PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE / LITIGATION PRIVILEGE
MEMORANDUM
To: Engagement Team File — Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA v. Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd.
From: Samuel Eklund (Responsible Partner), Hannah Brinkley (Lead Associate), Patrick Gallagher (Working Associate)
Date: 14 September 2024 (Original); Updated: 6 December 2024; Final Update: 10 March 2025
Re: Master Enforcement Strategy — Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement of LCIA Award No. 224718
Calderwood & Harkness LLP Matter No.: 1044-00001
Status: FINAL (Closing Phase)
Right-click to update Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
This memorandum constitutes the comprehensive strategy document governing the multi-jurisdictional enforcement campaign conducted by Calderwood & Harkness LLP ("C&H") on behalf of Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA ("TSL") in connection with the final award dated 28 June 2024 (the "Award") rendered by the tribunal in LCIA Arbitration No. 224718 in favour of TSL against Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. ("KMH"). The purpose of this memorandum is to set out in a single, centralised reference the totality of the enforcement strategy, to document the actions taken across each target jurisdiction, to report on results achieved, and to provide recommendations for the closing phase of the engagement.
The Award was rendered by a three-member tribunal constituted under the LCIA Rules and comprising Sir Malcolm Fenton-Clarke (Presiding Arbitrator), Professor Athena Drakopoulos, and Dr. Henrik Dalmqvist. The total quantum of the Award is £96,450,000 in damages and pre-award interest, together with costs allocated to KMH of £12,150,000 (comprising LCIA administrative and tribunal costs of £3,240,000 and TSL's legal costs of £8,910,000, reflecting an 85% allocation to KMH). The grand total of the Award and Costs is therefore £108,600,000. At the prevailing exchange rate as of the date of the Award (£1 = USD $1.2441), this represents an approximate United States dollar equivalent of $120,000,000. Post-award interest accrues at a rate of 5.25% per annum simple on the principal sum of £96,450,000 from 29 June 2024 until full satisfaction.
KMH has failed to satisfy the Award voluntarily. Intelligence gathered through our forensic accounting advisors, Hartwell Pemberton LLP ("HP"), indicates that KMH has engaged in active dissipation of assets across multiple jurisdictions in the period following the issuance of the Award. The enforcement strategy accordingly targets four jurisdictions in which KMH and its subsidiaries maintain significant assets: England & Wales, Cyprus, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. The overarching objective of the campaign has been to maximise recovery through simultaneous, coordinated enforcement actions while deploying freezing and protective measures to prevent further asset dissipation.
As reflected in the final update to this memorandum dated 10 March 2025, the enforcement campaign has achieved total recoveries of £96,590,000, representing 88.94% of the combined Award and Costs figure of £108,600,000 (and approximately 85.99% of the Grand Total Owed inclusive of post-award interest through 15 March 2025). The outstanding balance as of 15 March 2025 is approximately £15,617,726.03, inclusive of post-award interest accrued through that date. Enforcement orders have been obtained in all four target jurisdictions, the set-aside application brought by KMH in England has been dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis, and the matter is now transitioning to a reduced-scope monitoring and closing posture.
2. Background
2.1 The Client
Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA ("TSL") is a Société Anonyme organised under the laws of the Hellenic Republic. Its registered office is located at 14 Akti Miaouli, 4th Floor, Piraeus 185 35, Greece. Its Greek tax identification number (AFM) is EL-801456729.
TSL was founded in 1987 by the Papadimitriou family and has grown into a substantial participant in the international shipping and logistics industry. The company currently operates a fleet of 34 vessels, comprising bulk carriers, tankers, and container feeders, and provides integrated logistics services across the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and the Arabian Gulf. TSL's annual revenues for financial year 2023 were approximately €620,000,000.
The ownership structure of TSL is as follows: 72% of the issued share capital is held by the Papadimitriou family trust, with the remaining 28% held by Aegean Capital Partners SA, a Greek-incorporated institutional investor. The company is led by the following key individuals who serve as the primary points of contact for the purposes of this engagement:
• Nikolaos Papadimitriou — Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
• Ioanna Christodoulou — General Counsel
• Elena Stavridis — Chief Financial Officer
• Captain Dimitrios Kouretas — Head of Chartering and Operations
TSL is a sophisticated and well-resourced client with extensive experience in international commercial disputes and the financial capacity to sustain the multi-jurisdictional enforcement campaign described in this memorandum. The company's financial strength is relevant to, among other things, its ability to provide the cross-undertaking in damages required in connection with the worldwide freezing order obtained in the English proceedings.
2.2 The Award Debtor — Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd.
Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. ("KMH") is a private limited company incorporated in Nicosia, Republic of Cyprus, under Company Registration No. HE 387421. Its registered address is 28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 601, Nicosia 1066, Cyprus.
KMH operates as a vessel-owning and chartering company and controls a fleet of approximately 18 dry-bulk carriers through a network of single-purpose vehicle ("SPV") subsidiaries incorporated in various jurisdictions, including Cyprus, the British Virgin Islands ("BVI"), Singapore, and Dubai. The company's fleet operations have historically been focused on the dry-bulk trade, serving routes in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Indian Ocean, and South-East Asian waters.
KMH is beneficially owned by the Volkov family through a layered holding structure comprising BVI and Cypriot entities. The key individuals associated with KMH are as follows:
• Andrei Volkov — Ultimate Beneficial Owner ("UBO") and de facto director of KMH and its subsidiaries. Mr. Volkov does not hold a formal directorial position in KMH itself but exercises effective control over all aspects of the group's operations and finances through nominee directors and related entities. He is a Russian national resident in Cyprus.
• Sergei Volkov — Director of KMH and son of Andrei Volkov. Mr. Volkov holds the title of Managing Director and is the signatory on certain of KMH's bank accounts. He is a Cypriot citizen resident in Limassol.
• Marina Kazakova — Chief Financial Officer of KMH. Ms. Kazakova is responsible for the financial management of the group, including the operation of its various bank accounts across multiple jurisdictions.
• Alexei Demidov — Director of Fleet Operations. Mr. Demidov manages the day-to-day operation, crewing, and maintenance of the KMH fleet.
Prior to the dispute giving rise to the Award, KMH's estimated net asset value was approximately USD $280,000,000. However, as detailed in Section 4 below and in the asset tracing reports prepared by HP, significant post-award asset-shifting and restructuring activities have reduced the quantum of readily attachable assets. The forensic evidence strongly suggests that these movements were undertaken deliberately in anticipation of, and in response to, the enforcement campaign.
KMH was the disponent owner of the three vessels at the centre of the charter-party dispute, and it was named as the sole respondent in the LCIA arbitration. In the arbitration proceedings, KMH was represented by Harkness Whitford & Co. (SRA Registration No. 614823), of 12 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP. The principal lawyers acting for KMH were Catherine Whitford (Partner), Richard Harkness (Senior Partner), and James Thornbury (Associate).
2.3 KMH Corporate and SPV Structure
The enforcement strategy has been shaped in significant measure by the complexity of KMH's corporate structure, which is designed to disperse assets across multiple jurisdictions and legal entities, thereby frustrating single-jurisdiction collection efforts. The key entities within the KMH group, as identified through C&H's analysis and HP's corporate structure tracing work, are as follows:
Oceangate Ventures Ltd. — A company incorporated in Cyprus under Registration No. HE 401293. Its registered address is 28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 604, Nicosia 1066, Cyprus. Oceangate functions as an intermediate holding company and is 100% owned by KMH. It holds the shares in the various fleet SPVs that directly own the vessels in the KMH group. Oceangate is therefore the crucial link in the ownership chain between KMH and the underlying vessel assets. Control of Oceangate confers effective control over the fleet.
Dnepr Shipholding Inc. — A company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands under Company No. 2014876. Its registered agent is Vantage Corporate Services Ltd., Road Town, Tortola, BVI. Dnepr is a fleet SPV held through Oceangate Ventures Ltd. and is the registered owner of two vessels central to this matter: M/V Aegean Fortuna (IMO 9784521) and M/V Volga Spirit (IMO 9756892). Dnepr does not appear to maintain significant assets other than the vessels themselves.
Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. — A company incorporated in Singapore with its registered office at 80 Robinson Road, #14-02, Singapore 068898. Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oceangate Ventures Ltd. and was the registered owner of M/V Crimson Horizon (IMO 9801334) prior to the post-award sale of that vessel. More importantly for enforcement purposes, Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) maintains accounts at Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd. into which proceeds from vessel operations and the M/V Crimson Horizon sale were deposited.
Korinthian DMCC — A Dubai Multi Commodities Centre free zone entity registered at Unit 3407, Almas Tower, Jumeirah Lakes Towers ("JLT"), Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Korinthian DMCC serves as the operational hub for KMH's activities in the Arabian Gulf region and holds operational funds and receivables from sub-charterers in that region. It maintains accounts at Emirates Gulf Commercial Bank PJSC ("EGCB"), Gate Village 3, DIFC, Dubai.
The corporate structure diagram prepared jointly by HP and C&H (attached as Appendix D) illustrates the full ownership chain from the Volkov family through BVI holding entities, to KMH, to Oceangate Ventures Ltd., and down to the individual fleet SPVs and operating subsidiaries. The structure is designed to ensure that no single entity holds a concentration of assets sufficient to satisfy the Award, and the dispersal of assets across Cyprus, Singapore, the BVI, and the UAE requires a coordinated multi-jurisdictional enforcement approach. The enforcement strategy addresses each node in the structure as described in Sections 4 and 5 below.
2.4 The Underlying Dispute and Award
The underlying dispute arose from three time charter-party agreements entered into between TSL (as charterer) and KMH (as disponent owner), each governed by English law and each containing an arbitration clause providing for LCIA arbitration seated in London. The three charters and their associated vessels are as follows:
(a) M/V *Aegean Fortuna* — IMO 9784521, Supramax Bulk Carrier, 58,200 DWT, marshall Islands flag, SPV owner Dnepr Shipholding Inc. The time charter-party was signed on 15 March 2019 for a period of five years.
(b) M/V *Crimson Horizon* — IMO 9801334, Handymax Bulk Carrier, 37,500 DWT, Liberian flag, SPV owner Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. The time charter-party was signed on 22 January 2020 for a period of four years.
(c) M/V *Volga Spirit* — IMO 9756892, Panamax Bulk Carrier, 76,400 DWT, Cyprus flag, SPV owner Dnepr Shipholding Inc. The time charter-party was signed on 10 June 2021 for a period of three years.
KMH's repudiatory breaches commenced in mid-2022 and involved a course of conduct across all three charter-parties that the tribunal characterised as a deliberate programme of disengagement from its contractual obligations. The specific breaches were as follows:
(a) M/V *Aegean Fortuna*: Wrongful early redelivery of the vessel on 18 June 2022, some 14 months before the charter-party's contractual redelivery date. KMH purported to redeliver the vessel by notice dated 14 June 2022, asserting that changed market conditions entitled it to terminate the charter. The tribunal found that no such entitlement existed and that the redelivery constituted a repudiatory breach.
(b) M/V *Crimson Horizon*: Failure to pay hire from 1 July 2022 onwards, resulting in arrears of £4,280,000 before TSL exercised its right to withdraw the vessel on 15 September 2022 pursuant to the anti-technicality clause following due notice. KMH made no attempt to cure the default during the grace period.
(c) M/V *Volga Spirit*: Fabricated off-hire deductions totalling approximately £2,740,000, purportedly based on alleged mechanical deficiencies that the tribunal found were either non-existent or attributable to KMH's own failure to maintain the vessel in accordance with its obligations as disponent owner.
TSL filed its Request for Arbitration with the LCIA on 14 November 2022, commencing LCIA Arbitration No. 224718. The tribunal was constituted on 8 February 2023, with Sir Malcolm Fenton-Clarke as presiding arbitrator, Professor Athena Drakopoulos and Dr. Henrik Dalmqvist as co-arbitrators, and Fiona Beckett serving as Tribunal Secretary. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with the LCIA Rules 2020. The evidentiary hearing took place over ten sitting days from 11 to 22 September 2023 at the International Dispute Resolution Centre ("IDRC") in London. Both parties were represented by experienced counsel throughout, and the proceedings were conducted with full procedural safeguards.
The Final Award was issued on 28 June 2024. The tribunal found unanimously in TSL's favour on all substantive claims. The damages breakdown in the Award is as follows:
The tribunal also allocated costs as follows, with 85% borne by KMH:
The Grand Total of the Award and Costs is therefore £108,600,000. Post-award interest runs at 5.25% per annum simple on the principal sum of £96,450,000 from 29 June 2024.
3. Engagement Team and Local Counsel Network
3.1 Calderwood & Harkness LLP (Lead Enforcement Counsel)
C&H serves as lead enforcement counsel for TSL in connection with the multi-jurisdictional enforcement of the Award. C&H has overall strategic responsibility for the enforcement campaign, including the coordination of local counsel in each target jurisdiction, the management of the English proceedings, and the oversight of the forensic and expert advisory workstreams. C&H's principal office is located at 45 Moorgate, London EC2R 6AR, United Kingdom.
The engagement team at C&H comprises the following individuals:
• Samuel Eklund — Responsible Partner. Mr. Eklund leads C&H's international arbitration and enforcement practice and has overall responsibility for the strategic direction of the enforcement campaign, client relationship management, and supervision of all work product. Hourly rate: £850.
• Linda Osei — Billing Partner. Ms. Osei is responsible for the financial management of the engagement, including compliance with the fee cap arrangements and the administration of billing across the multi-jurisdictional enforcement workstreams. Hourly rate: £825.
• Hannah Brinkley — Lead Associate. Ms. Brinkley serves as the day-to-day lead on the enforcement proceedings, with primary responsibility for the English court applications, the coordination of local counsel, and the preparation of this memorandum. Hourly rate: £540.
• Patrick Gallagher — Working Associate. Mr. Gallagher supports the enforcement campaign across all workstreams, with particular responsibility for the asset tracing coordination with HP, the preparation of court filings, and the maintenance of the multi-jurisdictional recovery tracker. Hourly rate: £420.
The fee arrangements for the enforcement phase are as follows:
• Fee cap: £4,200,000 (exclusive of disbursements and local counsel fees). This cap was agreed with TSL at the commencement of the enforcement phase and covers all C&H professional fees in connection with the enforcement campaign, including the English proceedings and the coordination of local counsel.
• Success fee: 2.5% of all amounts recovered in excess of £80,000,000. This contingent fee element aligns C&H's incentives with TSL's recovery objectives and is payable upon receipt of funds by TSL.
3.2 Local Counsel
C&H has retained experienced local counsel in each of the three non-English target jurisdictions. Each firm was selected based on its demonstrated expertise in international arbitration enforcement, its familiarity with the local courts and procedures applicable to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and its ability to move with the speed and urgency required by the simultaneous filing strategy. The local counsel network is as follows:
Cyprus — Kyprianos Makrides & Partners
15 Grivas Digenis Avenue, Nicosia 1066, Republic of Cyprus
• Andreas Kyprianos — Senior Partner. Mr. Kyprianos leads the firm's international dispute resolution practice and has extensive experience in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Cypriot courts.
• Nadia Makrides — Partner, Litigation and Enforcement. Ms. Makrides is the day-to-day point of contact for the Cyprus enforcement proceedings and has particular expertise in Cypriot civil procedure, including freezing injunctions and execution mechanisms.
Estimated fees for the Cyprus enforcement: €285,000.
Singapore — Straits Meridian LLP
1 Raffles Place, #44-01 One Raffles Place Tower 2, Singapore 048616
• David Teo Wei Lin — Partner. Mr. Teo leads the firm's arbitration and admiralty practice and has responsibility for the Singapore enforcement proceedings, including the originating summons for leave to enforce and the garnishee proceedings against Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd.
• Priya Subramaniam — Senior Associate. Ms. Subramaniam has day-to-day conduct of the Singapore proceedings and has particular expertise in the admiralty jurisdiction, including vessel arrest under the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act.
Estimated fees for the Singapore enforcement: SGD $480,000.
United Arab Emirates — Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates
Office 1802, Emirates Financial Towers (South Tower), DIFC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
• Tariq Al-Rashid — Managing Partner. Mr. Al-Rashid leads the firm's dispute resolution practice and has extensive experience in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE courts, including both the onshore Dubai courts and the DIFC Courts.
• Leila Hatem — Partner, Dispute Resolution. Ms. Hatem has day-to-day conduct of the UAE enforcement proceedings and oversees the translation and legalisation process required for UAE court filings.
Estimated fees for the UAE enforcement: AED 620,000.
3.3 Forensic and Expert Advisors
The enforcement campaign has been supported by the following forensic and expert advisory firms:
Hartwell Pemberton LLP — Forensic Accountants
25 Old Broad Street, London EC2N 1HN
• Rebecca Saunders — Partner. Ms. Saunders leads HP's engagement with C&H and has overall responsibility for the asset tracing and financial analysis workstreams.
• Mark Huxley — Director. Mr. Huxley is the principal analyst on the engagement and has conducted the detailed corporate structure and bank account tracing that has underpinned the enforcement targeting decisions.
HP was engaged for global asset tracing, corporate structure analysis, interest calculations, and financial analysis supporting the enforcement campaign. HP has produced three principal reports: the Preliminary Asset Tracing Report dated 15 August 2024 (Appendix A), the Supplemental Asset Tracing Report dated 1 October 2024 (Appendix B), and the Post-Award Asset Movement Analysis dated 25 November 2024 (Appendix C).
Estimated fees: £345,000.
Northcape Maritime Advisory Ltd. — Shipping Valuation Experts
3 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1WY
• Captain Ian Forsyth — Managing Director. Captain Forsyth is an experienced maritime surveyor and valuation expert who has provided vessel valuations in connection with the judicial sale of M/V Crimson Horizon and the assessment of remaining vessel assets.
Northcape was engaged for vessel valuations and maritime advisory services in connection with the enforcement campaign. Northcape's fees are included within the disbursements figure reported in Section 10.
4. Asset Identification and Prioritisation
4.1 Summary of Known Assets
The identification and prioritisation of KMH's assets has been a central component of the enforcement strategy from its inception. HP was engaged immediately following the issuance of the Award to conduct a comprehensive global asset tracing exercise. HP's work has produced a Preliminary Asset Tracing Report dated 15 August 2024 (Appendix A) and a Supplemental Asset Tracing Report dated 1 October 2024 (Appendix B), which together provide the factual foundation for the enforcement targeting decisions set out in this memorandum.
Prior to the dispute, KMH's estimated net asset value was approximately USD $280,000,000, comprising principally the value of its fleet of approximately 18 dry-bulk carriers, together with operational bank balances, receivables from sub-charterers, and the equity value of its various corporate subsidiaries. However, HP's analysis reveals that significant post-award transfers and corporate restructuring have reduced the quantum of readily attachable assets. The transfers identified by HP include movements of funds between KMH and its subsidiaries, the purported sale of vessels to ostensibly unrelated entities, and the routing of operational revenue through new channels designed to place funds beyond the immediate reach of enforcement.
The assets identified through HP's work have been categorised by jurisdiction and enforcement feasibility, as set out in Sections 4.2 through 4.6 below. Each asset category has been assigned a priority rating reflecting the combination of estimated attachable value, the enforcement framework available in the relevant jurisdiction, and the practical challenges associated with recovery.
4.2 England & Wales Assets
KMH maintains bank accounts at Meridian Trust Bank Ltd., 50 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9EA. Intelligence gathered by HP through corporate filing analysis, regulatory disclosures, and information subsequently confirmed through the worldwide freezing order disclosure indicates that these accounts held balances of approximately £18,000,000 to £20,000,000 as of mid-July 2024. The Meridian Trust accounts appear to serve as a principal operating account for KMH's London-facing operations, including the receipt of charter-party payments from English-based counterparties and the payment of London-based service providers.
Priority: HIGH. England & Wales offers the most favourable enforcement regime for the present purposes. The Arbitration Act 1996, section 66 provides a streamlined mechanism for enforcement of the Award as a judgment of the Commercial Court, and third-party debt orders under CPR Part 72 provide direct access to the funds held at Meridian Trust. The familiarity of the Commercial Court with LCIA award enforcement and the speed with which applications can be processed make England the logical first-mover jurisdiction.
4.3 Cyprus Assets
Cyprus is KMH's corporate domicile and the jurisdiction in which its most structurally significant assets are located. The key assets identified in Cyprus are as follows:
(a) KMH's 100% shareholding in Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (Registration No. HE 401293) — Oceangate is the intermediate holding company through which KMH holds its fleet SPVs. Control of Oceangate confers control over the downstream vessel-owning entities, including Dnepr Shipholding Inc. and Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. The shares in Oceangate are a direct asset of KMH and are therefore subject to execution against KMH without the need for corporate veil piercing.
(b) KMH Cyprus bank accounts — KMH maintains accounts with one or more Cypriot banks. The precise balances were established through the enforcement process and the WFO disclosure.
The estimated attachable value of the Cyprus assets is £20,000,000 to £25,000,000, comprising the value of the Oceangate shares and the bank account balances.
Priority: HIGH. Cyprus is a New York Convention contracting state with a well-established framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. As KMH's corporate home jurisdiction, Cyprus is the natural venue for execution against KMH's shareholdings and corporate assets. The shares in Oceangate represent the most structurally significant asset in the enforcement campaign, as their forced sale or transfer would confer control over the substantial fleet assets held downstream.
4.4 Singapore Assets
Singapore is the jurisdiction in which KMH's subsidiary, Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., maintains its registered office and bank accounts. The key assets identified in Singapore are as follows:
(a) Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. accounts at Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd., 6 Battery Road, #20-01, Singapore 049909. These accounts are believed to hold the proceeds from vessel operations and the post-award sale of M/V Crimson Horizon. HP's intelligence indicates that the sale proceeds, rather than being remitted to the parent company, have remained in the Pinnacle Bank accounts. The estimated balance is SGD $30,000,000 to $35,000,000.
(b) M/V *Crimson Horizon (IMO 9801334) — Vessel movements tracked through AIS data indicated that M/V Crimson Horizon* might call at ports within Singapore waters, creating an opportunity for arrest. The vessel was registered to Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. at the time of the enforcement. Although the vessel was reportedly sold post-award, the transfer of ownership had not been completed at the time of arrest.
The estimated attachable value of the Singapore assets is SGD $30,000,000 to $35,000,000 in bank accounts, in addition to the value of M/V Crimson Horizon itself if arrest could be effected.
Priority: HIGH. Singapore offers a robust enforcement framework under the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A), and the Singapore High Court has extensive experience in the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Critically, the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act provides in rem jurisdiction for vessel arrest, and the associated ship doctrine available under Singapore law permits the arrest of vessels beneficially owned by the judgment debtor or entities within the same beneficial ownership group. This creates a dual enforcement pathway: garnishee proceedings against the bank accounts and vessel arrest in respect of M/V Crimson Horizon.
4.5 UAE Assets
The United Arab Emirates is the jurisdiction in which KMH's free zone subsidiary, Korinthian DMCC, conducts its Arabian Gulf operations. The key assets identified in the UAE are as follows:
(a) Korinthian DMCC accounts and receivables at Emirates Gulf Commercial Bank PJSC ("EGCB"), Gate Village 3, DIFC, Dubai. Korinthian DMCC operates as the regional hub for KMH's chartering and logistics activities in the Arabian Gulf, and its accounts at EGCB receive operational funds and sub-charterer receivables on an ongoing basis. The estimated attachable value of these accounts and receivables is AED 50,000,000 to AED 55,000,000.
(b) M/V *Volga Spirit* (IMO 9756892, Cyprus flag, Panamax Bulk Carrier, 76,400 DWT) — The vessel's movements have been tracked through AIS data, and the vessel has been observed making calls at the Fujairah anchorage. If the vessel were to enter UAE waters at a time when enforcement proceedings are in place, it could potentially be the subject of an admiralty arrest. However, vessel arrest in the UAE would require a separate proceeding and the fulfilment of additional procedural requirements.
Priority: MEDIUM-HIGH. The UAE enforcement framework is more procedurally complex than the other target jurisdictions, principally due to translation and legalisation requirements applicable to foreign documents filed with the UAE courts. However, the significant value of the assets present in the jurisdiction justifies the additional procedural burden. The availability of precautionary attachment under the UAE Civil Procedure Law provides an effective protective mechanism pending the grant of the enforcement order.
4.6 Other Potential Assets
In addition to the jurisdiction-specific assets described above, the following additional assets have been identified as potential targets for enforcement:
Sub-charterer receivables. HP's tracing work has identified approximately £4,200,000 in receivables owed to KMH and its subsidiaries by various sub-charterers. These receivables arise from sub-charter-party arrangements under which KMH and its subsidiaries have sub-let vessels to third-party operators. The attachment of these receivables requires the identification of each sub-charterer and the jurisdiction in which payment is to be made. The mechanisms for attachment vary by jurisdiction and sub-charterer.
M/V *Volga Spirit* (IMO 9756892) — This vessel is owned by Dnepr Shipholding Inc. (BVI Company No. 2014876), which is held through Oceangate Ventures Ltd. The vessel is a Panamax Bulk Carrier of 76,400 DWT, flagged in Cyprus. Vessel valuation is to be obtained from Northcape Maritime Advisory Ltd. (Captain Ian Forsyth). The vessel was last reported at the Fujairah anchorage and has not made a port call in any jurisdiction where an arrest application is currently pending. AIS monitoring is ongoing to identify arrest opportunities.
M/V *Aegean Fortuna* (IMO 9784521) — This vessel is also owned by Dnepr Shipholding Inc. and is flagged in the marshall Islands. It is a Supramax Bulk Carrier of 58,200 DWT. Arrest of this vessel would require identification of a suitable port call in a jurisdiction where enforcement of the Award has been or can be established. AIS monitoring continues.
Additional BVI entities. KMH's corporate structure includes entities incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. While direct enforcement options in the BVI are limited, indirect routes through parent/subsidiary piercing or through the attachment of assets held by BVI entities in other jurisdictions may be available. These options are held in reserve pending the outcome of the primary enforcement campaign.
5. Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction Enforcement Strategy
5.1 England & Wales
5.1.1 Legal Framework
England & Wales is the seat of the arbitration and the jurisdiction in which the most streamlined enforcement mechanisms are available. The principal legal instruments applicable to the English enforcement proceedings are as follows:
• Arbitration Act 1996, section 66: This provision permits the holder of an arbitral award to apply to the court for permission to enforce the award "in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court to the same effect." Upon the grant of permission, judgment may be entered in terms of the award. The application is made to the Commercial Court (Queen's Bench Division) and is ordinarily determined on paper without a hearing, unless the respondent raises a substantive objection.
• CPR Part 72: Third-party debt orders (formerly known as garnishee orders) provide a mechanism for the direct attachment of debts owed by third parties (such as banks) to the judgment debtor. An interim third-party debt order freezes the relevant account, and a final order compels the third party to pay the debt directly to the judgment creditor.
• CPR Part 25: The court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief, including worldwide freezing orders (formerly Mareva injunctions), in support of arbitral awards and their enforcement. A freezing order restrains the respondent from dealing with its assets up to a specified value and typically includes ancillary asset disclosure provisions.
The Commercial Court in London has extensive experience in the enforcement of LCIA awards and is widely regarded as one of the most efficient and arbitration-friendly courts in the world for enforcement purposes. Applications under section 66 are routinely dealt with expeditiously, and the court is well versed in the considerations applicable to worldwide freezing orders in the enforcement context.
5.1.2 Sequencing. The enforcement proceedings in England were planned and executed in the following sequence:
Step 1: File application for permission to enforce the Award under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (Claim No. CL-2024-000487 in the Commercial Court). The target filing date was 15 July 2024. The application was accompanied by the Award, the arbitration agreement, and the supporting evidence required under CPR Part 62.
Step 2: Apply without notice for a worldwide freezing order simultaneously with the section 66 application, to prevent dissipation of KMH's assets while the enforcement application was processed and served. The target date for the WFO application was 16 July 2024, the day following the filing of the section 66 application.
Step 3: Serve the WFO and the section 66 application on KMH through its English solicitors, Harkness Whitford & Co. The WFO was served immediately upon grant, together with the section 66 application and all supporting materials.
Step 4: Apply for an interim third-party debt order against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. in respect of KMH's accounts. The target timing for this application was as soon as practicable after the grant of permission under section 66, so that the TPDO would be supported by a judgment of the court.
Step 5: Attend the return date for the WFO and argue for continuation of the order, with or without modifications as appropriate. The return date was scheduled for 30 July 2024.
Step 6: Attend the final hearing for the third-party debt order and obtain a final order compelling Meridian Trust to pay the garnished funds to TSL.
Step 7: Defend any application by KMH to set aside the Award under sections 68 or 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
5.1.3 WFO Strategy and Requirements
The application for a worldwide freezing order was a critical component of the enforcement strategy, providing the umbrella protective mechanism under which the jurisdiction-specific enforcement proceedings could be pursued with confidence that KMH would not succeed in dissipating its remaining assets. The requirements for the grant of a WFO were satisfied as follows:
Good arguable case. This requirement was straightforwardly satisfied by the existence of the Final Award. A final LCIA award in favour of TSL, rendered by a tribunal of eminent standing following a full evidentiary hearing, provides the strongest possible basis for establishing a good arguable case. No serious dispute on the merits could credibly be raised by KMH.
Risk of dissipation. The evidence submitted in support of the WFO application demonstrated a real and substantial risk that KMH would dissipate its assets so as to frustrate enforcement. The specific evidence relied upon included the following: (a) HP's analysis of post-award transfers of funds between KMH and its subsidiaries, including movements from the Meridian Trust accounts to offshore entities; (b) KMH's corporate restructuring activities in the period immediately following the Award, including the purported sale of M/V Crimson Horizon and the establishment of new corporate vehicles; (c) the movement of funds between SPVs in the KMH group, suggesting a deliberate programme of asset dispersal; (d) the Volkov family's documented use of layered BVI and Cypriot holding structures designed to obscure the beneficial ownership and location of assets; and (e) the failure of KMH to make any voluntary payment on account of the Award or to enter into any settlement discussions, despite the clear and unambiguous nature of the tribunal's findings.
Balance of convenience. The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the grant of the WFO. KMH is an award debtor with a clear obligation to satisfy the Award. There is no legitimate business reason for KMH to resist enforcement or to require unrestricted access to its worldwide assets in circumstances where it owes £108,600,000 to TSL. The WFO was drafted with the standard exceptions for ordinary course of business expenditure and legal fees, which adequately protect any legitimate interests of KMH.
Maximum restrained sum. The proposed maximum restrained sum was £108,600,000, equal to the total of the Award and Costs. This figure was adopted as the benchmark for the WFO on the basis that it represented the full amount due from KMH, exclusive of post-award interest, and would ensure that the court's protective mechanism covered the entirety of TSL's entitlement under the Award.
Ancillary asset disclosure provisions. The WFO included a requirement that KMH disclose, within seven days of service, all assets worldwide with a value exceeding £25,000, including bank accounts, real property, investments, receivables, and interests in any corporate entities. This disclosure obligation proved to be one of the most valuable elements of the WFO, as the information obtained through KMH's (reluctant and incomplete) compliance informed the targeting decisions in all four enforcement jurisdictions.
Cross-undertaking in damages. TSL provided the standard cross-undertaking in damages required as a condition of the WFO. TSL's financial capacity to honour this undertaking was demonstrated by reference to its annual revenues of approximately €620,000,000 and its audited financial statements for FY2023, which were provided to the court in support of the application.
5.1.4 Third-Party Debt Order — Meridian Trust Bank Ltd.
The target of the third-party debt order application was Meridian Trust Bank Ltd., 50 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9EA. HP's intelligence indicated that KMH maintained accounts at Meridian Trust with balances of approximately £18,000,000 to £20,000,000 as of mid-July 2024.
The procedure for obtaining a TPDO is a two-stage process. An interim order is applied for without notice and, if granted, is served on the third-party bank, which is obliged to freeze the relevant accounts pending the return date. At the final hearing, approximately four weeks after the grant of the interim order, the court determines whether a final order should be made requiring the bank to pay the frozen funds to the judgment creditor. The principal risk in the interim period is that the judgment debtor may attempt to withdraw or transfer funds from the account before the order takes effect. In the present case, this risk was mitigated by the WFO, which independently restrained KMH from dealing with its assets at Meridian Trust.
5.1.5 Anticipated KMH Defences
The enforcement team conducted a thorough assessment of the defences likely to be raised by KMH in the English proceedings. The principal anticipated grounds were as follows:
Set-aside under section 68 (serious irregularity). KMH was expected to, and did, raise a challenge to the Award on the grounds of serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The likely ground was alleged procedural unfairness during the ten-day evidentiary hearing, including the tribunal's treatment of certain categories of evidence and the alleged failure to deal with all issues raised in KMH's submissions. The assessment of this risk was LOW. The threshold for establishing serious irregularity under section 68 is very high, requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the irregularity "has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant." The tribunal under Sir Malcolm Fenton-Clarke conducted thorough and meticulous proceedings, with extensive procedural orders, pre-hearing conferences, and detailed case management. The Tribunal Secretary's procedural notes, produced and circulated to both parties during the proceedings, demonstrate that all issues raised by KMH were addressed in the tribunal's deliberations.
Appeal on a point of law under section 69. KMH was expected to, and did, seek leave to appeal on a point of law under section 69, challenging the tribunal's damages quantification methodology, in particular the calculation of the loss of bargain component and the market differential assessment. The assessment of this risk was VERY LOW. Leave to appeal under section 69 is granted only where the court is satisfied that the question is "one of general public importance" and that the tribunal's decision is "at least open to serious doubt." The tribunal's application of English law to charter-party damages was orthodox, following well-established principles from the leading authorities on time charter-party breach.
The overall set-aside risk was assessed at less than 10%. The contingency plan in the event of an adverse ruling on set-aside was as follows: vigorous opposition at all stages; preparation for a contested hearing within two to three months of filing; argument for indemnity costs if the challenge was dismissed as unmeritorious; and continuation of parallel enforcement in non-English jurisdictions, which would proceed independently of the English set-aside proceedings on the basis of the Award itself under the New York Convention.
5.1.6 Results (Updated)
The English enforcement proceedings have been completed with the following results:
• Section 66 permission: Granted by Mr. Justice Ashworth on 2 August 2024. Judgment was entered in terms of the Award.
• Worldwide freezing order: Granted without notice on 16 July 2024 by Mr. Justice Ashworth up to the maximum restrained sum of £108,600,000. KMH was ordered to disclose all assets exceeding £25,000 within seven days of service. The WFO was served on Harkness Whitford & Co. on 17 July 2024. On the return date of 30 July 2024, the WFO was continued with certain modifications to accommodate KMH's representations regarding ordinary course of business expenditure. The substantive scope and maximum restrained sum were maintained.
• Third-party debt order — Meridian Trust Bank Ltd.: An interim TPDO was granted on 5 August 2024 and served on Meridian Trust the same day. The final hearing took place on 3 September 2024, at which the court made a final third-party debt order. The total amount garnished from KMH's accounts at Meridian Trust was £18,720,000.
• Set-aside application: KMH filed an application to set aside the Award on 19 August 2024, relying on grounds under both sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The application was heard by Mr. Justice Ashworth on 8 and 9 October 2024. By a reserved judgment handed down on 11 October 2024, Mr. Justice Ashworth dismissed the set-aside application in its entirety, finding that the section 68 grounds were without merit and refusing leave to appeal under section 69. Costs were awarded to TSL on an indemnity basis, reflecting the court's finding that the application was unmeritorious and brought, in part, as a tactical device to delay enforcement.
• Total England recovery: £18,720,000.
5.2 Cyprus
5.2.1 Legal Framework
The Republic of Cyprus is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which has been implemented into Cypriot domestic law through the Arbitration Law (Cap. 4) and its subsequent amendments. The enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Cyprus requires an application for recognition and enforcement to the Nicosia District Court (or the district court of the place where the assets are situated), accompanied by the original or certified copy of the award, the original or certified copy of the arbitration agreement, and certified translations into Greek where the documents are not in that language.
The Cypriot courts have consistently applied a pro-enforcement approach to New York Convention applications, consistent with the Convention's object and purpose. The grounds for refusal of enforcement are limited to those enumerated in Article V of the Convention and are construed narrowly.
In addition to the enforcement mechanism, interim freezing relief is available under the Cypriot civil procedure rules. A freezing injunction can be obtained from the District Court to restrain the disposal of assets pending the determination of enforcement proceedings, analogous to the Mareva injunction in English law.
5.2.2 Sequencing. The Cyprus enforcement proceedings were planned and executed in the following sequence:
Step 1: Instruct Kyprianos Makrides & Partners. Formal instructions were sent on 6 August 2024, together with copies of the Award, the arbitration agreements, the evidence of KMH's corporate structure and Cyprus-based assets, and a briefing note on the enforcement strategy.
Step 2: File application for recognition and enforcement of the Award in the Nicosia District Court (Case No. 2247/2024). The target filing date was 9 August 2024.
Step 3: Apply for a freezing injunction over KMH's 100% shareholding in Oceangate Ventures Ltd. and KMH's Cyprus bank accounts. The target date for the freezing application was 12 August 2024.
Step 4: Serve the enforcement application and the freezing injunction on KMH at its registered address in Nicosia and on Vassiliadis & Economou LLC, who had been identified as KMH's anticipated local counsel in Cyprus.
Step 5: Oppose any opposition filed by KMH under Article V of the New York Convention and argue for the enforcement order to be granted.
Step 6: Obtain the enforcement order and execute against the Oceangate shares and KMH's bank accounts through the appropriate Cypriot execution mechanisms.
5.2.3 Asset Targets
The principal asset target in Cyprus was KMH's 100% shareholding in Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (Registration No. HE 401293). As noted above, Oceangate is the intermediate holding company through which KMH holds its fleet SPVs. Forced sale of the Oceangate shares would transfer control of the downstream fleet assets, including the vessel-owning entities Dnepr Shipholding Inc. and Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. The value of the Oceangate shares is a function of the net asset value of the entities held beneath it, including the vessels, bank accounts, and receivables of the fleet SPVs.
The valuation of the Oceangate shares was coordinated between HP and C&H, with input from Northcape Maritime Advisory Ltd. on the vessel values. The secondary target was KMH's Cyprus bank accounts, the balances of which were established through the enforcement process and the WFO disclosure obligations.
5.2.4 Anticipated KMH Defences (Cyprus)
KMH was expected to instruct Vassiliadis & Economou LLC (7 Stasinou Avenue, 3rd Floor, Nicosia 1060; principal lawyers Georgios Vassiliadis and Eleni Economou) to oppose the enforcement application. The anticipated grounds of opposition were as follows:
(a) Public policy defence under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention: KMH was expected to argue that enforcement of the Award would be contrary to the public policy of the Republic of Cyprus. This ground is available to the court of its own motion but is typically raised by the award debtor. Assessment: the public policy ground is construed very narrowly in Cypriot jurisprudence and is limited to cases where enforcement would violate fundamental principles of justice or morality. An English-law charter-party dispute arbitrated under the LCIA Rules raises no conceivable public policy concerns in Cyprus.
(b) Lack of proper notice under Article V(1)(b): KMH was expected to argue that it did not receive proper notice of the arbitration proceedings. Assessment: this ground is entirely without merit. KMH was represented by Harkness Whitford & Co. throughout the LCIA proceedings and participated fully in all procedural and substantive stages of the arbitration, including the ten-day evidentiary hearing.
Both anticipated grounds were assessed as weak, and the overall risk of refusal of enforcement in Cyprus was assessed as very low.
5.2.5 Results (Updated)
The Cyprus enforcement proceedings were completed with the following results:
• Enforcement application: Filed on 9 August 2024 in the Nicosia District Court (Case No. 2247/2024).
• Freezing injunction: Granted on 12 August 2024 over KMH's 100% shareholding in Oceangate Ventures Ltd. and KMH's Cyprus bank accounts. The injunction was served on KMH at its registered address and on Vassiliadis & Economou LLC.
• Opposition: Vassiliadis & Economou LLC filed opposition to the enforcement application on behalf of KMH, raising both the public policy ground under Article V(2)(b) and the notice ground under Article V(1)(b). The opposition was heard and dismissed by the Nicosia District Court.
• Enforcement order: Granted on 30 September 2024. The court recognised the Award and entered an enforceable order against KMH's Cyprus assets.
• Execution: The forced sale of KMH's 100% shareholding in Oceangate Ventures Ltd. and recovery from KMH's Cyprus bank accounts was completed between 22 October 2024 and 8 November 2024. The total recovery was £22,350,000 (GBP equivalent, converted from EUR at prevailing rates on the dates of receipt).
• Funds remitted to TSL's designated recovery account at Ionian National Bank SA, 22 Stadiou Street, Athens 105 64, Greece.
5.3 Singapore
5.3.1 Legal Framework
Singapore provides a robust and well-established framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The principal legal instruments are as follows:
• International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A): This statute gives effect to the New York Convention in Singapore and provides for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards by application to the Singapore High Court (General Division). The procedure is commenced by originating summons, and leave to enforce is granted unless the respondent establishes one of the limited grounds for refusal set out in the Act (which mirror the grounds in Article V of the New York Convention).
• High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act: This statute confers in rem jurisdiction on the Singapore High Court in respect of maritime claims, including claims arising from charter-parties and claims for damages in respect of the operation of vessels. Critically, the associated ship doctrine available under Singapore law permits the arrest of a vessel owned by a party "liable in personam" on the relevant maritime claim, or by a company in the same beneficial ownership group as that party. This doctrine extends the reach of the admiralty jurisdiction beyond the immediate judgment debtor to vessels owned by related entities within the same corporate group.
• Rules of Court: Garnishee proceedings (now termed "garnishee orders" under the 2021 Rules) provide a mechanism for the attachment of debts owed by third parties to the judgment debtor, analogous to the English third-party debt order.
5.3.2 Sequencing. The Singapore enforcement proceedings were planned and executed in the following sequence:
Step 1: Instruct Straits Meridian LLP. Formal instructions were sent on 10 August 2024, together with all necessary documentation.