{"id":55988,"date":"2026-05-12T14:37:58","date_gmt":"2026-05-12T14:37:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/?post_type=legal_developments&#038;p=55988"},"modified":"2026-05-12T14:37:58","modified_gmt":"2026-05-12T14:37:58","slug":"international-arbitration-in-ukraine-a-creditors-playbook-debt-recovery-from-ukrainian-companies-under-international-contracts","status":"publish","type":"legal_developments","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/thought-leadership\/international-arbitration-in-ukraine-a-creditors-playbook-debt-recovery-from-ukrainian-companies-under-international-contracts\/","title":{"rendered":"International Arbitration in Ukraine: A Creditor\u2019s Playbook (Debt Recovery from Ukrainian Companies under International Contracts)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Roman Protsyshyn<\/strong>, Attorney at Law, Counsel, MCIArb<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kateryna Solodovnyk,<\/strong> Lawyer<\/p>\n<p><strong>International Arbitration in Ukraine: A Creditor\u2019s Playbook (Debt Recovery from Ukrainian Companies under International Contracts)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>This article from Ilyashev &amp; Partners\u2019 arbitration team addresses the practical recommendations for those considering debt recovery from Ukrainian companies.<\/p>\n<p><em>Legal Disclaimer: The content of this article has been prepared by Roman PROTSYSHYN, MCIArb, and Kateryna SOLODOVNYK, both of Ilyashev &amp; Partners Law Firm, Ukraine, for informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and may not reflect the most current legal and court practice developments. All summaries of the laws and court practice are subject to change. These guidelines are not intended to provide legal or professional advice on any specific matter. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any guidelines. Ilyashev &amp; Partners and the two named authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the article and expressly disclaim any liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the article.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<h1>Introduction<\/h1>\n<p>When a party has a contractual debt against a Ukrainian party and considers it to have it confirmed by an award of arbitration, in particular, the one to be rendered by a tribunal constituted under <a href=\"https:\/\/icac.org.ua\/wp-content\/uploads\/Reglament_ENG_2025.pdf\">the Rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry<\/a> (\u201cICAC\u201d), there are several key rules useful to be followed and considered from the commercial standpoint before digging into costly arbitration, eventual litigation to have a court\u2019s leave for forceful enforcement of the award in Ukraine via the system of state and private bailiffs, and ultimately the enforcement process itself (<em>see also<\/em> our guideline on the topic <a href=\"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/firms\/15297-ilyashev-partners\/c-ukraine\/news-and-developments\/how-to-enforce-foreign-arbitral-awards-in-ukraine-recent-practices-and-challenges\">\u201c<em>How to Enforce Foreign Arbitral Awards in Ukraine: Recent Practices and Challenges<\/em>\u201d<\/a> at Legal 500).<\/p>\n<p>Some of the collected rules came naturally from the very sense of commerce \u2013 to eventually and actually have money, which is owed by debtors, in your pockets \u2013 while others were crafted to address important restrictions imposed by the martial law introduced since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war.<\/p>\n<h1>Rule One: Collect Information on Debtor\u2019s Assets<\/h1>\n<p>For any creditor seeking to recover debt in Ukraine, asset tracing is not a preparatory step. Rather, it is the foundation of the entire enforcement strategy. Without a clear understanding of <em>what<\/em> can be enforced against, even a successful arbitral award risks becoming purely declaratory.<\/p>\n<p>This is particularly true in the Ukrainian context, shaped by the ongoing war. Firstly, companies may have <strong>lost, damaged, or relocated assets<\/strong>, especially in regions affected by hostilities. Secondly, a significant number of businesses have entered <strong>insolvency or <\/strong><strong>financial recovery proceedings<\/strong>, with assets already encumbered or dissipated. Thirdly, some assets may be located in <strong>temporarily occupied territories<\/strong>, rendering enforcement practically impossible despite a debtor\u2019s formal ownership. Finally, wartime realities have increased the risk of <strong>asset concealment, re-registration, or transfer to affiliated entities<\/strong>, often across jurisdictions. In such circumstances, early identification of asset pools allows a creditor to (i) assess recovery prospects, (ii) choose the correct enforcement tools, and (iii) act quickly to secure assets before they are further dissipated.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Where to look: key sources of asset information<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ukraine offers a relatively transparent system of public registers and open data, although information is fragmented across multiple databases. We believe that for greater efficacy, a creditor should combine official registers with private aggregators.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong> Aggregated analytical systems<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/youcontrol.com.ua\/\"><strong>YouControl<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A leading due diligence platform aggregating data from over 50 state sources, including company records, court decisions, enforcement proceedings, sanctions lists and property registers.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/opendatabot.ua\/\"><strong>Opendatabot<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Another widely used tool for monitoring company status, litigation, and ownership structure.<\/p>\n<p>These platforms significantly reduce time and cost by consolidating dispersed data into a single interface.<\/p>\n<ol start=\"2\">\n<li><strong> Core State Registers<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/usr.minjust.gov.ua\/content\/free-search\"><strong>Unified State Register of Legal Entities (USR)<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Contains essential corporate data: shareholders, directors, registered address, and business activities. This is the primary source for identifying ownership and control structures, including ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/rrp.minjust.gov.ua\/\"><strong>State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Provides information on ownership of property (land and buildings), access to which is limited to attorneys duly authorised and granted specific access rights.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/e.land.gov.ua\/\"><strong>State Land Cadastre<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Used to identify land plots and their cadastral numbers, accessible exclusively to attorneys who have been expressly authorised and granted the relevant access permissions.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/orm.minjust.gov.ua\/#\/\"><strong>State Register of Encumbrances over Movable Property<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Indicates whether movable assets (equipment, vehicles, inventory) are pledged or otherwise encumbered<\/p>\n<p>These registers are crucial for assessing whether the debtor is already under pressure from other creditors and whether assets may be subject to any claims.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to formal asset registers, particular attention should be paid to <a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/\"><strong>the <\/strong><strong>Unified State Register of Court Decisions<\/strong><\/a>, which in practice is one of the most informative tools for asset tracing in Ukraine. A thorough review of court decisions involving the debtor can reveal not only its litigation history but also critical details about its assets, contractual relationships, and financial condition.<\/p>\n<p>In Ukraine, asset tracing is not a one-off exercise but an ongoing process. In this context, relying on a single source is rarely sufficient. Instead, a <strong>combined approach, namely drawing on state registers, court decisions, and supplementary analytical tools, significantly enhances both the accuracy and strategic value of asset tracing<\/strong>. A creditor who identifies assets early and understands their legal and practical enforceability will be in a significantly stronger position both in arbitration strategy and subsequent enforcement.<\/p>\n<h1>Rule Two: Try to Secure an Arbitration Claim by Property Arrest<\/h1>\n<p>It would be illusory in the modern commercial world to invest in arbitration to pursue a monetary claim against a debtor without assessing the prospects of ultimate debt recovery and securing that potential by interim measures.<\/p>\n<p>The ICAC Rules, like many modern institutional arbitration rules, allow a party to request that the tribunal impose interim measures against another party. The application is to be considered by the ICAC Head if the tribunal has not yet been constituted. The ICAC Rules also entitle the tribunal or the ICAC Head, as the case may be, to request, upon hearing another party or by own motion, a counter-security from the party requesting the interim measures by requiring that party to deposit a sum of money with the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, or to provide a bank guarantee, surety, or other financial security.<\/p>\n<p>The interim measures, if granted by an arbitral tribunal, are binding on the litigants until an arbitration award is rendered or the measures are altered or lifted during arbitration.<\/p>\n<p>From a practical standpoint, an interim measures arbitral award is not secured by state compulsory enforcement mechanisms, unlike interim measures court decisions. To be fully enforceable in Ukraine, interim measures granted by the arbitral tribunal must be recognised by a Ukrainian court through the exequatur procedure, as with any other arbitration award. However, this route may raise complex legal issues (Roman Protsyshyn, with another co-author, earlier discussed this in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ujbl.info\/article.php?id=1516\"><em>Enforcement of Foreign Interim Measures in Ukraine, The Ukrainian Journal of Business Law, October, 2021<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>Under the existing Ukrainian arbitration regime, the arbitral tribunal\u2019s orders (let alone those issued by the ICAC Head) to impose interim measures against another party to the arbitration have no direct coercive effect and virtually never accomplish any serious purpose to prevent recalcitrant debtors from deliberately dissipating their assets to render themselves judgment-proof or taking other steps aimed at complicating, or even making impossible, enforcement of a future arbitral award.<\/p>\n<p>Against that background, asking an arbitral tribunal to issue interim measures against another party is of little application in arbitration, where the tribunal can virtually never issue immediately effective coercive relief (e.g., the arrest of funds in bank accounts).<\/p>\n<p>When arbitrating against \u2018fat-cat\u2019 companies with liquid assets on their balance sheets (real estate, land plots, etc.) and regular high incomes, it may be an option to request in arbitration sophisticated interim measures that are proportionate to the underlying claim. For example, asking a defendant to cause its bank to issue a bank guarantee until the award on merits is rendered. In this example, if the claimant wins, it will have direct access to funds to satisfy its claims without having to chase the defendant through recognition and enforcement procedures.<\/p>\n<p>However, when matters involve regular fund recovery cases, a claimant considering filing an arbitration claim under the ICAC Rules against a Ukrainian party should consider securing its claim through a domestic litigation mechanism, allowing it to seek an interim measure in aid of the already-commenced arbitration from a Ukrainian appellate court whose jurisdiction extends to a defendant\u2019s place of business or where its property is located.<\/p>\n<p>The most desired type of interim measure is the arrest of a debtor\u2019s property, which imposes a ban on its disposal to preserve it until the property\u2019s further fate is determined. The arrest of property, as it is known in Ukraine, resembles a freezing injunction in common law countries. Regarding a debtor\u2019s money held in bank accounts, the arrest of property resembles the common law concept of garnishment.<\/p>\n<p>The property arrest is very efficient, as a court ruling ordering the arrest of property can be filed with a bailiff, who will quickly issue compulsory orders to all banks, requesting them to freeze the debtor\u2019s funds.<\/p>\n<p>By way of illustration, in <a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/86610935\"><em>Shell Lubricants Supply Company B.V. v. LLC \u201cTrading House \u201cGalpap Plus\u201d<\/em><\/a>, a local court of appeal has arrested more than $350,000 of the defendant\u2019s funds in bank accounts in aid of an LCIA arbitration, but also requested a counter-security for the same amount.<\/p>\n<h1>Rule Three: If You Are Sanctioned in Ukraine, Consider Restrictions Affecting Your Ability to Pay and Receive Payments<\/h1>\n<p>Another critical factor a creditor must assess at the outset is <strong>whether it is itself subject to sanctions in Ukraine<\/strong>, as this may directly determine not only the viability of enforcement, but also the <strong>practical ability of a creditor to receive any recovered funds<\/strong>. In other words, even a successful arbitral award may prove ineffective if legal restrictions prevent the transfer of payment against a sanctioned entity or individual.<\/p>\n<p>In the context of the ongoing war, sanctions have become a widely used and actively employed instrument of economic control and national security policy. The National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine regularly imposes sanctions, which are enacted by decrees of the President of Ukraine, and these measures can have a direct and immediate impact on a creditor\u2019s ability to make or receive payments.<\/p>\n<p>Importantly, sanctions do not operate in a uniform manner. Their <strong>legal and practical effects depend on the specific type of restriction applied<\/strong>. For example, sanctions involving <strong>asset blocking (also known as an asset-freezing sanction)<\/strong> effectively immobilise funds and property within Ukraine, preventing any transfer, disposal, or enforcement against such assets. Similarly, sanctions that <strong>suspend financial transactions<\/strong> prohibit Ukrainian banks from processing payments involving the sanctioned party, making settlement or enforcement impossible for as long as such restrictions remain in place. Other measures, such as limitations on capital movements, trade restrictions, or prohibitions on certain business activities, may not formally block payments but can significantly undermine a creditor party\u2019s ability to perform its obligations or receive funds.<\/p>\n<p>From a creditor\u2019s perspective, it is essential to understand that <strong>sanctions do not automatically prevent recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Ukraine<\/strong>. Ukrainian case law illustrates this distinction. Specifically, in <a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/88749651\"><em>JSC \u201cNormetimpex\u201d v. PJSC \u201cZaporizhtransformator,\u201d<\/em><\/a> the court held that the <strong>application of sanctions by the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine<\/strong>, whether against the beneficiary owners of the creditor or the creditor itself, <strong>does not indicate that the arbitral award contradicts the public policy of Ukraine<\/strong>, nor does it justify refusal of recognition and enforcement of the award within Ukraine. This position is important for creditors, as it confirms that sanctions alone do not defeat a claim.<\/p>\n<p>However, the analysis changes when recognition and enforcement are sought <strong>against a State-owned enterprise of strategic importance for national defence<\/strong>, and the <strong>creditor appears to be a sanctioned entity registered in an aggressor State<\/strong>, Ukrainian courts normally reject <strong>enforcement on public policy grounds (<em>see \u201cRule Five: Consider Whether Your Debtor is a Protected-From-Debt-Recovery Company\u201d<\/em>)<\/strong>. In such cases, the enforcement of the award would be deemed incompatible with Ukraine\u2019s fundamental legal principles, national security interests, and public order.<\/p>\n<p>For creditors, the practical starting point is to <strong>first determine whether they themselves are subject to Ukrainian sanctions<\/strong>, including through their ultimate beneficial owners or affiliated entities. This can be verified through <a href=\"https:\/\/drs.nsdc.gov.ua\/\"><strong>the State Sanctions Registry<\/strong><\/a>. Equally important is to identify the <strong>specific type of sanctions imposed<\/strong>, as this will directly affect the feasibility of recovery. In particular, sanctions such as the <strong>asset-freezing sanction or the sanction restricting financial transactions<\/strong> may legally prohibit Ukrainian banks and counterparties from transferring funds to the creditor, effectively preventing the debtor from making payment even where the debt is undisputed or confirmed by an arbitral award. In this sense, sanctions may not defeat the claim itself, but they can <strong>block the actual flow of funds<\/strong>, turning enforcement into a matter of timing and regulatory constraints rather than legal entitlement. A clear understanding of both the existence and scope of sanctions is, therefore, essential for assessing whether, when, and how payment can realistically be obtained.<\/p>\n<h1>Rule Four: Consider Currency Restriction Affecting Your Ability to Receive Payments Abroad<\/h1>\n<p>Selling goods or providing services to Ukrainian parties under international contracts almost always involves making payments abroad, most frequently in freely convertible currency (US dollars, Euros, etc.) and very rarely in Ukrainian hryvnia.<\/p>\n<p>It is common ground that the Russian-Ukrainian war, regrettably, is still ongoing.<\/p>\n<p>On 24 February 2022, right after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Board of the National Bank of Ukraine passed the Resolution \u201c<em>On Operation of Banking System Under Martial Law<\/em>\u201d (\u201cMartial Law Banking Resolution\u201d), imposing several prohibitions preventing Ukrainian parties\u2019 ability to pay for the delivered goods and services under the respective contracts by banning Ukrainian banks from (i) remitting money abroad at the request of their clients unless a transaction falls into a limited list of exceptions; (ii) carrying out any currency operations with Russian Roubles and\/or Belarusian Roubles; and (iii) carrying out any currency operations to perform obligations owed to legal entities or individuals residing in the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus.<\/p>\n<p>The Martial Law Banking Resolution has been amended many times since its enactment, liberalising the Ukrainian banking rules under martial law to some extent.<\/p>\n<p>Since May 2024, Ukrainian companies have been allowed to remit money in Ukrainian Hryvna or a foreign currency abroad for imported goods, received services and works, including payment of contractual fines and penalties, bonuses, reimbursement of related expenses in connection with the performance of an international contract, or damages for its non-performance, provided that the delivery of goods, the rendering or services or the performance of works under such transactions was made after 23 February 2021 or has been being made since that date.<\/p>\n<p>In practice and subject to the limitations introduced in response to the Russian invasion, the above-described banking legislation would allow a Ukrainian award debtor to pay out the awarded debt abroad voluntarily, provided the concurrent performance was made after 23 February 2021.<\/p>\n<p>Things will likely become complicated if the award debt is to be recovered by a bailiff&#8217;s coercion. The possibility for bailiffs to remit collected funds abroad remains limited, as only state bailiffs may do so, provided the awarded debt is owed by the State or a state-owned company.<\/p>\n<p>In cases involving debt collection from a Ukrainian private party, the most effective approach is to engage a private bailiff, who would likely collect funds (from bank accounts or by selling the debtor\u2019s property) in Ukrainian hryvnia.<\/p>\n<p>Foreign companies can open accounts in Ukrainian banks in both Ukrainian hryvnia and foreign currencies. Provided that the instructed bailiff has collected the necessary amount of cash in Ukrainian hryvnia equivalent to the awarded sum in a foreign currency(s), the foreign award creditor is entitled to instruct the bailiff to remit the collected Ukrainian hryvnia to its Ukrainian hryvnia bank account opened in a Ukrainian bank. The so transferred sums will be written off from the bailiff\u2019s books, with the debt recorded in foreign currency(s) at the National Bank of Ukraine\u2019s foreign currency exchange rate on the day of transfer.<\/p>\n<p>A foreign party with funds in Ukrainian bank accounts can spend them in Ukraine, e.g., to purchase goods for export abroad.<\/p>\n<p>Selling the awarded debt can also be an option for overcoming foreign currency restrictions currently in force in Ukraine during martial law. Roman Protsyshyn earlier addressed the issue in the article <a href=\"https:\/\/biz.nv.ua\/experts\/vozvrat-zadolzhennosti-mezhdunarodnyy-arbitrazh-novosti-ukrainy-50037640.html\">\u201c<em>How to sell your debt. An arbitration award will help<\/em>\u201d<\/a> (15 August 2019, NV.UA).<\/p>\n<h1>Rule Five: Consider Whether Your Debtor is a Protected-From-Debt-Recovery Company<\/h1>\n<p>A further aspect that creditors should assess at an early stage is whether the Ukrainian debtor falls within a category of entities that are, in practice, <strong>protected from enforcement on public policy grounds<\/strong>. This issue most commonly arises in respect of <strong>state-owned enterprises of strategic importance<\/strong>, particularly those linked to national defence or critical infrastructure. In the current wartime context, Ukrainian courts have shown increased sensitivity to enforcement actions that may interfere with such entities, even where the creditor holds a valid arbitral award.<\/p>\n<p>The leading guidance on this issue can be drawn from the line of cases <a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/87760125\"><em>JSC \u201cAvia-Fed-Service\u201d v. State Joint Stock Holding Company \u201cArtem.\u201d<\/em><\/a> In its Resolution of 13 February 2020, the Supreme Court refused recognition and enforcement in Ukraine of an award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation on the ground that JSC \u201cAvia-Fed-Service\u201d was subject to economic sanctions imposed by the Ukrainian Government. However, the Court emphasised that the application of sanctions with regard to the creditor does not terminate the debtor\u2019s obligations, nor does it constitute a permanent bar to enforcement of the award. This effectively means that the arbitral award may be enforced on the territory of Ukraine once the sanctions towards the creditor are lifted.<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, in an earlier, but similar, dispute between the same parties \u2013 <a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/76502952\"><em>JSC \u201cAvia-Fed-Service\u201d v. State Joint Stock Holding Company \u201cArtem\u201d<\/em><\/a> \u2013 the Supreme Court adopted a different position, holding that the claimant\u2019s Russian affiliation alone could not justify refusal to enforce the arbitral award. In particular, the Supreme Court concluded that a reference to public policy violations is only valid when enforcement of a foreign arbitral award would be fundamentally incompatible with the legal order of Ukraine. On <a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/82444874\">remand<\/a>, the Kyiv Court of Appeal further clarified that the imposition of sanctions on a creditor may, under certain circumstances, justify only the suspension of enforcement proceedings, rather than an outright refusal to recognise or enforce the arbitral award. Ultimately, on 9 January 2020, the <a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/86903591\">Supreme Court granted recognition and enforcement<\/a> of the arbitral award concerned in the case.<\/p>\n<p>Lastly, the Ukrainian Parliament has granted temporary protection to the property (funds, other assets, etc.) of Government-approved companies working in the defence industry from recovery in enforcement proceedings by coercion for the duration of martial law in Ukraine. It means that a creditor may approach a bailiff, but the bailiff will be precluded from collecting funds or selling property once a defence industry debtor shows evidence that it is on the protected list. The intention to apply to a bailiff may be a trigger for the protected debtor to settle the debt, as otherwise it will be charged with an additional 10% enforcement fee, increasing its liabilities. The list of protected companies is not public, but searches in the Court Decision Registry may reveal required information.<\/p>\n<p>For creditors, the practical implication is clear: before initiating arbitration or enforcement proceedings, it is essential to <strong>assess the nature of the debtor\u2019s business and ownership<\/strong>. If the debtor is a state-owned or strategically significant enterprise, particularly in sectors such as defence, energy, or critical infrastructure, enforcement risks increase substantially. While such a status does not automatically preclude recovery, it may lead to delays, suspension of proceedings, or even refusal of enforcement on public policy grounds. Careful structuring of the claim and consideration of alternative enforcement jurisdictions may, therefore, be required.<\/p>\n<h1>Rule Six: Consider Bargaining with Your Debtor at the Pre-Enforcement Stage<\/h1>\n<p>Depending on a particular case, one of the regular effective ways for a foreign party to receive the awarded debt in its bank account is to warn the debtor about the intention to apply to a bailiff to enforce a writ of execution obtained at the end of the arbitral award exequatur procedure.<\/p>\n<p>The commercial rationale for this move is that the award debtor will not be additionally charged a 10% enforcement fee by a state bailiff or a similar sum by a private bailiff.<\/p>\n<p>There are plenty of options for negotiating the actual payment, from a simple deferred payment in exchange for meaningful collateral to complex financial schemes.<\/p>\n<p>Recovering debt from a Ukrainian company in the context of international arbitration requires more than obtaining a favourable award; it requires a careful understanding of the broader legal, regulatory, and practical environment in which enforcement will take place. In wartime Ukraine, creditors must approach recovery strategically and with heightened diligence, taking into account not only the debtor\u2019s financial position and asset structure, but also sanctions exposure, enforcement risks, public policy considerations, and the practical realities affecting Ukrainian businesses and state institutions.<\/p>\n<p><em>Ilyashev &amp; Partners is one of Ukraine\u2019s leading law firms advising international businesses, investors, financial institutions and multinational corporations in complex cross-border disputes, international arbitration, debt recovery and enforcement proceedings.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>The firm has extensive experience representing foreign and domestic clients in disputes arising out of international trade, supply agreements, construction and infrastructure projects, energy transactions, banking and finance, investment activities and cross-border commercial operations involving Ukraine and C<\/em><em>EE<\/em><em> jurisdictions.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>The arbitration team regularly acts in proceedings under the rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC), the London Court of International Arbitration, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and other leading arbitral institutions, representing clients in commercial, investment, shareholder, construction, energy and post-M&amp;A disputes.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Ilyashev &amp; Partners advises clients on international commercial arbitration, recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Ukraine, debt recovery from Ukrainian companies, interim measures and asset freezing strategies, cross-border asset tracing and investigations, sanctions-related disputes and compliance, insolvency-related proceedings, international trade disputes and complex enforcement matters involving state and private bailiffs.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>The firm combines arbitration, litigation, asset recovery and regulatory expertise to develop practical enforcement strategies for international creditors operating in Ukraine during wartime and in highly regulated environments. Particular attention is devoted to disputes involving sanctioned parties, strategic state-owned enterprises, currency control restrictions, fraud risks, concealed assets and multi-jurisdictional enforcement structures.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>To learn more, please visit the\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/attorneys.ua\/en\/\"><em>Ilyashev &amp; Partners Law Firm website<\/em><\/a><em>\u00a0or contact\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/firms\/15297-ilyashev-partners\/c-ukraine\/lawyers\/930291-roman-protsyshyn\"><em>Roman Protsyshyn<\/em><\/a><em>\u00a0directly.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-55988","legal_developments","type-legal_developments","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_developments\/55988","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_developments"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/legal_developments"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}