Interim Measures in Russian Commercial Courts: Freezing Shares, Receivables and Other Assets

Russian commercial courts may impose interim measures to prevent a defendant from transferring or concealing assets before judgment. Such measures may cover bank accounts, shares, participation interests in limited liability companies (known as OOOs), receivables, real estate and movable property.

Note that Russian arbitrazh courts ("арбитражный суд", "arbitrazhny sud") are state courts dealing with commercial disputes, not private arbitral tribunals. The principal rules are contained in Articles 90–99 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation — the APC ("АПК") — and Resolution No. 15 of the Plenum of the Russian Supreme Court dated 1 June 2023.

Under Article 90 of the APC, interim measures may be granted where failure to impose them could:

• make enforcement of the future judgment difficult or impossible, including outside Russia; or
• cause substantial harm to the applicant.

The judge normally considers four issues:

1. whether there is a credible risk to enforcement or a risk of substantial harm;
2. whether the requested measure is connected with the claim;
3. whether it can realistically protect the applicant; and
4. whether it is proportionate and does not impose excessive restrictions on the defendant or third parties.

The applicant does not have to prove the entire case at this stage. However, merely stating that the defendant “may dispose of its assets” is usually insufficient. The application should refer to concrete circumstances, such as attempted asset transfers, account depletion, liquidation steps, changes in ownership, multiple enforcement proceedings or transactions with affiliated persons.

For a monetary claim, the value of the frozen assets should generally not exceed the amount claimed and related amounts. The court may grant the application in full or in part, but it should not invent a materially different measure on the applicant’s behalf.

An application may be filed together with the claim or later while the proceedings are pending. It should identify:

• the claim and the amount in dispute;
• the risk justifying protection;
• the exact asset or category of assets;
• the requested restriction; and
• the bank, registrar, depository, registration authority or other person expected to implement the order.

The application is normally considered without notice to the defendant, no later than the next working day after receipt. As at 11 August 2026, the general state fee is 30,000 rubles, subject to statutory exemptions.

An order granting interim measures is immediately enforceable. Depending on the type of asset, it may be implemented by the Federal Bailiff Service, a bank, a securities registrar, a depository or another asset-recording body.

The court may freeze funds in the defendant’s bank accounts up to a specified amount. The freeze may cover both the existing balance and funds received after the bank obtains the order.

Where the applicant knows the defendant’s bank and account details, they should be stated in the application. Otherwise, the writ of execution may be sent to a bailiff, who can obtain information about the defendant’s accounts.

A bank-account freeze does not transfer the money to the claimant. It merely prevents the defendant from disposing of the relevant amount until the measure is lifted or enforcement takes place.

The application should specify:

• the maximum amount to be frozen;
• known bank and account details;
• whether future incoming funds should be covered; and
• why the measure will not unnecessarily stop the defendant’s ordinary business.

Mandatory statutory exemptions from enforcement remain applicable.

Shares in a Russian joint-stock company (known as an "AO") are recorded through a registrar or depository. An application should identify the issuer, the shareholder, the type and number of shares and, where available, the relevant securities account.

A standard share freeze normally prevents:

• sale or other disposal;
• creation of a pledge or another encumbrance; and
• transfer of the shares to another registrar or depository.

It does not automatically suspend voting rights, dividend rights or participation in corporate actions. Any additional restriction must be requested expressly and justified separately.

In a corporate dispute, the judge may also prohibit specific resolutions, corporate actions or registration entries. However, an interim order must not make the company’s lawful activities impossible. A targeted prohibition concerning a disputed share issue, reorganisation or disposal of a major asset is more likely to be accepted than a blanket ban on all shareholders’ meetings.

In its ruling of 15 May 2026 in Case No. А07-3960/2024, the Russian Supreme Court emphasised that an asset freeze must be practically effective.

The case concerned shares used to secure a monetary claim. The issuer was insolvent, and the shares had little realistic value or liquidity. Their attachment therefore did not meaningfully protect the claimant but interfered with attempts to attract an investor.

The ruling confirms that formal ownership is not enough. Judges should consider:

• the asset’s actual market or realisable value;
• its liquidity;
• existing encumbrances;
• whether it can legally be sold in enforcement; and
• whether the restriction will genuinely improve the claimant’s prospects of recovery.

Freezing worthless or inaccessible property does not satisfy the requirement of effectiveness.

A participation interest in a Russian limited liability company — an OOO — is not a security. Ownership is recorded in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities ("Единый государственный реестр юридических лиц"), also known as EGRUL ("ЕГРЮЛ").

The court may freeze an OOO interest and prohibit registration of transactions involving it. The application should state:

• the company’s name, OGRN ("ОГРН") and INN ("ИНН");
• the participant’s identity;
• the percentage and nominal value of the interest; and
• the transactions or registration actions to be prohibited.

The order may prevent sale, gift, pledge, division or another change in ownership. It may also prohibit registration of corresponding changes in EGRUL.

As with shares, attachment of an LLC interest does not automatically suspend voting rights, access to information or entitlement to profits. Such restrictions require separate justification.

A receivable is a property right and may be attached. This is particularly useful where the defendant’s main assets are amounts owed by customers, borrowers, tenants or other counterparties.

The application should identify:

• the account debtor;
• the contract, loan, invoice, judgment or other source of the debt;
• the amount and currency;
• the due date; and
• documents confirming the receivable.

The court may prohibit assignment, waiver, set-off, novation, amendment or termination of the underlying obligation. Where payment to the defendant would allow the money to be dissipated, the application should expressly address whether the account debtor may make payment and, if so, where it must be directed.

The account debtor must receive proper notice. Without notice, it may discharge the obligation by paying the defendant.

Attachment does not assign the receivable to the claimant and does not automatically require the account debtor to pay the claimant. Transfer or collection of the receivable is governed by separate enforcement rules.

Real estate should be identified by cadastral number, address, area and registered owner. The order will normally combine attachment with a prohibition on disposal and registration of ownership changes.

Vehicles, equipment and other movable assets should be identified by serial number, vehicle identification number, inventory number, location or other distinguishing information.

Property belonging to the defendant may be frozen even where it is held by a warehouse, custodian, tenant or another third party. However, the applicant must establish that the property belongs to the defendant. A third party’s own property cannot be frozen merely because that party is affiliated with the defendant.

The existence of a pledge does not always prevent the court from imposing interim measures. However, the pledgee’s priority and the statutory restrictions on enforcement must be considered.

What is important:

• the amount of the secured debt;
• the value of the pledged property;
• the ranking of creditors; and
• whether the asset can realistically satisfy the claimant’s unsecured claim.

An interim attachment does not create a pledge or give the claimant secured-creditor status. If the defendant enters bankruptcy, distribution is governed by the statutory order of priority. A creditor that obtained an interim freeze before bankruptcy does not automatically obtain priority over other unsecured creditors.

The court may require the applicant to provide countersecurity for losses that the defendant could suffer. This may take the form of a court deposit, bank guarantee, surety or another acceptable form of financial security.

For a monetary claim, countersecurity generally may not be set below half of the amount claimed. Providing countersecurity does not, however, replace the need to prove risk, connection and proportionality.

Under Article 94(2) of the APC, a defendant may replace a freeze securing a monetary claim by depositing an amount equal to the claim with the court. This allows operating accounts, shares or other business assets to be released while preserving equivalent security for the claimant.

If the claimant ultimately loses, the defendant or another affected person may seek damages caused by the interim measures under Article 98 of the APC.

Instead of proving the precise amount of loss, the affected person may in some cases claim statutory compensation within the limits established by the APC.

This risk is especially relevant where the applicant requests an excessively broad freeze that disrupts the defendant’s business far beyond what is necessary to secure the claim.

Since 5 January 2024, an order granting interim measures is generally not challenged through an immediate direct appeal. The affected person must first apply to the first-instance court under Article 97 of the APC to cancel the measures. The resulting order may then be appealed.

Filing a cancellation application does not suspend the freeze.

The cancellation hearing is important because the original application was normally considered without the defendant. The defendant may present evidence concerning:

• its solvency and available assets;
• the frozen asset’s value or lack of liquidity;
• existing security;
• disproportionate effects on its business;
• harm to employees, shareholders or third parties; and
• less restrictive alternatives.

The Supreme Court’s May 2026 ruling confirms that the court must conduct a substantive reassessment rather than merely repeat the reasoning of the original ex parte order.

Where the claimant succeeds, interim measures generally remain in force until the judgment has been enforced, unless the court cancels or replaces them earlier.

Where the claim is dismissed, left without consideration or the proceedings are terminated, the measures usually remain until the relevant judicial act becomes final.

Russian law permits interim measures before the substantive claim is filed. This may be necessary where advance notice would allow the defendant to transfer the relevant assets.

Pre-action relief normally requires countersecurity. The court sets a short deadline for filing the claim or, where a mandatory pre-action demand applies, for commencing the required pre-action procedure.

If the applicant does not comply with the deadline, the preliminary measures are cancelled.

Russian commercial courts may grant interim measures in support of arbitral proceedings. Depending on the circumstances, the application may be filed at the place of arbitration, the defendant’s location or the location of the assets.

A state-court order can be particularly useful because it may be enforced directly through Russian banks, registrars, depositories and bailiffs.

Interim relief may also be available in disputes involving foreign parties or foreign proceedings where there is a sufficient jurisdictional connection with Russia. The court will consider the location of the defendant or assets, the competence of the foreign court or tribunal and any Russian exclusive-jurisdiction rules.

This article provides general information on Russian law as at 11 August 2026 and does not constitute legal advice concerning a particular dispute or asset.

As a Russian lawyer and advocate - "barrister" - with extensive experience in commercial disputes and enforcement, I can assist foreign companies, investors and private clients with applications for interim measures, including the freezing of bank accounts, shares, LLC interests, receivables, real estate and other assets. I can also advise defendants and affected third parties on challenging disproportionate restrictions, replacing them with alternative security and limiting their impact on business operations. Early legal action is often crucial: the effectiveness of an interim measure depends not only on obtaining a court order, but also on identifying the right assets and ensuring that the order can be promptly enforced in Russia.