. Foreign companies operating as commercial partners of Georgian technology businesses should review their contractual dispute-resolution clauses in light of the narrowed ex parte challenge window.

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, distressed investors, and institutional counterparties on cross-border recovery strategies across Russia and neighbouring jurisdictions. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines deep procedural knowledge with direct partner involvement on every engagement. For matters governed by Georgian law, the firm works with Giorgi Kavtaradze as contributing regional analyst.

We are a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

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.

— Giorgi Kavtaradze Contributing Regional Analyst — Georgia · Commercial Disputes and Enforcement vetrovpartners.com/contributions/

Giorgi Kavtaradze advises on commercial disputes, enforcement proceedings, and creditor-side recovery matters under Georgian law. He contributes regional analysis to Vetrov & Partners on matters involving Georgian-registered entities and cross-border recovery strategies that include Georgian assets.