Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Protecting Against Russia’s Asset Seizures: Investment Treaties May Provide a Remedy for Foreign Investors

By Marney Cheek, Jonathan Gimblett, Nikhil Gore, David Pinsky, Jeremy Wilson, Clovis Trevino & Paris Aboro on July 20, 2023
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On Sunday, July 16, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree putting shares of Danone Russia JSC, owned by French yogurt maker Danone, and of Baltika Brewing Company, owned by Danish brewer Carlsberg A/S, under “temporary management.”

The Kremlin has since reportedly appointed Yakub Zakriev, deputy prime minister and agriculture minister of Chechnya, as head of the Danone business.[1] Mr. Zakriev has been described as a close ally of Ramzan Kadyrov, the notorious leader of the Chechen Republic, and himself a close ally of President Putin.[2] Meanwhile, Taimuraz Bolloev, a longtime friend of Putin, has been installed as director of Carlsberg’s Baltika business.[3]

These recent seizures follow a decree Putin signed in April, laying the groundwork to expropriate, damage, or otherwise impair the investments of companies from “unfriendly” countries—including the U.S., UK, Canada, all EU member states, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.[4] This is the second time Russia has used the decree to seize assets. Previously, Russia took control of utilities owned by Finland’s Fortum Oyj and Germany’s Uniper SE.[5]

These Russian actions demonstrate the significant risks for foreign companies that continue to operate in Russia and signal further potential asset seizures, including the possible transfer of foreign assets to regime-friendly owners. Russia’s measures appear to constitute uncompensated expropriations, for which investors could seek redress under Russia’s network of bilateral investment treaties (BITs).[6]

In prior Covington alerts, we have discussed how foreign investors in Russia can protect their investments from Russian retaliatory measures by ensuring that they have access to international arbitration, including through BITs. We also have highlighted certain key protections available under BITs that may provide recourse to foreign investors affected by Russia’s recent measures. In this alert, we focus on those protections under Russian BITs of most direct relevance to foreign investors whose assets have been expropriated or that have had the management of that investment obstructed by Russia’s actions, present and future.

Key Protections in Russian BITs

Russia has BITs in force with over 60 countries, including many EU members (such as Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden) and countries such as Canada, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, the UK, and Ukraine. There is no BIT between Russia and the United States, but U.S. companies may nonetheless benefit from BIT protection if they hold their investments in Russia through a third country that does have a Russian BIT.

In its BITs, Russia has committed to, among other things, treat investors from the relevant countries in a fair and equitable manner, not to discriminate against such investors on the basis of nationality, not to expropriate their investments except under certain conditions and upon payment of adequate compensation, and to guarantee their right to freely transfer payments related to their investments out of Russia. All of these protections are relevant in the present context.

Russia’s Retaliatory Measures in Breach of BIT Protections

Russian retaliatory measures may constitute breaches of core protections accorded to foreign investors under Russia’s BITs. For example:

  • Russia’s seizure and/or transfer of the assets of foreign firms to regime-friendly owners may constitute an expropriation in breach of Russia’s treaty obligations.
  • All of Russia’s retaliatory measures affecting companies or their investments in Russia based on their shareholders’ “unfriendly” nationality would appear to be in breach of Russia’s obligation of non-discrimination, as well as Russia’s obligation to refrain from arbitrary, unfair, and inequitable treatment.
  • Russia’s measures may also violate the guarantee that protected foreign investors shall be able to remit the proceeds of their investment, including any proceeds resulting from a sale or liquidation.

Access to International Arbitration under Russia’s BITs

Russia’s BITs with many of the countries it considers “unfriendly” allow investors from such countries to pursue investment arbitration claims against the Russian government. As discussed in our prior alert, the scope of Russia’s consent to arbitration varies from treaty to treaty, with some treaties providing for access to international arbitration over a greater variety of disputes than others.

International arbitration under investment treaties may be the only effective remedy for many foreign investors with investments in Russia to recover the losses caused by Russia’s retaliatory measures. Arbitral awards may be enforced against certain types of Russian government assets overseas, and firms may also be able to work with their home governments to explore opportunities to enforce awards.

As Russia’s retaliatory measures continue to intensify, investors should actively analyze available protections and consider acting to preserve their rights under Russia’s BITs.

If you have any questions concerning the material discussed in this client alert, please contact the members of our International Arbitration practice.


[1] See M. Seddon, A. Stognei, and A. Klasa, “Kremlin oligarchs eye Carlsberg assets as Kadyrov ally takes over Danone unit” Financial Times (July 18, 2023), accessed at: https://www.ft.com/content/d5234953-cddf-4b64-8a55-dc749843ab5c; see also A. Liang, “Russia: Chechnya agriculture minister to run seized Danone unit,” BBC (July 19, 2023), accessed at: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66241315.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] See TASS, “Putin signs decree on retaliatory measures over seizure of Russian assets abroad” (25 April 2023), available at: https://tass.com/economy/1609683.

Russia has previously included the following States among its list of “unfriendly countries and territories”: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Canada, all European Union member states, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, San Marino, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom (including Jersey, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, and Gibraltar), the United States, and Ukraine. See TASS, “Russian government approves list of unfriendly countries and territories” (March 7, 2022), available at: https://tass.com/politics/1418197.

[5] See, e.g., A. Marrow, G. Stolyarov, and A. Kauranen, “Kremlin warns of more asset seizures after move against Fortum and Uniper,” Reuters (April 26, 2023), accessed at: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/fortum-says-investigating-news-russian-asset-seizure-2023-04-26/.

[6] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, “Russia Lays Groundwork For Nationalizing Foreign Companies Amid Fallout From Ukraine War” (March 10, 2022), available at: https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nationalize-foreign-companies/31746695.html.

Photo of Marney Cheek Marney Cheek

Marney Cheek has advised companies, non-governmental organizations, and governments on high-stakes international disputes and legal strategy for more than 20 years.

Marney serves as both counsel and advocate before numerous international arbitral tribunals and courts, including the International Court of Justice, U.S. federal…

Marney Cheek has advised companies, non-governmental organizations, and governments on high-stakes international disputes and legal strategy for more than 20 years.

Marney serves as both counsel and advocate before numerous international arbitral tribunals and courts, including the International Court of Justice, U.S. federal court, and major arbitral institutions such as the AAA, ICSID, PCA, and SIAC. She represents clients in complex international commercial disputes, having successfully defended a client in a $1.8 billion claim filed by a collaboration partner. Marney serves as both counsel and arbitrator in numerous investment treaty arbitrations. She is an expert on public international law and currently represents the Government of Ukraine in its landmark cases before the International Court of Justice adverse to the Russian Federation, including Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation).

In addition to leading complex disputes, Marney routinely advises clients on public international law matters and issues arising under numerous multilateral treaties. Her pro bono work includes representation of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and she serves on the Steering Committee of Covington’s Wimmer Initiative, a pro bono program that focuses on protecting and advancing media freedom. She also is at the forefront of business and human rights disputes, having represented global labor unions in the first binding arbitration brought under a business and human rights compact, the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety.

Drawing upon her experience as Associate General Counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Marney also routinely counsels clients on international trade matters and is a member of the roster of arbitrators for several U.S. free trade agreements.

Marney is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves as a Vice President of the American Society of International Law. She is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Robert H. Jackson Center. She has previously taught investment law at Columbia University School of Law. She is recognized as an “extraordinarily thoughtful” and “creative” lawyer with a “wealth of knowledge” on international law matters in Chambers and Legal 500.

Read more about Marney CheekEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Jonathan Gimblett Jonathan Gimblett

Jonathan Gimblett joined the firm in 2004 following a successful career in the British Diplomatic Service. His practice combines international and antitrust law, drawing on his experience of 15 years in government. Jonathan’s international practice focuses principally on investor-state arbitration and public international…

Jonathan Gimblett joined the firm in 2004 following a successful career in the British Diplomatic Service. His practice combines international and antitrust law, drawing on his experience of 15 years in government. Jonathan’s international practice focuses principally on investor-state arbitration and public international law disputes, on which he advises both states and corporate clients. He also represents clients in U.S. federal court litigation relating to international law issues, including the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (“FSIA”). His antitrust practice embraces litigation, counseling of corporate clients, and regulatory matters.

Read more about Jonathan GimblettEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Nikhil Gore Nikhil Gore

Nikhil V. Gore represents financial institutions, sovereigns, and global corporations in investigations, disputes, and regulatory advocacy before U.S. and international financial services regulators.

As co-chair of Covington’s financial services investigations and government enforcement practice, Nikhil leads anti-financial crime investigations, as well as a…

Nikhil V. Gore represents financial institutions, sovereigns, and global corporations in investigations, disputes, and regulatory advocacy before U.S. and international financial services regulators.

As co-chair of Covington’s financial services investigations and government enforcement practice, Nikhil leads anti-financial crime investigations, as well as a wide range of financial institution governance, control, safety and soundness, and consumer and market conduct matters. He has served as lead counsel for multiple major financial institutions in safety-and-soundness matters before the OCC and Federal Reserve; secured unprecedented outcomes for community banks challenging FDIC supervisory and enforcement actions; and represented global banking institutions in anti-financial crime investigations in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

Nikhil also counsels clients on a range of financial statutes and regulations, including those governing U.S. fiscal law and the investment and payment authorities of government agencies; the control of money laundering and the licensing of money transmission; and the combatting of terrorist financing.

In his disputes practice, Nikhil is part of the Covington team representing Ukraine in state-to-state arbitrations against the Russian Federation and was appointed by the Prosecutor-General of Ukraine to the Legal Task Force on Accountability for Russian War Crimes. He has handled treaty arbitrations and commercial disputes spanning Asia, Eastern Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Africa.

Read more about Nikhil GoreEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of David Pinsky David Pinsky

David Pinsky is a partner in the firm’s international arbitration and litigation practices. David’s recent work includes winning a $5-billion award for Ukraine’s state-owned oil and gas company, Naftogaz, in an investment arbitration against Russia, in response to Russia’s unlawful expropriation of Naftogaz’s…

David Pinsky is a partner in the firm’s international arbitration and litigation practices. David’s recent work includes winning a $5-billion award for Ukraine’s state-owned oil and gas company, Naftogaz, in an investment arbitration against Russia, in response to Russia’s unlawful expropriation of Naftogaz’s assets upon annexing the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, as well as representing Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in an investment dispute against Russia.

In addition to his disputes work, David also counsels clients on how to structure their cross-border investments in order to be well-positioned in case of future disputes with foreign governments, and he has advised multiple clients in connection with their exits from Russia following the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

David is a member of Covington’s Management Committee, and he practices and lives in New York City.

David’s arbitration practice focuses both on investor-state and on commercial disputes, often arising in Russia and Eastern Europe and in the energy sector. He has handled administered proceedings under the ICC, SCC, LCIA, ICDR, and AAA Rules, as well as ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules. On the commercial side of his arbitration practice, David has particular expertise in disputes arising under the Uniform Commercial Code. In U.S. litigation, his practice focuses on international law issues, including litigation in support of arbitration and applications for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.

David also maintains an active pro bono practice, representing journalists and other media professionals who seek asylum in the United States. An émigré himself, David has won asylum and other forms of immigration relief for clients from Russia, Uzbekistan, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Before joining Covington in 2005, David lived in Moscow as a U.S. State Department-sponsored fellow where he studied the challenges facing Russia’s press.

Read more about David PinskyEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Jeremy Wilson Jeremy Wilson

Jeremy Wilson is co-chair of the firm’s International Arbitration Practice Group. Mr. Wilson advises and represents parties in price review disputes, investor-state matters, and commercial arbitration matters, including in both ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules, and institutional arbitrations under the rules…

Jeremy Wilson is co-chair of the firm’s International Arbitration Practice Group. Mr. Wilson advises and represents parties in price review disputes, investor-state matters, and commercial arbitration matters, including in both ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules, and institutional arbitrations under the rules of the ICC, HKIAC, the SCC, the DIAC, and the LCIA, in venues around the world. He has particular experience and a proven track record advising clients in the energy, life sciences, media, and consumer brands sectors

Read more about Jeremy WilsonEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Clovis Trevino Clovis Trevino

Clovis Trevino is special counsel in the firm’s international disputes practice. She specializes in public international law and international commercial and investment arbitration and represents private entities and States in high-stakes international commercial, investor-State, and State-to-State proceedings, including under ICSID, ICC, UNCITRAL, and…

Clovis Trevino is special counsel in the firm’s international disputes practice. She specializes in public international law and international commercial and investment arbitration and represents private entities and States in high-stakes international commercial, investor-State, and State-to-State proceedings, including under ICSID, ICC, UNCITRAL, and UNCLOS rules and before the International Court of Justice.

Fluent in Spanish, Clovis regularly handles disputes arising out of Latin America. Her experience spans a wide range of industries, including mining and minerals, oil and gas, textile manufacturing, and consumer services. She also advises investment firms and asset managers in evaluating investments in international claims or arbitration awards.

Clovis is recognized by Legal 500 as a Rising Star in international arbitration in the United States.

Read more about Clovis TrevinoEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Paris Aboro Paris Aboro

Paris advises clients across a range of industries in complex international disputes, including both investor-state and commercial arbitrations, and related litigation. Her practice also includes sovereign representation before international courts.

Paris rejoined Covington from the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, where she was the…

Paris advises clients across a range of industries in complex international disputes, including both investor-state and commercial arbitrations, and related litigation. Her practice also includes sovereign representation before international courts.

Paris rejoined Covington from the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, where she was the Legal Advisor to Judge. O. Thomas Johnson.

Before joining the firm, Paris previously practiced as a barrister in London. In her practice as a barrister, Paris acted in a variety of litigation across a range of practice areas, including cases that involved an international or cross-border element.

Paris currently guest lectures a seminar on International Investment Law at Columbia Law School. She also maintains an active pro bono practice, with a focus on public international law advisory matters.

Read more about Paris AboroEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Business and Commercial
  • Blog:
    Global Policy Watch
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo