PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE This memorandum is prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP for the sole and exclusive use of Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA and its officers. It is protected by legal professional privilege and must not be disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of Calderwood & Harkness LLP and Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA.
CLIENT STRATEGY MEMORANDUM
Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement of LCIA Award No. 224718
Date: 14 September 2024
Our Reference: SE/HB/TSL-ENF/2024
From:
Samuel Eklund, Responsible Partner Hannah Brinkley, Lead Associate
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 45 Moorgate London EC2R 6AR United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7946 8200
Email: s.eklund@calderwoodharkness.com / h.brinkley@calderwoodharkness.com
To:
Nikolaos Papadimitriou, Chairman & CEO Ioanna Christodoulou, General Counsel
Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA 14 Akti Miaouli, 4th Floor Piraeus 185 35 Greece
Re: Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement Strategy — LCIA Award No. 224718 — Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA v. Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd.
Engagement Date (Enforcement Phase): 12 September 2024
Right-click to update Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to set out Calderwood & Harkness LLP's ("C&H") recommended strategy for the multi-jurisdictional enforcement of the Final Award dated 28 June 2024 (the "Award") issued by the LCIA tribunal in Case No. 224718 in the arbitration of Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA v. Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. This memorandum should be read in conjunction with the appendices referenced herein, which provide detailed supporting materials including the Award summary, corporate structure charts, asset schedules, and the proposed enforcement timeline.
The Award was rendered unanimously by the three-member tribunal in favour of Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA ("TSL") and against Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. ("KMH"). The total amounts due from KMH under the Award and the associated costs allocation are as follows:
•  Award Sum: £96,450,000
•  Costs (85% allocated to KMH): £12,150,000 (comprising £3,240,000 in LCIA administrative and tribunal costs, plus £8,910,000 in TSL's legal costs)
•  Grand Total (Award + Costs): £108,600,000
•  Post-Award Interest: 5.25% per annum simple on the Award Sum from 29 June 2024 until the date of payment
At the prevailing exchange rate of £1 = USD $1.2441 as of the Award date (28 June 2024), the Grand Total represents approximately USD $135,100,000. At current rates, the Sterling equivalent continues to accrue interest at approximately £13,869 per day on the Award Sum alone.
To date, KMH has failed to make any voluntary payment towards the Award. A formal pre-enforcement demand letter was dispatched by C&H to KMH's English solicitors, Harkness Whitford & Co., on 8 July 2024, requiring payment in full within fourteen (14) days. No response was received by the deadline of 22 July 2024, nor has any response been received since. Harkness Whitford & Co. have not communicated any intention on behalf of KMH to make payment, nor have they proposed any alternative payment schedule or entered into any substantive correspondence regarding the Award.
Of significant concern, intelligence gathered by our forensic accountants, Hartwell Pemberton LLP, indicates that KMH has been actively dispersing assets internationally through its network of subsidiaries and special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") in the period following the issuance of the Award, with the apparent purpose of frustrating any enforcement and collection efforts by TSL. The details of these dissipation activities are set out in Section 3 below.
In light of these circumstances, C&H's recommended enforcement approach is one of simultaneous enforcement filings across four jurisdictions — England & Wales, Cyprus, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates — designed to maximise TSL's prospects of recovery and prevent further dissipation of KMH's assets. This multi-jurisdictional strategy takes advantage of identified KMH assets in each target jurisdiction, the favourable legal frameworks applicable to the enforcement of LCIA awards under the New York Convention and local implementing legislation, and the enforcement tools available in each jurisdiction (including garnishment, vessel arrest, and forced sale mechanisms).
The immediate priority is to maintain and build upon the Worldwide Freezing Order ("WFO") already obtained ex parte on 16 July 2024 from Mr. Justice Ashworth in the Commercial Court (Claim No. CL-2024-000487), which was continued with modifications on the return date of 30 July 2024. The WFO restrains KMH from dealing with assets worldwide up to £108,600,000 and includes ancillary disclosure obligations. While the WFO provides important protection, it is not a panacea: its effectiveness depends in part upon KMH's voluntary compliance, and its enforceability against third-party institutions in foreign jurisdictions is limited without local court orders. This is a further reason for the simultaneous multi-jurisdictional approach recommended herein.
We note that certain English proceedings — specifically the section 66 application under the Arbitration Act 1996 and the WFO application — were commenced before the formal opening of the enforcement-phase engagement on 12 September 2024. These steps were taken on an urgent basis and were coordinated between C&H and TSL's in-house legal team, led by Ms. Christodoulou, given the exigency of the circumstances and the immediate risk of asset dissipation. This memorandum consolidates and formalises the full four-jurisdiction strategy going forward from the date of the enforcement-phase engagement.
We assess the overall recovery prospects as strong, with a realistic recovery target of 75–90% of the Award plus Costs within six months, and the potential for full recovery (including post-award interest) within a further period thereafter. The estimated total enforcement costs across all jurisdictions and advisors are in the range of £5.5–6.0 million, a significant portion of which is expected to be recovered through the costs orders already embedded in the Award and further costs orders in enforcement proceedings.
We respectfully request that TSL review this memorandum and provide instructions to proceed as set out in the Recommendations and Immediate Action Items at Section 9 below.
2. Background
2.1 The Parties
2.1.1 The Client: Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA
TSL is a Société Anonyme organised under the laws of the Hellenic Republic, registered at 14 Akti Miaouli, 4th Floor, Piraeus 185 35, Greece (Tax Identification Number: EL-801456729). TSL was founded in 1987 by the Papadimitriou family and has grown to become a significant player in the Mediterranean and regional shipping and logistics markets.
TSL currently operates a fleet of thirty-four (34) vessels, including bulk carriers, tankers, and container feeders, and provides integrated logistics services across the Mediterranean, Black Sea, and Arabian Gulf trade routes. TSL reported annual revenues of approximately €620 million for the financial year ending 31 December 2023. The company's ownership structure comprises a 72% majority holding by the Papadimitriou Family Trust and a 28% minority holding by Aegean Capital Partners SA, a Greek private equity firm.
TSL's senior management relevant to this matter includes:
•  Nikolaos Papadimitriou — Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
•  Ioanna Christodoulou — General Counsel
•  Elena Stavridis — Chief Financial Officer
•  Captain Dimitrios Kouretas — Head of Chartering and Operations
2.1.2 The Award Debtor: Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd.
KMH is a private limited company incorporated in Nicosia, Cyprus, under Company Registration Number HE 387421. Its registered address is at 28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 601, Nicosia 1066, Cyprus. KMH is a vessel-owning and chartering company that controls a fleet of approximately eighteen (18) dry-bulk carriers through a network of single-purpose vehicle subsidiaries organised in various jurisdictions including the British Virgin Islands, Singapore, and Cyprus.
KMH is beneficially owned by the Volkov family through a layered holding structure comprising British Virgin Islands and Cypriot holding companies. The estimated pre-dispute net asset value of the KMH group was approximately USD $280 million, although, as discussed in detail in Section 3 below, significant asset-shifting has been observed following the issuance of the Award, raising substantial concerns regarding the current realisable value of KMH's assets.
The key personnel of KMH relevant to this matter are as follows:
•  Andrei Volkov — Ultimate beneficial owner and de facto director of KMH. While Mr. Volkov does not appear as a registered director, the evidence gathered during the arbitration and subsequently by Hartwell Pemberton LLP confirms that he exercises ultimate control over the KMH group's strategic and financial decisions.
•  Sergei Volkov — Director of KMH and son of Andrei Volkov. Sergei Volkov is a registered director of KMH and several of its subsidiary entities and has been the primary signatory on key corporate transactions.
•  Marina Kazakova — Chief Financial Officer of the KMH group, responsible for treasury management across all KMH entities.
•  Alexei Demidov — Director of Fleet Operations, responsible for operational management of the KMH fleet, including chartering, crewing, and vessel scheduling.
2.1.3 KMH's Legal Representatives
KMH is represented in the English proceedings by:
Harkness Whitford & Co. 12 Fetter Lane London EC4A 1JP SRA No. 614823
Key personnel:
•  Richard Harkness — Senior Partner
•  Catherine Whitford — Partner, International Arbitration
•  James Thornbury — Associate
KMH's Cyprus local counsel is:
Vassiliadis & Economou LLC 7 Stasinou Avenue, 3rd Floor Nicosia 1060, Cyprus
Key personnel:
•  Georgios Vassiliadis — Managing Partner
•  Eleni Economou — Partner
Harkness Whitford & Co. represented KMH throughout the LCIA arbitration and continues to act for KMH in the English enforcement proceedings. Vassiliadis & Economou LLC provided Cyprus corporate advice during the arbitration and is expected to represent KMH in any Cyprus enforcement proceedings.
2.2 The Underlying Dispute
The dispute giving rise to the arbitration arose out of three separate time charter-party agreements between TSL (as owner/disponent owner) and KMH (as charterer) for the employment of three dry-bulk carriers. Each charter was governed by English law and contained an LCIA arbitration clause designating London as the seat of arbitration. The three charters are as follows:
(a) M/V *Aegean Fortuna*
•  IMO Number: 9784521
•  Vessel Type: Supramax Bulk Carrier
•  Deadweight Tonnage: 58,200 DWT
•  Flag: marshall Islands
•  SPV Owner: Dnepr Shipholding Inc. (BVI Company No. 2014876)
•  Charter Date: 15 March 2019
•  Charter Period: 60 months (5 years)
•  Agreed Hire Rate: Commercially sensitive — details in the Award
(b) M/V *Crimson Horizon*
•  IMO Number: 9801334
•  Vessel Type: Handymax Bulk Carrier
•  Deadweight Tonnage: 37,500 DWT
•  Flag: Liberia
•  SPV Owner: Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
•  Charter Date: 22 January 2020
•  Charter Period: 48 months (4 years)
•  Agreed Hire Rate: Commercially sensitive — details in the Award
(c) M/V *Volga Spirit*
•  IMO Number: 9756892
•  Vessel Type: Panamax Bulk Carrier
•  Deadweight Tonnage: 76,400 DWT
•  Flag: Cyprus
•  SPV Owner: Dnepr Shipholding Inc. (BVI Company No. 2014876)
•  Charter Date: 10 June 2021
•  Charter Period: 36 months (3 years)
•  Agreed Hire Rate: Commercially sensitive — details in the Award
KMH's repudiatory breaches of these charter-party agreements commenced in mid-2022, during a period of significant volatility in the dry-bulk freight market. The breaches took the following forms:
(a) Wrongful early redelivery of M/V *Aegean Fortuna*: KMH redelivered the vessel to TSL on 18 June 2022, approximately fourteen (14) months prior to the contractual redelivery date. The redelivery was not justified under any provision of the charter and constituted a repudiatory breach. TSL accepted the repudiatory breach and claimed damages for the balance of the charter period, calculated by reference to the difference between the contractual hire rate and the market rate for equivalent tonnage for the unexpired charter period.
(b) Failure to pay hire on M/V *Crimson Horizon*: KMH ceased making hire payments under the charter from 1 July 2022. Hire arrears of £4,280,000 accrued over the period from 1 July 2022 until TSL exercised its contractual right to withdraw the vessel on 15 September 2022, having provided appropriate notice under the anti-technicality provisions. TSL claimed both the outstanding hire arrears and damages for loss of bargain for the balance of the charter period.
(c) Fabricated off-hire deductions on M/V *Volga Spirit*: KMH made a series of off-hire deductions against hire payments totalling approximately £2,740,000, purportedly on the basis of alleged mechanical deficiencies and periods of underperformance. The tribunal found that these deductions were not supported by the evidence, that the vessel had been maintained in good operating condition throughout, and that the deductions were fabricated as a pretext for reducing KMH's charter obligations during a period of depressed market rates. TSL claimed restitution of the improperly deducted amounts.
The cumulative effect of KMH's breaches was the premature termination or fundamental disruption of all three charter-party relationships, causing TSL substantial financial loss at a time when the dry-bulk market was experiencing a downturn that made replacement chartering at equivalent rates impossible.
2.3 The LCIA Arbitration and Award
2.3.1 Procedural History
The arbitration was conducted under the LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020, with London as the seat of arbitration. The key procedural milestones were as follows:
•  Request for Arbitration filed: 14 November 2022
•  Tribunal constituted: 8 February 2023, comprising:
•  Presiding Arbitrator: Sir Malcolm Fenton-Clarke (appointed by the LCIA Court)
•  Co-Arbitrator (Claimant-nominated): Professor Athena Drakopoulos
•  Co-Arbitrator (Respondent-nominated): Dr. Henrik Dalmqvist
•  Tribunal Secretary: Ms. Fiona Beckett
•  Preliminary procedural conference: 1 March 2023
•  Statement of Case (TSL): 15 April 2023
•  Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (KMH): 15 June 2023
•  Reply and Defence to Counterclaim (TSL): 31 July 2023
•  Rejoinder (KMH): 15 September 2023
•  Document production phase: April–August 2023
•  Witness statements and expert reports exchanged: September 2023
•  Evidentiary hearing: 11–22 September 2023 (10 hearing days, International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC), 70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU)
•  Post-hearing briefs: October 2023
•  Final Award issued: 28 June 2024
KMH participated fully in the arbitration through experienced and well-resourced English counsel (Harkness Whitford & Co.). KMH submitted comprehensive written pleadings, participated in document production, filed witness statements and expert reports, attended all ten days of the evidentiary hearing with full legal representation, and submitted post-hearing briefs. There is no basis whatsoever for any argument that KMH was denied a fair opportunity to present its case or was otherwise prejudiced in the conduct of the proceedings.
2.3.2 The Award
The tribunal issued a unanimous Final Award on 28 June 2024, finding comprehensively in TSL's favour on all three charter-party claims and dismissing KMH's counterclaim in its entirety. The tribunal's damages assessment was as follows:
(a) M/V *Aegean Fortuna* — Wrongful Early Redelivery Damages: £42,300,000. The tribunal calculated this figure by reference to the remaining fourteen (14) months of the charter period at the contractual hire rate, less the market rate for equivalent tonnage, yielding a monthly differential of approximately £3,021,429.
(b) M/V *Crimson Horizon* — Outstanding Hire and Loss of Bargain:
•  Outstanding hire arrears: £4,280,000
•  Loss of bargain damages for balance of charter period: £23,870,000
•  Subtotal: £28,150,000
(c) M/V *Volga Spirit* — Restitution of Fabricated Off-Hire Deductions: £2,740,000.
(d) Loss of Profit / Market Differential Damages (across all three charters): £16,480,000. This figure represents additional losses arising from TSL's inability to re-charter the vessels at equivalent rates in the prevailing market conditions, as well as consequential losses including repositioning costs, idle time, and market re-entry costs.
(e) Pre-Award Interest: £6,780,000, calculated at 5.25% per annum simple, blended from the various breach dates to the date of the Award (28 June 2024).
The total amounts awarded are summarised as follows:
The tribunal further ordered that post-award interest shall accrue at the rate of 5.25% per annum simple on all unpaid sums from 29 June 2024 until the date of payment in full.
The Award was rendered unanimously by all three members of the tribunal. It is accompanied by detailed written reasons extending to over 280 pages, thoroughly analysing the evidence, the applicable law, and the tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions. A summary of the Award's key findings is set out in Appendix A.
3. Asset intelligence and Preliminary Findings
3.1 Engagement of Hartwell Pemberton LLP
In order to support the enforcement strategy, TSL has engaged the forensic accounting and asset-tracing firm Hartwell Pemberton LLP ("HP"), 25 Old Broad Street, London EC2N 1HN. The HP engagement is led by Rebecca Saunders, Partner (Forensic & Investigative Services), and Mark Huxley, Director. HP was initially instructed on an urgent basis in early July 2024 in connection with the WFO application and has since conducted a comprehensive asset-tracing exercise.
HP's preliminary findings report, dated 15 August 2024, has been received and reviewed by C&H. The scope of HP's work encompasses:
(a) Mapping KMH's global corporate structure, including all subsidiaries, SPVs, and affiliated entities across all relevant jurisdictions;
(b) Identifying bank accounts and financial assets held by KMH and its subsidiaries in each target jurisdiction;
(c) Tracing post-award asset movements, with particular emphasis on transfers from KMH accounts to entities connected to the Volkov family or other potential nominees;
(d) Quantifying the accruing post-award interest under the Award; and
(e) Preparing corporate chain analyses to support enforcement applications, including the beneficial ownership analysis necessary for associated ship arrests in Singapore.
The principal findings from HP's report are summarised in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 below. A more detailed asset schedule, organised by jurisdiction, is set out in Appendix C.
3.2 KMH's Corporate Structure and Identified Assets
HP's investigation has confirmed that KMH operates through a multi-layered corporate structure involving holding companies, intermediate entities, and single-purpose vessel-owning SPVs across multiple jurisdictions. The key entities within the KMH group, and the assets identified in each, are as follows:
3.2.1 Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. (Cyprus)
•  Registration: HE 387421
•  Registered Address: 28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 601, Nicosia 1066, Cyprus
•  Function: Ultimate group holding company (subject to the Volkov family's beneficial ownership through BVI structures above)
•  Key Assets: Holds 100% of the shares in Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (see below); maintains bank accounts at Hellenic National Bank (Cyprus Branch), 5 Archbishop Makarios III Avenue, Nicosia, details of which were disclosed (in part) pursuant to the English WFO disclosure order. Balances in the Cyprus accounts are not yet fully confirmed but are believed to be material.
3.2.2 Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (Cyprus)
•  Registration: HE 401293
•  Registered Address: 28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 604, Nicosia 1066, Cyprus
•  Function: Intermediate holding company, 100% owned by KMH. Holds equity interests in the fleet SPVs, including Dnepr Shipholding Inc. (BVI), Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., and other vessel-owning entities.
•  Key Assets: The shares in the fleet SPVs held by Oceangate represent a significant enforcement target, as they indirectly represent the equity value of the KMH group's fleet assets. A forced sale of the Oceangate shares in Cyprus would effectively transfer control of the underlying vessel-owning SPVs to the purchaser.
3.2.3 Dnepr Shipholding Inc. (British Virgin Islands)
•  Registration: BVI Company No. 2014876
•  Registered Agent: Vantage Corporate Services Ltd., Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands
•  Function: Vessel-owning SPV, held (directly or indirectly) by Oceangate Ventures Ltd.
•  Key Assets: Registered owner of M/V Aegean Fortuna (IMO 9784521) and M/V Volga Spirit (IMO 9756892). Enforcement against BVI-registered entities presents its own procedural challenges, but enforcement against the vessels themselves (through in rem proceedings in the jurisdiction where the vessels are physically located) is the primary route.
3.2.4 Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
•  Registered Address: 80 Robinson Road, #14-02, Singapore 068898
•  Function: Vessel-owning SPV for M/V Crimson Horizon (IMO 9801334), held (directly or indirectly) by Oceangate Ventures Ltd. Also functions as a regional treasury and operational centre for KMH's Asia-Pacific activities.
•  Key Assets:
•  Registered owner of M/V Crimson Horizon. Intelligence indicates that an attempted sale of this vessel was initiated post-award, though it is unclear whether the sale has been completed or is still pending. If the vessel has not yet been sold, it remains available for arrest.
•  Bank accounts at Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd. (6 Battery Road, #20-01, Singapore 049909). Significant funds are believed to be on deposit, including proceeds from vessel operations and, potentially, funds transferred from other KMH entities. HP estimates balances of approximately SGD $30–35 million based on available intelligence, although this figure has not been confirmed by direct disclosure.
3.2.5 Korinthian DMCC (Dubai, UAE)
•  Registered Address: Unit 3407, Almas Tower, Jumeirah Lakes Towers (JLT), Dubai, UAE
•  Function: Free zone entity handling operational funds, receivables from sub-charterers, and agency operations in the Arabian Gulf region.
•  Key Assets:
•  Bank accounts at Emirates Gulf Commercial Bank PJSC ("EGCB"), Gate Village 3, Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), Dubai. Account balances are estimated at approximately AED 50–60 million (approximately £10–13 million equivalent).
•  Sub-charterer receivables owed to Korinthian DMCC may also be attachable through the UAE courts.
3.2.6 Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. (London)
•  Address: 50 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9EA
•  Function: KMH's primary London correspondent bank, used for receipt and disbursement of hire payments, freight, and other commercial funds denominated in Sterling and US Dollars.
•  Key Assets: Account balances identified through the WFO disclosure process are believed to total approximately £18–20 million. An interim Third-Party Debt Order has already been granted (see Section 4.1.1 below).
The aggregate estimated pre-dispute net asset value of the KMH group was approximately USD $280 million. However, as discussed immediately below, there is substantial evidence of post-award asset shifting, and the current realisable value of KMH's assets is a matter of ongoing investigation.
A corporate structure chart prepared by HP is set out in Appendix B, and a detailed asset schedule by jurisdiction is at Appendix C.
3.3 Evidence of Post-Award Asset Dissipation
Of critical importance to the enforcement strategy, HP's preliminary findings indicate a pattern of deliberate post-award asset dissipation by KMH and its affiliates. The principal findings are as follows:
(a) Transfers to Volkov-connected entities: HP has identified a series of transfers from KMH and Oceangate bank accounts in Cyprus to entities connected to Andrei Volkov, including entities registered in jurisdictions with limited transparency and co-operation frameworks. These transfers commenced within days of the Award being issued on 28 June 2024 and continued until at least early July 2024, when the English WFO was granted. The total quantum of these transfers is still being confirmed, but preliminary analysis suggests transfers in excess of USD $15 million from Cyprus accounts alone.
(b) Attempted sale of M/V *Crimson Horizon*: HP's investigation, drawing on shipping intelligence databases and market contacts, indicates that Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. initiated a process to sell M/V Crimson Horizon in the period following the Award. The vessel was reportedly offered to potential buyers through a broker in Singapore. It is not yet confirmed whether a memorandum of agreement has been executed, but the timing of this attempted sale strongly suggests it was motivated by a desire to realise the asset and place the proceeds beyond TSL's reach.
(c) Re-flagging and restructuring of SPVs: There are indications that KMH has been considering or implementing changes to the flag registrations of certain vessels within its fleet, as well as restructuring the ownership of certain fleet SPVs, potentially to create additional layers of separation between KMH and the vessels and to complicate enforcement. HP is continuing to investigate the status of these arrangements.
(d) Funds moved to less accessible jurisdictions: HP has identified movements of funds from KMH's Cyprus and UAE accounts to bank accounts in jurisdictions where enforcement and asset tracing are significantly more difficult, including transfers to institutions in jurisdictions that are not party to the New York Convention or that have limited judicial co-operation agreements with the target enforcement jurisdictions.
This evidence of asset dissipation formed the evidentiary basis for C&H's successful ex parte application for the WFO before Mr. Justice Ashworth on 16 July 2024. The evidence will also be deployed in support of the cross-border freezing and attachment applications recommended in this memorandum. The dissipation evidence significantly strengthens TSL's position when seeking emergency relief in all four target jurisdictions, as it demonstrates that KMH is engaged in an active campaign to frustrate the enforcement of the Award.
HP's investigation is continuing, and we expect further findings to emerge as HP completes its review of disclosed materials, commercial databases, and maritime intelligence sources. We have instructed HP to prioritise the completion of the beneficial ownership chain analysis linking KMH to Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. through Oceangate Ventures Ltd., which is required for the associated ship arrest application in Singapore.
3.4 Vessel Particulars
The three vessels that were the subject of the underlying charter-party disputes, and which remain potential enforcement targets, are summarised in the following table:
A detailed vessel particulars table, including current AIS data, class society information, and P&I club details, is set out in Appendix D.
In order to obtain current independent vessel valuations for the purposes of the arrest and enforcement proceedings, C&H recommends the engagement of Northcape Maritime Advisory Ltd. (Captain Ian Forsyth, Managing Director, 3 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1WY). Northcape is a highly respected maritime advisory firm with extensive experience in providing independent vessel valuations accepted by courts in multiple jurisdictions, including the English Commercial Court, the Singapore High Court, and UAE courts. We seek TSL's authorisation to instruct Northcape as set out in the Recommendations at Section 9 below.
4. Enforcement Strategy by Jurisdiction
This section sets out the recommended enforcement strategy in each of the four target jurisdictions: England & Wales, Cyprus, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. For each jurisdiction, we address the current status of proceedings (where applicable), the relevant legal framework, the recommended enforcement actions, anticipated opposition from KMH, and the estimated recovery potential.
4.1 England & Wales — Primary Jurisdiction
England is the primary enforcement jurisdiction given that the seat of the arbitration was London, the Award was issued in England, and English law governed the underlying charter-party agreements. The English courts have direct jurisdiction over KMH's English assets and provide the most robust procedural framework for enforcement of the Award.
4.1.1 Current Status of English Proceedings
The following steps have already been taken in the English courts:
(a) Section 66 Application — Arbitration Act 1996
An application for permission to enforce the Award as a judgment of the court was filed on 15 July 2024 in the Commercial Court under Claim No. CL-2024-000487, pursuant to section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996. This application was made without notice to KMH, as is standard practice. Mr. Justice Ashworth granted permission to enforce the Award as a judgment on 2 August 2024. KMH has been served with the order and has not, to date, applied to set it aside (although it retains the right to do so within the applicable time limit, and our intelligence suggests it may seek to do so — see Section 4.1.3 below). The effect of the section 66 order is that the Award is now enforceable as a High Court judgment for all purposes, including execution, garnishment, charging orders, and other enforcement remedies available to a judgment creditor under English law.
(b) Worldwide Freezing Order
An application for a Worldwide Freezing Order was made ex parte on 16 July 2024 before Mr. Justice Ashworth in the Commercial Court. The application was supported by witness statements from Hannah Brinkley (C&H) and Rebecca Saunders (HP), exhibiting the evidence of asset dissipation described in Section 3.3 above. Mr. Justice Ashworth granted the WFO on 16 July 2024, restraining KMH from removing from England and Wales or in any way disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of any of its assets, whether in England and Wales or elsewhere, up to the value of £108,600,000.
The WFO includes the following key ancillary provisions:
(i) A disclosure obligation requiring KMH to disclose, within seven (7) working days of service, all of its assets worldwide exceeding £25,000 in value, whether held in its own name or in the name of nominees, giving the value, location, and details of such assets;
(ii) A provision permitting KMH to spend a reasonable sum on legal fees and ordinary living expenses, subject to specified limits;
(iii) A provision addressed to third parties notified of the WFO, prohibiting them from assisting KMH in any breach of the order; and
(iv) Standard exceptions for ordinary and proper course of business payments, subject to KMH first informing C&H's lawyers of the source and amount.
The WFO was served on KMH's English solicitors, Harkness Whitford & Co., on 17 July 2024, together with service of the court papers on KMH at its Cyprus registered address through agreed service provisions.
On the return date of 30 July 2024, KMH appeared through Harkness Whitford & Co. and contested the continuation of the WFO. Following argument, Mr. Justice Ashworth continued the WFO with certain modifications, principally:
(i) Increasing the permitted expenditure limits for legal fees to reflect KMH's reasonable costs of defending the enforcement proceedings across multiple jurisdictions; and
(ii) Clarifying the scope of the ordinary course of business exception to permit continued operational payments for crewing, insurance, and port charges in respect of KMH's trading vessels, subject to KMH providing fortnightly schedules of such payments to C&H.
The WFO remains in force and is reviewed at each subsequent hearing in the enforcement proceedings.
(c) Third-Party Debt Order — Meridian Trust Bank Ltd.
An application for an interim Third-Party Debt Order ("TPDO") was made on 2 August 2024, immediately following the grant of permission to enforce the Award under section 66. The interim TPDO was granted by Master Kaye on 5 August 2024 against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. (50 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9EA) in respect of all accounts held by KMH at that bank. The effect of the interim TPDO is to freeze the debts owed by Meridian Trust Bank to KMH (i.e., the account balances) pending the hearing for a final order. Based on the information available from the WFO disclosure and from Meridian Trust Bank's response to the interim TPDO, the account balances are believed to total approximately £18,720,000. A hearing for the final TPDO is listed and must be pursued as a priority.
4.1.2 Recommended Next Steps (England)
C&H recommends the following further steps in the English proceedings:
(a) Pursue final TPDO against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd.: The hearing for the final order should be vigorously pursued. If the final TPDO is granted, the debts owed by Meridian Trust Bank to KMH (i.e., the account balances of approximately £18,720,000) will be paid directly to TSL in satisfaction (or part satisfaction) of the judgment. We anticipate that KMH will oppose the final order, potentially arguing that the funds are required for operational purposes or are subject to third-party claims. We do not consider these arguments to be strong, and the burden is on KMH to demonstrate hardship.
(b) Defend against anticipated set-aside application: As discussed in Section 4.1.3 below, we anticipate that KMH will seek to challenge the Award under sections 68 and/or 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. C&H will vigorously oppose any such application. It is important to note that the filing of a set-aside application does not, of itself, operate as a stay of enforcement proceedings. If KMH seeks a stay of enforcement pending the determination of the set-aside application, we will resist that application on the grounds that the challenge has no realistic prospect of success and that the demonstrated risk of asset dissipation means that any stay would cause irreparable prejudice to TSL.
(c) Monitor WFO disclosure compliance: KMH's compliance with the disclosure obligations under the WFO has been, to date, incomplete and unsatisfactory. The disclosure affidavit served by KMH on 25 July 2024 was materially deficient in several respects, including the failure to disclose certain accounts identified by HP and the provision of incomplete information regarding certain subsidiaries. C&H has written to Harkness Whitford & Co. identifying the deficiencies and requiring supplemental disclosure. If satisfactory supplemental disclosure is not provided, C&H recommends applying for an order requiring proper compliance, with the ultimate sanction of contempt of court proceedings if KMH continues to fail to comply.
(d) Seek indemnity costs: Upon the dismissal of any set-aside application, C&H recommends seeking an order for costs on an indemnity basis against KMH, on the grounds that any such application would be unreasonable and without merit, brought for the improper purpose of delay.
(e) Consider charging orders: C&H is investigating whether KMH or any Volkov-connected entities hold any real property or other assets situated in England and Wales over which charging orders could be obtained. Preliminary inquiries at HM Land Registry are ongoing.
4.1.3 Assessment of Set-Aside Risk
Based on intelligence from Harkness Whitford & Co.'s correspondence and statements at the return date hearing, we anticipate that KMH will seek to challenge the Award under one or both of the following provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996:
(a) Section 68 — Serious Irregularity
Section 68 provides that a party may challenge an award on the grounds of "serious irregularity" affecting the tribunal, the proceedings, or the award. The ground of challenge requires the applicant to show that the irregularity "has caused or will cause substantial injustice" to the applicant. The threshold for a successful section 68 challenge is deliberately high, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA [2005] UKHL 43, where Lord Steyn emphasised that section 68 is designed as "a long stop, only available in extreme cases where the tribunal has gone so wrong in its conduct of the arbitration that justice calls out for it to be corrected."
In the present case, the tribunal conducted a full ten-day evidentiary hearing at which both parties were represented by experienced counsel, examined and cross-examined witnesses of fact and expert witnesses, and made extensive submissions. The tribunal's Award extends to over 280 pages of detailed written reasons addressing every material issue raised by the parties. We have reviewed the Award in detail and are unable to identify any arguable ground of serious irregularity. The tribunal correctly applied the procedural rules, afforded both parties a full and equal opportunity to present their cases, and rendered a reasoned award addressing all of the issues put before it.
Assessment: Risk of successful section 68 challenge — very low (estimated probability less than 5%).
(b) Section 69 — Appeal on Point of Law
Section 69 permits an appeal to the court on a question of law arising out of an award, but only with the leave of the court (or by agreement of all parties, which is not applicable here). Leave to appeal will not be granted unless the court is satisfied that, on the basis of the findings of fact in the award, the decision of the tribunal on the question of law is obviously wrong, or the question is one of general public importance and the decision of the tribunal is at least open to serious doubt.
The legal issues addressed in the Award are well-settled principles of English maritime and commercial law, including: the measure of damages for repudiatory breach of a time charter-party (following The Golden Victory [2007] UKHL 12 and The New Flamenco [2017] UKSC 43); the construction of off-hire clauses in standard form charter-parties; and the assessment of pre-award interest. The tribunal's application of these principles to the facts was careful and conventional. We have not identified any novel or questionable point of law that would provide a basis for leave to appeal.
Assessment: Risk of leave to appeal being granted under section 69 — very low (estimated probability less than 10%). Even if leave were granted, the prospects of a successful appeal on the merits are lower still.
Overall Assessment: The combined probability of a successful set-aside or appeal of the Award under sections 68 and/or 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is assessed as less than 10%. We recommend vigorous opposition to any such application while continuing enforcement in all parallel jurisdictions without interruption. A set-aside application does not operate as an automatic stay of enforcement, and we will strenuously resist any application for a stay on the grounds that the challenge lacks merit and that the risk of asset dissipation makes any delay in enforcement prejudicial to TSL.
4.2 Cyprus — New York Convention Enforcement
4.2.1 Rationale for Cyprus Enforcement
Cyprus is a critical enforcement jurisdiction for the following reasons:
(a) KMH is incorporated in Cyprus under Registration Number HE 387421, with its registered address at 28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 601, Nicosia 1066. As KMH's domicile, Cyprus is the jurisdiction in which the most comprehensive enforcement tools are available against KMH's corporate assets.
(b) Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (HE 401293), KMH's wholly owned intermediate holding company, is also incorporated in Cyprus. The shares held by KMH in Oceangate are a particularly significant enforcement target, as Oceangate in turn holds the fleet SPVs that own the KMH group's vessels. A forced sale of the Oceangate shares would transfer control of the entire fleet SPV structure.
(c) KMH is known to hold bank accounts in Cyprus, the balances of which are yet to be fully confirmed but are believed to be material.
(d) Cyprus is a party to the New York Convention and has well-established procedures for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
4.2.2 Legal Framework
The recognition and enforcement of the LCIA Award in Cyprus will be sought under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (the "New York Convention"), as implemented in Cyprus through the International Commercial Arbitration Law (Law 101/1987) and the Cyprus Arbitration Law, Cap. 4. Cyprus ratified the New York Convention without reservation, and its implementing legislation provides for a straightforward recognition and enforcement procedure.
Under the New York Convention, the Cypriot court is obliged to recognise and enforce the Award unless KMH can demonstrate that one of the exhaustive grounds for refusal set out in Article V of the Convention is satisfied. These grounds include:
(a) Incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement (Article V(1)(a));
(b) Lack of proper notice or inability to present one's case (Article V(1)(b));
(c) The award deals with matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration (Article V(1)(c));
(d) Irregularity in the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure (Article V(1)(d));
(e) The award has not yet become binding, or has been set aside or suspended by a court of the seat (Article V(1)(e)); and
(f) The subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration, or recognition would be contrary to public policy (Article V(2)).
On the facts of this case, none of the Article V grounds appear to be available to KMH. KMH participated fully in the arbitration through well-resourced English counsel. The arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. The tribunal was properly constituted under the LCIA Rules. The Award has not been set aside (and the prospects of set-aside in England are very low, as discussed above). There is no public policy impediment to enforcement.
The expected timeline from filing to the issuance of an enforcement order by the Nicosia District Court is approximately six to eight (6–8) weeks, subject to any opposition filed by KMH.
4.2.3 Recommended Actions
C&H recommends the following steps in Cyprus:
(a) Instruct local counsel: We recommend instructing Kyprianos Makrides & Partners (15 Grivas Digenis Avenue, Nicosia 1066) as TSL's Cyprus local counsel for the enforcement proceedings. The engagement would be led by Andreas Kyprianos (Senior Partner) and Nadia Makrides (Partner). C&H has worked with this firm on prior matters and can attest to their expertise in cross-border enforcement, commercial litigation, and corporate law. Their estimated fees are set out in Section 7.2 below.
(b) File application for recognition and enforcement: Kyprianos Makrides & Partners would file an application for recognition and enforcement of the LCIA Award in the Nicosia District Court under the New York Convention implementing legislation. The application would be supported by certified copies of the Award and the arbitration agreements (the relevant clauses of the three charter-party agreements), together with any required translations and certifications.
(c) Apply for a freezing injunction: Simultaneously with the enforcement application, we recommend applying for a freezing injunction in the Cypriot courts over:
(i) KMH's shares in Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (HE 401293); and
(ii) KMH's bank accounts in Cyprus (to the extent identified).
The application would be supported by the evidence of asset dissipation described in Section 3.3 above, as well as the English WFO, which would serve as powerful evidence of the risk of further dissipation. The Cypriot courts are generally receptive to freezing relief where there is credible evidence of a risk that the judgment debtor will dissipate assets to frustrate enforcement.
(d) Execute against Oceangate shares and bank accounts: Upon obtaining an enforcement order, we would proceed to execute against the Oceangate shares through the forced sale mechanisms available under Cypriot execution law, and to garnish KMH's Cyprus bank accounts.
(e) Quantify recoverable assets: The value of the Oceangate shareholding requires further analysis, as it depends on the underlying value of the fleet SPVs and their assets (principally vessels). HP is continuing to investigate the current financial position of Oceangate and its subsidiaries. The bank account balances in Cyprus are also yet to be fully confirmed and will form part of the Cyprus freezing injunction application.
4.2.4 Anticipated Opposition
We expect that Vassiliadis & Economou LLC (Georgios Vassiliadis, Eleni Economou) will appear on behalf of KMH in the Cypriot proceedings to oppose both the enforcement application and the freezing injunction. The potential grounds of opposition, and our assessment of each, are as follows:
(a) Public policy (Article V(2)(b)): KMH may argue that enforcement of the Award would be contrary to Cypriot public policy. This ground is interpreted narrowly in Cypriot law, consistent with international practice, and is limited to cases involving a fundamental violation of basic principles of justice. There is no basis for such an argument on the facts of this case.
(b) Lack of proper notice (Article V(1)(b)): KMH may argue that it was not given proper notice of the arbitration or was unable to present its case. This argument is entirely without merit given KMH's full participation in the arbitration through experienced English counsel over a period of approximately two years.
(c) Other Article V defences: Any other grounds under Article V are equally inapplicable on the facts.
Assessment: The risk of refusal of enforcement in Cyprus is assessed as very low. We expect that KMH will oppose the proceedings primarily for the purpose of delay, and we will seek expedited hearing dates and costs orders to mitigate this risk.
4.3 Singapore — IAA Enforcement and Vessel Arrest
4.3.1 Rationale for Singapore Enforcement
Singapore is a high-priority enforcement jurisdiction for the following reasons:
(a) Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (80 Robinson Road, #14-02, Singapore 068898) is a KMH subsidiary with significant financial assets, including accounts at Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd. containing an estimated SGD $30–35 million.
(b) M/V *Crimson Horizon* (IMO 9801334, Handymax, 37,500 DWT), which was one of the three charter-party vessels at the centre of the dispute, is registered in the name of Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. and is expected to call at Singapore or transit Singapore waters. The vessel is a prime arrest target, and its arrest in Singapore would both secure the value of the vessel and create significant operational pressure on KMH to settle.
(c) Singapore is internationally recognised as a pro-enforcement jurisdiction with a well-developed legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the International Arbitration Act, as well as robust admiralty jurisdiction for vessel arrest and judicial sale.
(d) The funds held at Pinnacle Bank may include proceeds from vessel operations conducted through the Singapore entity, as well as potentially funds transferred from other KMH entities in anticipation of, or following, the attempted sale of M/V Crimson Horizon.
4.3.2 Legal Framework
The enforcement of the LCIA Award in Singapore would be pursued under the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) ("IAA"), which gives effect to the New York Convention in Singapore. Under section 19 of the IAA, an application for leave to enforce a foreign arbitral award may be made by originating summons to the Singapore High Court. Once leave is granted and the award is entered as a judgment, the full range of enforcement remedies available to a judgment creditor under Singapore law becomes available.
In addition, the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act ("HCAJA") confers admiralty jurisdiction on the Singapore High Court, including the power to arrest vessels. Of particular relevance, Singapore law recognises the associated ship doctrine, which permits the arrest of a vessel owned by an entity that is within the same corporate group as the judgment debtor, provided that beneficial ownership and control can be demonstrated. This doctrine would permit the arrest of M/V Crimson Horizon (owned by Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.) in enforcement of a judgment against KMH, provided that the corporate chain of ownership and control through Oceangate Ventures Ltd. can be established.
Garnishee proceedings under the Rules of Court would also be available to intercept the funds held at Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd. in accounts belonging to Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
4.3.3 Recommended Actions
C&H recommends the following steps in Singapore:
(a) Instruct local counsel: We recommend instructing Straits Meridian LLP (1 Raffles Place, #44-01 One Raffles Place Tower 2, Singapore 048616) as TSL's Singapore local counsel. The engagement would be led by David Teo Wei Lin (Partner, Shipping & International Arbitration) and Priya Subramaniam (Senior Associate). Straits Meridian LLP has extensive experience in international arbitration enforcement and admiralty proceedings in Singapore and is well regarded by the Singapore High Court bench. Their estimated fees are set out in Section 7.2 below.
(b) File originating summons for leave to enforce: An originating summons for leave to enforce the LCIA Award as a judgment of the Singapore High Court would be filed under section 19 of the IAA, supported by the required documentary evidence (the original or certified copy of the Award, the arbitration agreements, and a supporting affidavit).
(c) Apply for garnishee order against Pinnacle Bank: Simultaneously or shortly following the enforcement application, we recommend applying for a garnishee order nisi against Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd. in respect of all accounts held by Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. If granted and made absolute, the garnishee order would require Pinnacle Bank to pay the attached amounts directly to TSL. The estimated recovery from this source is SGD $30–35 million (approximately £18–21 million equivalent at current rates).
(d) Monitor M/V *Crimson Horizon* and prepare *in rem* writ: The movements of M/V Crimson Horizon should be monitored continuously using AIS tracking data and shipping intelligence services. Straits Meridian LLP should be instructed to prepare all documentation necessary for an in rem writ and warrant of arrest, so that the arrest can be executed at short notice when the vessel enters or is present within Singapore waters, including Singapore port limits, anchorages, and the Singapore Strait. The arrest papers should be kept in a state of readiness for immediate filing.
(e) Appraisement and judicial sale: If M/V Crimson Horizon is arrested, we would apply for appraisement and judicial sale of the vessel. Northcape Maritime Advisory Ltd. would be instructed to provide an independent valuation for the purposes of the appraisement. Based on current Handymax market values, the vessel is estimated to be worth in the range of USD $20–25 million, although the precise figure will depend on the vessel's current condition, class status, and market conditions at the time of sale.
(f) Beneficial ownership analysis: A critical requirement for the associated ship arrest is the establishment of the beneficial ownership chain linking KMH (the judgment debtor) to Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (the registered owner of M/V Crimson Horizon) through Oceangate Ventures Ltd. HP has been instructed to prepare a comprehensive corporate chain analysis with supporting evidence, including share registers, annual returns, and corporate filings, for use in the Singapore proceedings. This analysis must demonstrate that the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam (i.e., KMH) was, when the cause of action arose, the beneficial owner of all the shares in the vessel-owning SPV, or that both companies are beneficially owned by the same person.
4.3.4 Estimated Recovery
The combined recovery potential in Singapore is estimated as follows:
•  Bank accounts at Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd.: Estimated SGD $30–35 million (approximately £18–21 million equivalent)
•  M/V *Crimson Horizon* (Handymax, 37,500 DWT): Estimated value of USD $20–25 million (approximately £16–20 million equivalent), subject to independent valuation by Northcape
•  Combined Singapore recovery potential: Approximately £35–40 million equivalent
This represents a significant proportion of the total Award and underscores the importance of the Singapore enforcement track to the overall recovery strategy.
4.4 United Arab Emirates — Precautionary Attachment and Enforcement
4.4.1 Rationale for UAE Enforcement
The United Arab Emirates is included in the enforcement strategy for the following reasons:
(a) Korinthian DMCC (Unit 3407, Almas Tower, Jumeirah Lakes Towers, Dubai, UAE) is a KMH group entity established in the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre (DMCC) free zone, holding operational funds and receivables from sub-charterers in the Arabian Gulf region.
(b) Korinthian DMCC maintains accounts at Emirates Gulf Commercial Bank PJSC ("EGCB") (Gate Village 3, DIFC, Dubai), with estimated balances of approximately AED 50–60 million (approximately £10–13 million equivalent).
(c) M/V *Volga Spirit* (IMO 9756892, Panamax, 76,400 DWT) has been reported operating in the Arabian Gulf and has been recently observed at the Fujairah anchorage area. If the vessel calls at a UAE port or anchorage, it would be subject to arrest under UAE admiralty jurisdiction.
(d) Sub-charterer receivables owed to Korinthian DMCC may also be attachable through the UAE courts, providing an additional avenue of recovery.
4.4.2 Legal Framework
The enforcement of the LCIA Award in the UAE would be pursued under UAE Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 (the "UAE Arbitration Law") and the New York Convention, to which the UAE acceded in 2006. The UAE courts have, in recent years, become significantly more receptive to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and the 2018 Arbitration Law modernised the enforcement framework to align more closely with international best practice.
The enforcement application would be filed in the Dubai Court of First Instance, supported by the following documentation, all of which must be accompanied by certified Arabic translations and legalised through the appropriate channels:
(a) The original or a certified copy of the LCIA Award;
(b) The arbitration agreements (the relevant clauses of the three charter-party agreements);
(c) A certified Arabic translation of the Award and the arbitration agreements;
(d) Legalisation of all documents through the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) Apostille Service and, subsequently, authentication by the UAE Embassy in London.
In addition to the enforcement application, precautionary attachment ("hajz tahafozy") is available under the UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Law No. 11 of 1992, as amended) to secure assets pending the issuance of an enforcement order. Precautionary attachment can be obtained rapidly — in many cases within days of filing — and would freeze the targeted accounts and receivables pending the outcome of the enforcement application.
A separate question arises as to whether the DIFC Courts (which operate a distinct common-law legal system within the DIFC) may have jurisdiction over the EGCB assets, given that EGCB is located within the DIFC. The interaction between the onshore Dubai courts and the DIFC Courts in enforcement matters is complex and has been the subject of evolving jurisprudence. C&H will work with UAE local counsel to assess whether a DIFC enforcement route offers any strategic advantage, particularly in respect of the EGCB accounts, and will advise TSL accordingly.
4.4.3 Recommended Actions
C&H recommends the following steps in the UAE:
(a) Instruct local counsel: We recommend instructing Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates (Office 1802, Emirates Financial Towers (South Tower), DIFC, Dubai, UAE) as TSL's UAE local counsel. The engagement would be led by Tariq Al-Rashid (Managing Partner) and Leila Hatem (Partner, Dispute Resolution). Al-Rashid Hatem is a full-service UAE law firm with particular strength in international arbitration enforcement, commercial litigation, and maritime law, and has experience in both the onshore Dubai courts and the DIFC Courts. Their estimated fees are set out in Section 7.2 below.
(b) Arrange certified Arabic translations and legalisation: All documents required for the UAE enforcement application must be translated into Arabic by a certified translator and legalised through the UK FCDO and the UAE Embassy. This process typically takes two to three weeks and should be commenced immediately in order to avoid delay. C&H recommends using an established translation and legalisation service with experience in UAE court requirements, and we can provide a referral to a recommended provider.
(c) File enforcement application in the Dubai Court of First Instance: Once the translated and legalised documents are ready, Al-Rashid Hatem would file the enforcement application in the Dubai Court of First Instance (or, if strategically advantageous, in the DIFC Courts).
(d) Apply for precautionary attachment: Simultaneously or shortly before the enforcement application, Al-Rashid Hatem would apply for a precautionary attachment over:
(i) All accounts held by Korinthian DMCC at Emirates Gulf Commercial Bank PJSC; and
(ii) Any identifiable receivables owed by sub-charterers to Korinthian DMCC in the UAE.
Precautionary attachment can be obtained rapidly and would freeze the targeted assets pending the enforcement order, preventing further dissipation.
(e) Investigate attachable receivables: HP and Al-Rashid Hatem should conduct a joint investigation to identify specific sub-charterer receivables owed to Korinthian DMCC that may be attachable through the UAE courts. The sub-charterer arrangements may generate regular payment flows that can be intercepted by garnishment or attachment orders.
(f) Monitor M/V *Volga Spirit* and prepare arrest application: M/V Volga Spirit (IMO 9756892, Panamax, 76,400 DWT, Cyprus flag) has been observed in the Arabian Gulf / Fujairah area. If the vessel is docked at or transits through UAE waters, it may be subject to arrest under UAE admiralty jurisdiction. Al-Rashid Hatem should monitor vessel movements and prepare the necessary arrest documentation. Given the vessel's current operating pattern, there is a reasonable prospect that an arrest opportunity will arise within the enforcement timeframe. If the vessel is arrested and cannot be released by the provision of adequate security, we would apply for appraisement and judicial sale.
(g) Expected timeline: Precautionary attachment can typically be obtained within days of filing the application. The enforcement order itself is expected to take approximately two to four (2–4) months from the date of filing, subject to any opposition and the court's schedule.
4.4.4 Estimated Recovery
The estimated recovery potential in the UAE is as follows:
•  EGCB accounts and receivables: Estimated AED 50–60 million (approximately £10–13 million equivalent)
•  M/V *Volga Spirit* (Panamax, 76,400 DWT): If arrested and sold, potentially USD $25–35 million (approximately £20–28 million equivalent), subject to i