News

On 23 August 2024, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) announced sanctions against seven LNG carriers reportedly comprising a new Russian shadow fleet, designating them as US specially designated nationals (“SDNs”).[1] According to satellite imagery and ship tracking data, at least three of these ships are confirmed to have loaded LNG at Novatek’s sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 facility. The other four ships have been used to deliver volumes from non-sanctioned Yamal LNG, but were originally intended for use with Arctic LNG 2.

Lord Hamblen’s lead judgment in the Supreme Court case of Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV (previously Glencore Agriculture BV) [2024] UKSC 14, concerned an appeal and cross-appeal of two Grain and Feed Trade Association (“GAFTA”) Appeal Awards. This article considers in detail the cross-appeal, which related to the assessment of damages by the GAFTA Appeal Board (the “Appeal Board”) under Clause 25 of GAFTA Contract No. 24 being the standard GAFTA default clause (the “Default Clause”).

On 24 June 2024, the European union introduced its 14th package of sanctions against Russia. The package contains a large number of new restrictive measures, targeting a range of different sectors of the Russian economy. However, of crucial importance to the LNG market are the new EU sanctions concerning transhipment and import of LNG.

Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc (The “Victor 1”) [2023] EWHC 2995 (Comm)

There is certain bitter irony for a defendant when a claimant, who has spent a small fortune in legal proceedings against that defendant, turns around and pleads poverty when that defendant seeks security for costs.

Such circumstances were considered in “The Victor 1”, where the Commercial Court considered a defendant’s security for costs application against a claimant which appeared, on paper, not to have any assets, but which seemed capable of funding litigation with seemingly bottomless pockets in numerous jurisdictions.[1]

Under CPR 25.13, if the “claimant is a company or other body (whether incorporated inside or outside Great Britain) and there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so”, then the defendant will have a prima facie entitlement to security for costs.  However, the courts will weigh this entitlement up against key considerations of justice.

[1] Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc [2023] EWHC 2995 (Comm).

245 Park Member v. HNA Group International, No. 23-842-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 8, 2024)

Enforcement of judgments against intangible assets like membership interests in US LLCs can be difficult for creditors. Often, all they get is a limited charging order that gives them the right to distributions – which might not be effective in many cases.

However, the recent judgment from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 245 Park Member v. HNA Group International, No. 23-842-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 8, 2024) may make enforcement easier against interests in Delaware and other LLCs easier, confirming that they can be turned over directly to the creditor.

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC:

On February 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decisive opinion in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 601 U.S. 65 (2024), upholding the enforceability of choice-of-law provisions, marking a significant development in maritime law.

The case involved a dispute over an insurance claim for a damaged vessel, which evolved into a complex legal analysis of contractual agreements and pinning state versus federal law. The following sections detail the factual background, judicial proceedings, and broader implications of this case, shedding light on its impact on maritime commerce and legal practices.