Case No. A56-24289/2025, Commercial Court of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, decision made in June 2026

Key takeaway

For international banks and businesses with Russian counterparties, recent years have delivered a fairly consistent message: Russian courts, using powers introduced in 2020, have often been willing to hear disputes that the parties originally agreed to resolve elsewhere. A recent decision out of St Petersburg sits apart from that trend, at least on its face, and is worth a closer look for anyone advising on Russia related contracts, sanctions exposure, or cross border dispute strategy.

What happened in the VTB v JP Morgan dispute?

The dispute centred on a banking agreement between PJSC VTB Bank and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, which contained a clause referring disputes to arbitration under the LCIA Rules.

Notwithstanding that clause, VTB brought proceedings in the Russian courts, framing its claim in tort in an apparent attempt to proceed outside the agreed arbitral forum.

JP Morgan responded by applying to the English courts for an anti-suit injunction, which was granted, restraining VTB from pursuing the Russian litigation. VTB appealed that decision in England. While the appeal was pending, the Russian proceedings were stayed.

Once the English appeal was dismissed, the Russian court resumed consideration of the case and, on JP Morgan's application, left VTB's claim without consideration on the basis that the parties had entered into a valid and enforceable LCIA arbitration agreement.

Notably, the court reached this conclusion despite VTB's standing as a major state-owned bank subject to sanctions, a status that, in other cases, has been treated as grounds for Russian courts to assert jurisdiction of their own.

Read our article on Supreme Court guidance on anti-suit injunctions in foreign-seated arbitrations for further discussion of how the English courts protect arbitration agreements where foreign proceedings are commenced.

Why is a Russian court upholding an LCIA arbitration clause unusual?

Since 2020, Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh (Commercial) Procedure Code have given Russian courts exclusive jurisdiction over certain disputes involving sanctioned parties, together with the power to issue anti suit and anti-arbitration injunctions restraining a counterparty from pursuing proceedings abroad, even where the underlying contract contains a valid foreign arbitration or forum clause.

The underlying rationale is that sanctions can be treated as obstructing a sanctioned Russian party's access to justice abroad, which under the legislation is capable of rendering the contractual dispute resolution clause unenforceable.

Russian courts have applied this reasoning in a number of cases involving Western financial institutions, taking jurisdiction, issuing injunctions, and in some instances proceeding to judgment notwithstanding parallel arbitration or foreign court proceedings.

Against that backdrop, a Russian court expressly upholding an LCIA clause against a sanctioned state bank is a notable data point. It is a reminder that, while the broader trend is well established, outcomes can still turn on the specific procedural posture of a case.

For related analysis of sanctions-driven foreign proceedings and anti-suit relief, read our article on Court of Appeal enforcement of anti-suit relief in NW2 v Tecnimont.

Does VTB v JP Morgan signal a change in the Russian courts’ approach?

The most plausible explanation here is not a shift in the courts' general approach, but VTB's own conduct in these proceedings. VTB did not oppose JP Morgan's application to leave the claim without consideration.

Having lost its English appeal and facing the ASI, VTB was exposed to potential liability, including damages and costs, for continuing proceedings in breach of an English court order. Declining to contest the Russian jurisdictional application may simply have been the more attractive option once weighed against the consequences of breaching the injunction.

Seen that way, this decision does not necessarily signal a broader change in the application of Article 248.1. It is worth setting alongside Case No. A12-22543/2022, in which a Russian court asserted exclusive jurisdiction notwithstanding the Russian party's own position that it faced no obstacles to justice in LCIA arbitration.

That earlier case indicates that Russian courts may treat their exclusive jurisdiction under Article 248.1 as something to be raised of the court's own motion, in order to protect a sanctioned Russian party, regardless of that party's own wishes.

If a Russian court can assert jurisdiction even over the objection of the party the rule is meant to protect, it follows that the outcome in the VTB case may have depended heavily on the fact that no one argued against upholding the arbitration clause, rather than on any reassessment of the underlying jurisdictional rules.

What does the decision mean for anti-suit injunctions?

For banks, corporates and insurers with Russian linked contracts, two points stand out.

Treat this as an outlier rather than a general softening. The prevailing approach to Article 248.1 and 248.2 remains one where courts have shown a willingness to raise exclusive jurisdiction even where the sanctioned party does not ask them to. One favourable outcome, likely explained by the particular facts, does not on its own change that landscape.

Anti suit injunctions are a double-edged tool. JP Morgan's success in obtaining and defending an English ASI appears to have shaped VTB's litigation choices at every subsequent stage, including its decision not to resist the Russian jurisdictional challenge. Parties considering this route need to weigh the cost and risk of parallel proceedings across jurisdictions, and the practical difficulty of enforcing an ASI against a state-owned entity with limited exposure to the enforcing jurisdiction.

Taken together, this decision is a useful illustration for anyone tracking how Russian courts are applying Article 248.1 in practice.

Barnes Law’s Arbitration team advises clients on international arbitration, anti-suit injunctions, sanctions-related disputes, foreign proceedings and the enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards. For more information, please contact our Arbitration lawyers in London to discuss how we can support you.

Written by Barnes Law Managing Partner Yulia Barnes.