The Moscow Arbitration Court has ruled in favor of Zarubezhneft in its dispute with Euroclear, according to the case file. The decision resulted in the recovery of $58 million, which equates to roughly 4.98 billion rubles, from the international depository institution. This amount represents a notable recovery in a broader set of complex cross-border financial actions involving state-owned entities and global clearing houses.
Currently, a separate, ongoing legal action against Euroclear by Zarubezhneft seeks a different remedy for a considerably smaller sum, amounting to 104.9 million rubles. The litigation landscape between these two parties underscores the persistent tensions that can arise when state-linked energy enterprises operate within international financial frameworks and rely on global settlement networks.
In another development, last month Moscow Credit Bank filed a case against Euroclear, pushing the total claimed figure beyond 11 billion rubles. In Russian courts, there are now more than a hundred claims lodged by individuals and corporate entities against the European Depository, illustrating a broad, ongoing dispute environment involving foreign clearing operations and the Russian financial sector amid sanctions and asset freezes.
Amid these legal confrontations, Euroclear continues to derive income from assets that are blocked under sanctions. For the first quarter, the depositary reported interest income that reflects profit tied to frozen assets, offering a stark reminder of how sanctions-related financial constraints interact with the global settlement infrastructure. By comparison, the overall interest income for the period stood at €1.95 billion, highlighting that a meaningful portion of the revenue stream is connected to the status of frozen Russian assets.
These developments arrive at a moment when Russia holds historically high international reserves and a record level of liquidity on the sovereign side. The unfolding situation demonstrates the complexity of managing cross-border financial flows when state interests intersect with international clearing networks, and it signals ongoing scrutiny of how state-affiliated entities navigate legally mandated channels for asset recovery and settlement.