Big money, big risks: Inside the Maire – EuroChem dispute
A legal dispute between Italian engineering group Maire and a subsidiary of Swiss-based fertilizer giant EuroChem is increasingly shedding light on the financial risks facing companies involved in large international projects.
What began as a procedural disagreement has evolved into a far broader conflict, raising questions about how contractors manage exposure across multiple jurisdictions, and how quickly risks can escalate when projects stall.
The dispute involves Maire S.p.A. and its subsidiaries Tecnimont S.p.A. and MT Russia on one side, and EuroChem Severo-Zapad-2, a Russian unit of EuroChem Group AG, on the other. At its core is a construction contract signed in 2019 for a fertiliser plant in Russia.
Under the original schedule, the facility was due to come online in 2023, with planned annual production of up to 1.1 million tonnes of ammonia and 1.4 million tonnes of urea. Work on the project was halted in 2022 after Maire S.p.A. stopped the construction despite their contract with EuroChem, triggering a wave of legal action in London and Moscow.
EuroChem Severo-Zapad-2 argues that the problems predated sanctions and has accused Tecnimont of acting in bad faith – a claim the contractor disputes.
As the dispute has widened, so too has the legal battleground. In late December 2025, Tecnimont and MT Russia applied to the High Court of England and Wales for interim relief, seeking to block EuroChem Severo-Zapad-2 from enforcing Russian court rulings outside Russia. The companies also want to prevent legal proceedings that they argue conflict with an ICC arbitration agreement.
Such legal manoeuvres are not unusual in cross-border engineering, procurement and construction disputes, particularly when large sums are involved. What stands out in this case, however, is the tone of the arguments presented to the English court.
Court filings set out in detail the potential consequences of enforcement actions abroad, including pressure on subsidiaries’ operations, risks to financing arrangements and possible strain on relationships with creditors.
This marks a shift from Maire’s earlier public messaging. In statements issued in November and December 2025, the group played down the risks, saying Russian court decisions had no legal effect outside the country and posed no material threat to the business. Management stressed that the situation was under control and that the group remained resilient.
That narrative appeared to change after India’s Bombay High Court opened proceedings relating to the possible attachment and recovery of around $2.2 billion (£1.63 billion) from a Maire group subsidiary.
In witness statements filed with the English court, Maire’s lawyer described the situation as an “existential threat” to the group if enforcement of Russian rulings outside Russia were to succeed. The filings point to the risk of serious and irreparable harm, potential disruption to financing and challenges for group entities seeking to continue participating in arbitration.
Crucially, these statements were submitted under a formal statement of truth, giving them legal weight under English law and signalling a significantly higher assessment of risk than that reflected in earlier public comments.
The financial stakes are substantial. By the end of 2025, Russian court decisions against the contractor totalled around $2.2 billion (£1.63 billion), with penalties for non-compliance estimated at a further $1.05 billion (£780 million), bringing total exposure close to $3.25 billion (£2.41 billion).
Despite the scale of the numbers, both sides continue to frame the dispute as commercial. EuroChem says it is enforcing its contractual rights, while Tecnimont maintains it is defending itself against claims it considers excessive and unjustified.
Recent developments suggest the risks are no longer theoretical. On January 13, the Bombay High Court imposed restrictions aimed at preventing the potential enforcement of a Russian court decision, ordering Tecnimont to refrain from actions that could hinder execution — including transferring assets out of India or moving funds beyond normal business operations.
A further hearing is scheduled for January 19, 2026.
As the case unfolds across multiple jurisdictions, it offers a stark reminder that behind the calm public statements often issued by major contractors, complex and high-stakes risk management is frequently being played out in courtrooms rather than press releases.
