Marks & Sokolov, LLC Files Motion to Dismiss Baseless Claims in Noble Capital RSD LLC v. The Russian Federation

Washington, D.C. — January 28, 2026 — Marks & Sokolov, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint brought against its clients - the Russian...

US court rules in favor of Russia in “Schneerson library” case

Kommersant. Верховный суд США отказался пересматривать решение об отказе по иску движения «Агудас Хасидей Хабад» (Хабад) к России о передаче...

Russian Federation’s Sovereign Immunity Withstands Challenge in Chabad v. Russian Federation Before the U.S. Supreme Court Concluding Long-Running U.S. Proceedings

Marks & Sokolov, counsel for the Russian Federation and related government entities in Agudas Chasidei Chabad  v. Russian Federation, is pleased...

RIA NEWS: “Documents on hand”: the US submitted an unexpected claims against Russia

Крауялис: в США вспомнили про царские долги неслучайно МОСКВА, 22 янв — РИА Новости, Наталья Дембинская. Американский инвестфонд Noble Capital решил...

Sergey Sokolov Comments on Alleged Russian Empire–Era Sovereign Debt Claims to RBC

RBC. Россия никогда не признавала ответственность за царские облигации 1916 года, которые были отправлены в «мусорную корзину истории», заявил...

Marks & Sokolov, LLC Announces New Representation of the Russian Federation

Marks & Sokolov, LLC is pleased to announce that it has been engaged to represent the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Finance, the Central...

Marks & Sokolov, LLC Obtains Recognition of Over $20 Million in Russian Judgments, Update

by | Jul 26, 2023 | M&S Updates

In November 2021, Marks & Sokolov obtained a significant victory in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on behalf of a leading Russian bank, demonstrating that Russian court judgments can be recognized in the U.S.

In PJSC National Bank Trust v. Natalia Pirogova, the court granted motion for summary judgment filed by Marks & Sokolov on behalf of National Bank Trust to recognize three judgments obtained by the bank in Russia. Trust Bank thus got an opportunity to enforce against the assets of its debtor located in the U.S. [Read more]

The debtor appealed the judgement arguing that the Russian judgements were not enforceable where rendered (i.e. in Russia), the parties filed conflicting expert opinions on Russian law, the documents provided by the bank were improperly certified, as well as comity and sanctions imposed on Russian banks should prevent recognition of Russian judgements.

In May 2023 the appellate court unanimously dismissed the appeal.

The court noted that the bank established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in lieu of complaint by submitting affirmations establishing that the copies of the Russian judgments were authentic. In addition, the appellate court found that the record was adequate to allow for construction of the applicable Russian law without a testimonial hearing. The court determined that the bank successfully proved Russian judgements being final, conclusive, and enforceable when rendered.

The appellate court also confirmed the applicability of the interest at the New York statutory 9% rate for the period between the issuance of the Russian judgments and their recognition. The court found unavailing the debtor’s arguments related to sanctions.