Executive Summary

This case comment explores interactions between sanctions and arbitration through the lens of recent clashes between anti-sanction laws and anti-suit injunctions (“ASIs”) arising out of sanctions against Russia.
English courts have long been a popular venue for obtaining an ASI to restrain the pursuit of court proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement. The effect of a Russian anti-sanctions law recently tested English ASI jurisprudence in a trilogy of disputes over a related set of English law-governed performance bonds providing for ICC arbitration in Paris.

This case comment: (i) provides a contextual overview of these recent clashes; (ii) summarizes the factual background to a trilogy of disputes before the English courts between RusChemAlliance LLC (“RusChem”) and a number of German bank subsidiaries (including that of UniCredit Bank (“UniCredit”) over a related set of English law-governed performance bonds providing for ICC arbitration seated in Paris; (iii) provides a summary analysis of the English law issues at the heart of the UK Supreme Court Judgment in UniCredit v RusChem  (the “RCA Judgment”); (iv) considers the prospect of English ASIs becoming unavailable for foreign-seated arbitrations as a result of the UK Arbitration Bill; and (v) briefly surveys the fallout from the RCA Judgment.

This paper will be part of the third TDM Special Issue on "Sanctions and International Arbitration: Impact on Substantive and Procedural Issues". More information here www.transnational-dispute-management.com/news.asp?key=1960