PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Barristers and Solicitors 45 Moorgate, London EC2R 6AR, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7946 0100
MEMORANDUM
This memorandum is protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. It is prepared for the sole use of the addressees and should not be disclosed to any third party without the prior written consent of Calderwood & Harkness LLP. This memorandum contains legal analysis and strategic advice and is not intended to constitute a comprehensive statement of the law.
Right-click to update Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze the mechanism for attachment and execution against receivables owed by sub-charterers, trade counterparties, and other third-party debtors to Korinthian DMCC in the United Arab Emirates, following the enforcement order granted on 20 November 2024 by the Dubai Court of First Instance in Case No. 1893/2024. That enforcement order recognized and gave effect to LCIA Award No. 224718, dated 28 June 2024, which was rendered in favour of our client, Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA ("TSL" or the "Client"), against Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. ("KMH").
The Award, issued by a tribunal chaired by Sir Malcolm Fenton-Clarke, determined liability and quantum in connection with charter-party disputes involving three vessels in the KMH fleet. The tribunal awarded TSL the principal sum of £96,450,000 together with costs of £12,150,000, yielding a grand total of £108,600,000. Post-award interest accrues at a rate of 5.25% per annum simple on the principal sum of £96,450,000 from 28 June 2024 until the date of full satisfaction. As of 15 March 2025 (our target computation date for overall enforcement planning), the total amount outstanding inclusive of post-award interest is estimated at approximately £112,207,726.03, before credit for recoveries to date.
Korinthian DMCC (a DMCC free zone entity registered at Unit 3407, Almas Tower, Jumeirah Lake Towers, Dubai, UAE) is a subsidiary and affiliate of KMH that serves as the group's operational hub for chartering activities, freight receivables collection, and trade payments across the Arabian Gulf region. While KMH is the named respondent in the Award, Korinthian DMCC has been properly identified as an entity through which KMH holds and receives assets. A precautionary attachment over Korinthian DMCC's accounts at Emirates Gulf Commercial Bank PJSC ("EGCB") was granted by the Dubai Court of First Instance on 28 August 2024 and has now been converted to an execution attachment following the enforcement order of 20 November 2024.
Beyond the bank account balances frozen at EGCB, the forensic asset tracing work performed by Hartwell Pemberton LLP has identified significant trade receivables owed to Korinthian DMCC by sub-charterers and other trade counterparties, estimated at approximately AED 53,400,000 (equivalent to approximately £11,340,000 at prevailing exchange rates of approximately AED 1 = £0.2124). These receivables constitute a meaningful pool of attachable assets that, if successfully garnished, would substantially advance TSL's overall recovery in the multi-jurisdictional enforcement campaign.
This memorandum: (a) describes the procedural background and current posture of the UAE enforcement proceedings; (b) identifies the specific receivables available for attachment; (c) analyzes the legal framework under UAE law for third-party garnishment of debts owed to a judgment debtor; (d) addresses DMCC free zone and DIFC jurisdictional considerations; (e) provides practical recommendations for Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates, our UAE local counsel, to pursue execution against these receivables; and (f) assesses recovery prospects in the context of the overall enforcement campaign.
The core recommendation of this memorandum is that Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates should be instructed immediately to prepare and file applications for third-party attachment orders with the execution judge in Case No. 1893/2024, targeting each identified receivable debtor of Korinthian DMCC. Time is of the essence, given the risk that receivable debtors may settle directly with Korinthian DMCC or that KMH may take steps to redirect payment flows away from the DMCC entity.
2. Background and Procedural Posture
2.1 The LCIA Award and Enforcement Campaign
LCIA Award No. 224718 was issued on 28 June 2024 as a Final Award following an arbitration seated in London and conducted under the LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020. The tribunal was constituted as follows:
• 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: Fiona Beckett
The underlying dispute arose from three time charter-party agreements entered into between TSL (as charterer) and KMH (as disponent owner) in respect of the following vessels:
1. M/V *Aegean Fortuna* (IMO 9784521) — a 2018-built Supramax bulk carrier of approximately 63,000 DWT, registered in the marshall Islands;
2. M/V *Crimson Horizon* (IMO 9801334) — a 2019-built Ultramax bulk carrier of approximately 64,000 DWT, registered in Panama; and
3. M/V *Volga Spirit* (IMO 9756892) — a 2017-built Kamsarmax bulk carrier of approximately 82,000 DWT, registered in Liberia.
The tribunal found that KMH had committed repudiatory breaches of the three charter-parties by wrongfully withdrawing the vessels from TSL's service, re-delivering them to sub-charterers without TSL's consent, and diverting hire payments to entities outside the charter-party chain. The tribunal awarded damages representing TSL's loss of bargain on the three charters (calculated by reference to the differential between contract rate and market rate over the remaining charter periods), together with additional heads of loss including wasted costs, fuel expenditure, and port charges incurred as a consequence of the wrongful withdrawals.
The principal sum awarded was £96,450,000, and the tribunal also ordered KMH to pay TSL's costs of the arbitration, legal costs, and disbursements in the total amount of £12,150,000. Post-award simple interest at a rate of 5.25% per annum was ordered to accrue on the principal sum of £96,450,000 from the date of the Award until the date of full payment. No stay of the Award was granted, and KMH did not apply to set aside the Award under section 67 or section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, nor did it seek permission to appeal on a point of law under section 69.
KMH has not made any voluntary payment toward satisfaction of the Award. In consequence, TSL has been compelled to pursue a multi-jurisdictional enforcement campaign, currently underway in the following jurisdictions:
The aggregate amount recovered to date from the English, Cypriot, and Singaporean proceedings is approximately £77,850,000 (excluding UAE), representing approximately 72% of the Award plus Costs figure of £108,600,000. The UAE proceedings, and in particular the receivables targeted in this memorandum, represent a significant further opportunity to advance TSL toward full recovery.
2.2 UAE Enforcement Proceedings
The UAE enforcement proceedings were commenced on 22 August 2024, when TSL, through its UAE local counsel Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates, filed an application for enforcement of LCIA Award No. 224718 with the Dubai Court of First Instance under Case No. 1893/2024. The application was brought pursuant to UAE Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration (the "UAE Arbitration Law") and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the "New York Convention"), to which the UAE is a party.
The application was accompanied by a request for precautionary attachment under Articles 247 et seq. of UAE Federal Law No. 11 of 1992 as amended (the "UAE Civil Procedure Law") over the accounts held by Korinthian DMCC at Emirates Gulf Commercial Bank PJSC. The precautionary attachment was granted on 28 August 2024, freezing all credit balances in accounts held in the name of Korinthian DMCC at EGCB's Dubai branch at Gate Village 3, DIFC. At the time of the attachment, the aggregate balance across Korinthian DMCC's accounts at EGCB was approximately AED 14,200,000 (approximately £3,015,000).
The enforcement application proceeded on notice to KMH, which was served through the Hague Convention mechanisms and through its registered agent in the UAE. KMH did not instruct separate UAE counsel for the purposes of these proceedings. Its London solicitors, Harkness Whitford & Co. (12 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1JP), have acted as lead counsel throughout the arbitration and enforcement proceedings in other jurisdictions but have not filed any substantive objection to enforcement in the UAE on behalf of either KMH or Korinthian DMCC.
On 20 November 2024, the Dubai Court of First Instance granted the enforcement order recognizing LCIA Award No. 224718 as enforceable in the UAE. As a consequence of this order, the precautionary attachment over Korinthian DMCC's accounts at EGCB has now been converted to an execution attachment, and TSL is entitled to proceed to execution against the attached assets.
Our UAE local counsel in these proceedings is Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates, with offices at Office 1802, Emirates Financial Towers (South Tower), DIFC, Dubai, UAE. The matter is handled by:
• Tariq Al-Rashid, Managing Partner; and
• Leila Hatem, Partner, Dispute Resolution.
Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates has been instructed by and reports to Calderwood & Harkness LLP and has no direct client relationship with TSL. All communications with the Client are channelled through this firm.
As noted above, KMH has not separately instructed UAE counsel for the Korinthian DMCC entity. KMH's principal advisers remain Harkness Whitford & Co. in London. It is possible that KMH may instruct UAE counsel to oppose the receivables attachment applications, and we should be prepared for that eventuality.
2.3 Korinthian DMCC — Entity Overview
The following corporate details for Korinthian DMCC are derived from the DMCC company register, the KMH group's disclosures under the Worldwide Freezing Order, and Hartwell Pemberton's forensic asset tracing reports:
Korinthian DMCC functions as the operational hub for KMH's chartering activities and freight receivables in the Arabian Gulf region. Its role within the KMH group structure is multifaceted: it acts variously as an agent for KMH-controlled vessels, as a disponent owner entering into sub-charter arrangements with regional counterparties, and as a broker facilitating chartering transactions for third-party owners. Revenue flows through Korinthian DMCC include sub-charter hire, freight receivables from cargo interests, brokerage commissions, and agency fees. Insurance claim proceeds and P&I club reimbursements are also routed through the entity.
The beneficial ownership structure, as disclosed under the WFO and confirmed by Hartwell Pemberton's investigations, is as follows:
• Korinthian DMCC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (HE 401293, Nicosia, Cyprus), which is itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. (HE 387421, Nicosia, Cyprus).
• The ultimate beneficial owner ("UBO") of the KMH group is Andrei Volkov, a Russian-Cypriot national. His brother, Sergei Volkov, serves as a director of both KMH and Korinthian DMCC.
• Alexei Demidov, Director of Fleet Operations at KMH, oversees the day-to-day operational activities of Korinthian DMCC from the Dubai office.
• Marina Kazakova, Chief Financial Officer of KMH, oversees financial reporting for the group, including Korinthian DMCC's accounts and treasury function.
The significance of Korinthian DMCC for the purposes of this enforcement campaign lies in the fact that it holds and receives substantial assets — both as bank account balances and as receivables from third parties — that are ultimately attributable to KMH and therefore available to satisfy the Award. The WFO granted by Mr. Justice Ashworth on 16 July 2024 extends worldwide and encompasses all assets held by or on behalf of KMH, including assets held through subsidiaries and nominees such as Korinthian DMCC.
3. Identification of Attachable Receivables
3.1 Source of intelligence
The receivables identified in this memorandum have been established through three principal sources of intelligence, each of which has contributed complementary data points:
(a) Hartwell Pemberton LLP Forensic Asset Tracing Reports. Hartwell Pemberton LLP, a specialist forensic investigations and asset tracing firm, has been engaged by Calderwood & Harkness LLP on behalf of TSL since July 2024 to trace and identify KMH group assets worldwide. The engagement is led by Rebecca Saunders (Partner, Investigations & Asset Recovery) and Mark Huxley (Director, Maritime & Trade Finance Investigations). Hartwell Pemberton has produced the following relevant reports:
(i) Preliminary Findings Report dated 15 August 2024, which first identified Korinthian DMCC as a significant asset-holding entity within the KMH group and provided initial estimates of receivable flows based on analysis of publicly available shipping fixture data, AIS vessel tracking records, and port agency reports;
(ii) Updated Findings Report dated 1 October 2024, which refined the receivables estimate based on additional intelligence gathered from the WFO disclosure (see below) and further analysis of Korinthian DMCC's known chartering counterparties; and
(iii) Post-Award Asset Movement Analysis dated 25 November 2024, which analyzed evidence of changes in payment flows and asset movements within the KMH group following the issuance of the Award on 28 June 2024, including potential diversion of receivables away from Korinthian DMCC to other group entities.
(b) KMH's Asset Disclosure Under the Worldwide Freezing Order. The Worldwide Freezing Order granted on 16 July 2024 by Mr. Justice Ashworth in the Commercial Court proceedings (CL-2024-000487) required KMH to make disclosure of all assets worldwide exceeding £10,000 in value, including assets held through subsidiaries and nominees. KMH's disclosure affidavit, sworn by Marina Kazakova (CFO) on 2 August 2024, provided details of Korinthian DMCC's bank accounts, outstanding receivables, and contractual relationships with sub-charterers and trade counterparties. While the disclosure was not comprehensive (and we have identified deficiencies that are the subject of a pending contempt application in England), it did confirm the existence and general magnitude of the receivable categories identified by Hartwell Pemberton.
(c) Information From the UAE Precautionary Attachment Process. The precautionary attachment granted on 28 August 2024 required EGCB to freeze Korinthian DMCC's accounts and to provide to the court information regarding those accounts. Bank records produced by EGCB in response to the attachment order disclosed incoming payment patterns, including regular receipts from identified sub-charterers and trade counterparties, which corroborated the receivables analysis and enabled Hartwell Pemberton to refine its estimates of amounts currently outstanding.
Taken together, these three sources provide a reasonably robust picture of the receivables owed to Korinthian DMCC. While we do not have direct access to Korinthian DMCC's internal accounting records or the underlying sub-charter and trading contracts (save as disclosed under the WFO), the convergence of the three data sets provides a sound evidential basis for the attachment applications recommended herein.
3.2 Identified Receivables — Schedule
The following sections describe the categories of receivables identified as owed to Korinthian DMCC by third parties, together with estimated quantum. A detailed schedule is set out at Annex A to this memorandum. For ease of reference, the principal categories and counterparties are summarized below.
3.2.1 Sub-Charter Hire Receivables
The largest category of receivables relates to sub-charter hire owed by regional sub-charterers with whom Korinthian DMCC has entered into time or voyage charter-party agreements in its capacity as disponent owner or chartering intermediary for vessels within the KMH fleet. Korinthian DMCC typically enters into sub-charters for vessels trading in the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean regions, collecting hire payments denominated in US dollars, which are then received into its accounts at EGCB in AED or USD equivalent.
The specific sub-charter hire receivables identified are as follows:
Sub-total: Sub-charter hire receivables — approximately AED 32,000,000.
These receivables are derived from ongoing commercial relationships and are supported by the following evidence: (i) EGCB bank records showing regular monthly hire payment receipts from the counterparties listed above; (ii) fixture reports published by Baltic Exchange panellists and independent brokers confirming the employment of the relevant vessels on sub-charters arranged by Korinthian DMCC; (iii) the WFO disclosure affidavit, which listed active sub-charter agreements (albeit without full disclosure of amounts outstanding); and (iv) Hartwell Pemberton's analysis of AIS data and port call records, which corroborated the trading patterns and fixture durations.
We note that some of these receivables (particularly those owed by Al-Safwa Bulk Carriers LLC and Gulf Star Shipping Co. W.L.L.) may be subject to set-off claims by the sub-charterers for bunker adjustments, speed and performance claims, or off-hire deductions. The estimates above are gross figures and do not account for potential set-offs. Hartwell Pemberton has estimated that set-off exposure across the sub-charter receivables portfolio is unlikely to exceed 10–15% of the gross amounts.
3.2.2 Freight and Cargo-Related Receivables
The second category comprises outstanding freight receivables from cargo interests for voyages completed (or in progress) by vessels within the KMH fleet where Korinthian DMCC was the contracting carrier or the entity entitled to collect freight under bills of lading or voyage charter-parties. These receivables arise from commodity trades (principally iron ore, coal, grain, and steel products) in the Arabian Gulf, Indian Ocean, and Red Sea corridors.
Sub-total: Freight and cargo-related receivables — approximately AED 12,500,000.
These receivables are supported by EGCB bank records showing freight collection patterns, Hartwell Pemberton's analysis of voyage records and bill of lading data, and fixture confirmation reports from shipbroking sources. We note that the receivable from Karachi Port Trading Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. is partially disputed — that entity is reported to have raised quality claims on the grain cargo — and accordingly the actual recoverable amount may be lower than the estimated AED 3,100,000 figure. However, Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates should still seek attachment of the full claimed amount, as the existence of a partial dispute does not preclude attachment of the undisputed portion.
3.2.3 Agency and Commission Receivables
Korinthian DMCC also earns commissions and agency fees for brokerage and chartering services provided to third-party vessel owners and charterers in the region. These fees arise where Korinthian DMCC acts as a competitive broker, arranging fixtures for vessels not owned or controlled by the KMH group, and also where it provides ship agency services at Arabian Gulf ports.
Sub-total: Agency and commission receivables — approximately AED 5,200,000.
These receivables are generally smaller in individual quantum but are well-documented through EGCB payment records showing periodic commission receipts. The commissions owed by Neptune Tankers Management Inc. and Trident Maritime Advisors Pte. Ltd. may require coordination with enforcement in Greece and Singapore, respectively, given that the ultimate payers are domiciled in those jurisdictions. However, to the extent that these counterparties hold funds in the UAE or have UAE-based representatives, attachment orders served in the UAE may be effective.
3.2.4 Insurance and Claims Receivables
The final category comprises outstanding insurance claim proceeds and P&I club reimbursements payable to Korinthian DMCC in respect of incidents or claims involving vessels managed or operated through the DMCC entity.
Sub-total: Insurance and claims receivables — approximately AED 3,700,000.
These receivables are inherently less certain than the sub-charter and freight receivables, as insurance claims are subject to adjustment by the insurers and may be reduced or denied. However, the P&I club reimbursement and hull claim appear to be at an advanced stage of processing, based on information obtained from the WFO disclosure and Hartwell Pemberton's inquiries with market contacts. We note that the Glenrock Assurance Marine Insurance claim proceeds may raise DIFC jurisdictional issues (see Section 4.4 below), as Glenrock Assurance Marine operates through a DIFC-registered branch.
3.2.5 Total Estimated Receivables
The total estimated receivables owed to Korinthian DMCC by identifiable third-party debtors, across all four categories, are as follows:
Conversion at AED 1 ≈ £0.2124, based on prevailing exchange rates as of 27 November 2024.
It should be noted that certain of these receivables may be disputed or partially set off by the third-party debtors. Furthermore, some receivables may have been partially paid or may become due at dates after the attachment applications are filed. A conservative recovery estimate, accounting for set-off risks, disputed amounts, and timing issues, suggests that between 80% and 90% of the gross receivables figure may ultimately be recoverable. This produces a range of approximately AED 42,700,000 to AED 48,000,000 (approximately £9,070,000 to £10,195,000).
3.3 Evidence and Documentation
The key documents supporting the existence and quantum of the receivables described above include:
(a) EGCB bank statements for Korinthian DMCC's accounts covering the period from January 2024 to August 2024 (obtained through the precautionary attachment process), showing incoming payment patterns, payer identities, and payment references;
(b) Sub-charter agreements between Korinthian DMCC and identified counterparties, produced (in part) under the WFO disclosure order — specifically, Exhibits MK-7 through MK-14 to the affidavit of Marina Kazakova dated 2 August 2024;
(c) Hartwell Pemberton LLP's forensic asset tracing reports (Preliminary Findings dated 15 August 2024, Updated Findings dated 1 October 2024, and Post-Award Asset Movement Analysis dated 25 November 2024), which analyze payment flows, vessel employment patterns, and counterparty relationships;
(d) Publicly available shipping fixture reports from Baltic Exchange panellists, Larkspur Partners LLC, and independent broking sources, confirming vessel employment and estimated hire rates;
(e) AIS vessel tracking data and port call records obtained by Hartwell Pemberton, corroborating voyage and trading patterns;
(f) The asset disclosure affidavit sworn by Marina Kazakova (CFO of KMH) on 2 August 2024 in compliance with the WFO, listing Korinthian DMCC's assets, bank accounts, and principal contractual relationships; and
(g) Information provided informally by EGCB through the UAE attachment process regarding the identity and frequency of payers into Korinthian DMCC's accounts.
We recommend that Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates seek an order from the execution judge in Case No. 1893/2024 requiring Korinthian DMCC to produce a full schedule of its receivables, counterparties, amounts, and due dates. While the WFO disclosure provides a partial picture, it was prepared as of early August 2024 and may be incomplete or outdated. An order from the UAE execution judge would compel production of current information directly relevant to the execution process and would assist in identifying any receivables not yet captured in our analysis.
4. Legal Framework for Third-Party Attachment of Receivables Under UAE Law
4.1 UAE Federal Law No. 11 of 1992 (Civil Procedure Law) — Garnishment/Attachment of Debts
The legal mechanism for attachment of debts owed by third parties to a judgment debtor in the UAE is governed by Articles 247 through 260 of UAE Federal Law No. 11 of 1992, as amended (the "UAE Civil Procedure Law"). This procedure is known in Arabic as "hajz ma ladal ghair" — literally, "attachment of what is in the hands of another" — and is functionally equivalent to garnishment or third-party debt orders in common law jurisdictions.
The key features of the mechanism, as relevant to this matter, are as follows:
Application to the Execution Judge. Once an enforcement order has been obtained (which occurred here on 20 November 2024 in Case No. 1893/2024), the judgment creditor may apply to the execution judge (qadi al-tanfiz) for an order attaching debts owed by identified third parties to the judgment debtor. The application must specify the third-party debtor, the nature and estimated amount of the debt, and the basis upon which the judgment creditor asserts that the debt is owed. Pursuant to Article 248, the execution judge has discretion to grant the attachment order ex parte or on notice, depending on the circumstances, though practice in the Dubai courts generally favours ex parte grant with subsequent notification to the judgment debtor and the third-party debtor.
Service on the Third-Party Debtor. Once granted, the attachment order must be served on the third-party debtor (the garnishee). Service may be effected through the court's process server or, in appropriate cases, through registered post or other means authorized by the court. The attachment order has the effect of freezing the debt in the hands of the third party: from the date of service, the third party is prohibited from paying the attached amount to the judgment debtor and is required to hold the funds pending further order of the court.
Declaration by the Third-Party Debtor. Under Article 252 of the UAE Civil Procedure Law, the third-party debtor is required to file with the court a written declaration (taqrir) within fifteen days of service of the attachment order. The declaration must confirm: (i) the existence of any debt owed to the judgment debtor; (ii) the amount of the debt; (iii) the date on which the debt fell or falls due; (iv) any prior attachments, assignments, or encumbrances affecting the debt; and (v) any set-off, counterclaim, or defence that the third-party debtor asserts against the judgment debtor. If the third-party debtor fails to file a declaration within the statutory timeframe, the court may, pursuant to Article 253, deem the debt to be admitted in the full amount claimed by the judgment creditor.
Payment Order. Where the third-party debtor confirms that a debt is owed (or where the debt is deemed admitted following failure to file a declaration), the execution judge may issue a payment order directing the third-party debtor to pay the attached amount directly to the judgment creditor or into the court's escrow account. The payment order is enforceable against the third-party debtor as if it were an independent judgment against that party.
Contested Debts. Where the third-party debtor disputes the existence or amount of the debt, or asserts a set-off or counterclaim, the execution judge may conduct a summary hearing to determine the issue. In complex cases, the judge may refer the dispute to the competent court for a plenary determination. However, in practice, the execution judge has broad discretion to resolve straightforward factual disputes summarily, particularly where the judgment creditor can present documentary evidence supporting the existence of the debt.
Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates has confirmed that the execution judge assigned to Case No. 1893/2024 is familiar with receivables attachment procedures and that applications of this nature are routinely processed within the Dubai Court of First Instance. Leila Hatem has indicated that the court will require a reasonably specific identification of each third-party debtor and the basis for asserting that a debt is owed, but that the standard of proof at the attachment stage is not onerous — a prima facie showing supported by documentary evidence (such as bank records, contracts, or forensic reports) is generally sufficient.
4.2 Conversion from Precautionary Attachment to Execution Attachment
The precautionary attachment over Korinthian DMCC's accounts at EGCB, granted on 28 August 2024, was obtained at a stage when the enforcement order had not yet been granted. Under UAE law, a precautionary attachment is a protective measure designed to preserve assets pending a decision on the merits (here, the enforcement application). Once the enforcement order was granted on 20 November 2024, the precautionary attachment automatically converted to an execution attachment by operation of law.
This conversion has the following practical consequences:
(a) TSL is now entitled to proceed to execution against the funds held in Korinthian DMCC's accounts at EGCB, rather than merely preserving them;
(b) The execution attachment captures not only the funds that were in the accounts at the time of the original precautionary attachment but also any funds received into the accounts subsequently, provided that appropriate notifications are maintained with EGCB; and
(c) TSL may now seek additional execution attachments against other assets of Korinthian DMCC, including the receivables that are the subject of this memorandum, without needing to first obtain a precautionary attachment.
For the receivables held by third parties other than EGCB (i.e., the sub-charterers, freight counterparties, commission debtors, and insurance counterparties identified in Section 3.2 above), separate attachment orders must be obtained from the execution judge targeting each specific third-party debtor. The precautionary attachment over the EGCB accounts does not extend to debts owed by third parties, as those debts are not held by EGCB. Accordingly, the attachment applications recommended in Section 5 below represent a distinct procedural step that must be taken in addition to the existing EGCB attachment.
4.3 DMCC Free Zone Considerations
Korinthian DMCC is incorporated within the DMCC Free Zone, which is one of approximately 45 free zones operating within the UAE. Free zones have their own regulatory authorities and internal procedures, and the question of enforcement of mainland court orders within free zones has historically been a subject of some complexity in UAE practice.
However, the position has been substantially clarified in recent years. The enforcement order obtained in Case No. 1893/2024 was granted by the Dubai Court of First Instance, which is a mainland court. The receivables that we seek to attach are owed by third parties, many of whom are located outside the DMCC Free Zone (e.g., entities incorporated in the Dubai mainland, in other Emirates, or in other GCC states). The attachment orders will be directed at those third-party debtors rather than at DMCC itself, and accordingly the DMCC free zone regulatory framework is not directly implicated in the attachment process.
To the extent that any third-party debtor is itself a DMCC or other free zone entity (e.g., Habibi Commodities DMCC, which is registered in the DMCC Free Zone), the attachment order from the Dubai Court of First Instance should be enforceable, as the DMCC Free Zone Authority has generally cooperated with execution of mainland court orders. Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates has confirmed that they have successfully served and enforced mainland court attachment orders on DMCC entities in prior matters and do not anticipate material procedural obstacles.
Any DMCC-specific procedural requirements (such as notification to the DMCC Registrar or compliance with the DMCC's internal dispute resolution procedures) will be addressed by Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates in the course of preparing the attachment applications.
4.4 DIFC Considerations
A distinct jurisdictional consideration arises in connection with EGCB and any receivable counterparties located within the Dubai International Financial Centre ("DIFC"). The DIFC is a federal financial free zone with its own independent court system (the DIFC Courts) and its own body of law (based on English common law principles). Entities incorporated or registered within the DIFC are, in principle, subject to the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts rather than the Dubai mainland courts.
EGCB's Dubai branch is located at Gate Village 3 within the DIFC, which has raised questions throughout this matter regarding the interaction between the Dubai mainland court's attachment order and the DIFC's separate jurisdictional regime. As Samuel and Hannah are aware, this issue was addressed at the precautionary attachment stage: the precautionary attachment was granted by the Dubai Court of First Instance and served on EGCB. Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates navigated the enforcement of this order through the "conduit jurisdiction" mechanism established by the Judicial Authority Law (Dubai Law No. 12 of 2004, as amended) and the reciprocal enforcement protocols between the Dubai mainland courts and the DIFC Courts. Specifically, the Dubai Court of First Instance's attachment order was ratified by the DIFC Courts for purposes of execution against EGCB's DIFC branch. Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates has confirmed that the attachment remains effective and that EGCB has complied with the freeze.
For the receivables attachment applications, the DIFC issue arises primarily in connection with:
(a) Glenrock Assurance Marine Insurance (DIFC branch) — The insurance claim receivable of approximately AED 1,200,000 is owed by a DIFC-registered entity. Attachment of this receivable may require a separate DIFC court order, or alternatively ratification of the Dubai mainland court's attachment order by the DIFC Courts through the conduit jurisdiction mechanism. Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates is assessing the most efficient procedural route and will advise within the next 72 hours.
(b) Any other counterparty that may have a DIFC presence — We are not presently aware of any other identified receivable debtor that is DIFC-incorporated, but this should be verified as part of the due diligence for the attachment applications.
For all other identified counterparties (those located in the Dubai mainland, in other Emirates, or in other GCC states), the DIFC jurisdictional issue does not arise, and the attachment orders can be obtained and served directly through the Dubai Court of First Instance's execution department.
4.5 Priority and Competing Claims
An important consideration in any receivables attachment exercise is the risk that other creditors may have prior or competing claims on the same receivables. We have considered this risk in consultation with Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates and Hartwell Pemberton and make the following observations:
Prior Attachments. Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates has conducted preliminary searches and is not aware of any prior court-ordered attachments on the receivables identified in Section 3.2. However, this can only be definitively confirmed through the third-party declaration process, as the attachment orders served on each third-party debtor will require that debtor to disclose any prior attachments or encumbrances.
Secured Creditors. It is possible that Korinthian DMCC has assigned or pledged some of its receivables as security for financing arrangements. The WFO disclosure did not identify any such assignments or pledges, but the disclosure was incomplete and may not have captured all financing arrangements. Hartwell Pemberton's analysis has not identified evidence of receivables financing, but this remains an area of uncertainty. If any receivable has been validly assigned or pledged prior to the date of our attachment, the assignee or pledgee would generally have priority over a subsequent attaching creditor.
Other Creditors of the KMH Group. To our knowledge, the only other significant enforcement creditor pursuing KMH group assets is Paragon Maritime Finance Ltd., which obtained a judgment of approximately £8,200,000 in the English Commercial Court in 2023 and has been seeking enforcement in various jurisdictions. However, we are not aware of Paragon having obtained any attachment orders in the UAE, and Hartwell Pemberton's intelligence does not suggest that Paragon has targeted Korinthian DMCC's receivables.
The Worldwide Freezing Order. The WFO granted by Mr. Justice Ashworth on 16 July 2024 extends worldwide and encompasses all assets held by or on behalf of KMH, including assets held through Korinthian DMCC. The WFO prohibits KMH and its subsidiaries from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of their assets up to the value of the Award. While the WFO does not itself create a proprietary interest or a lien in favour of TSL, it does provide a powerful deterrent against asset dissipation and supports TSL's position as the primary enforcement creditor. Any attempt by KMH to assign or encumber Korinthian DMCC's receivables after the date of the WFO would be in breach of the order and potentially voidable.
In light of these considerations, we assess the risk of competing claims as low to moderate. The principal risk is that certain receivables may have been assigned or pledged prior to the WFO, which can only be determined through the attachment and declaration process. We recommend proceeding with the attachment applications promptly to establish TSL's priority position.
5. Practical Steps and Recommended Actions for Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates
5.1 Immediate Steps
Based on the analysis set out above, we recommend that Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates take the following immediate steps to commence execution against the identified receivables:
Step 1: Prepare and file applications for third-party attachment orders. ARH should prepare applications to the execution judge in Case No. 1893/2024 for attachment orders under Articles 247–260 of the UAE Civil Procedure Law, identifying each known third-party debtor of Korinthian DMCC and the estimated amount owed. The applications should be supported by the documentary evidence described in Section 3.3, including relevant extracts from the EGCB bank records, the Hartwell Pemberton reports, and the WFO disclosure. Given the number of counterparties involved, it may be most efficient to file a single consolidated application covering all identified debtors, although ARH should exercise its judgment on whether separate applications would be more effective given the Dubai court's procedural preferences.
Step 2: Serve attachment orders on identified sub-charterers and trade counterparties. Upon grant of the attachment orders, ARH should promptly serve each order on the relevant third-party debtor. Service should be effected through the court's process server, and ARH should ensure that proof of service is filed with the court. Each third-party debtor must be notified of the requirement to file a statutory declaration within fifteen days of service, confirming or denying the existence of the debt and providing details as required under Article 252. ARH should coordinate with Calderwood & Harkness to provide the third-party debtors with appropriate translations (Arabic/English) of the attachment orders, as some counterparties may have English-language internal processes.
Step 3: Serve attachment orders on EGCB for post-attachment receipts. In addition to the existing execution attachment over Korinthian DMCC's current account balances at EGCB, ARH should serve a supplementary attachment order (or confirm with the execution judge that the existing attachment extends) to capture any additional funds received into Korinthian DMCC's accounts at EGCB after the date of the original precautionary attachment. This is important because the receivables identified in Section 3.2, once collected by the sub-charterers and counterparties, may be paid into the EGCB accounts — and the attachment must capture those incoming payments.
5.2 Information Gathering
In parallel with the attachment applications, ARH should pursue the following information-gathering steps:
Order compelling Korinthian DMCC to produce a receivables schedule. ARH should request that the execution judge issue an order requiring Korinthian DMCC to produce a full and complete schedule of all receivables outstanding as at the date of the order, including: (i) the identity of each debtor; (ii) the nature and basis of the debt; (iii) the amount of the debt (including any foreign currency denomination); (iv) the date on which the debt fell or falls due; and (v) any disputes, set-offs, or counterclaims affecting the debt. This order is available under the execution judge's general powers to compel the judgment debtor to cooperate with the execution process, and failure to comply may result in civil penalties or other sanctions.
Cross-referencing. The receivables schedule produced by Korinthian DMCC should be cross-referenced with Hartwell Pemberton's findings and the WFO disclosure to verify completeness and to identify any discrepancies. Calderwood & Harkness will coordinate this cross-referencing exercise and will report to Samuel and Hannah on any material discrepancies that may warrant further investigation or a contempt application in the English proceedings.
5.3 Enforcement Against Specific Third-Party Debtors
Once the third-party declarations have been filed, the following steps should be taken in respect of each category of response:
Confirmed debts. For each third-party debtor that confirms a debt owed to Korinthian DMCC, ARH should promptly apply to the execution judge for a payment order directing the third party to pay the attached amount. Payment should be directed either:
(a) Directly to TSL's designated recovery account at Ionian National Bank SA, 22 Stadiou Street, Athens 105 64, Greece (Account No. GR42-0370-0101-0000-0172-4395-012, IBAN: GR4203700101000001724395012, SWIFT/BIC: IONAGRA2), for the account of Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA; or
(b) Into the UAE court's escrow account, from which the funds will subsequently be released to TSL upon order of the execution judge.
The choice between direct payment to TSL's bank account and payment into court escrow will depend on the execution judge's preference and any procedural requirements of the Dubai court. ARH should advise on the most practical route.
Disputed debts. For any third-party debtor that disputes the existence or amount of the debt (in whole or in part), ARH should apply to the execution judge for a summary hearing to determine the issue. In preparing for such a hearing, ARH should be provided with all available documentary evidence from the Hartwell Pemberton reports, the WFO disclosure, and the EGCB bank records to support the existence and quantum of the debt. If the execution judge determines that a plenary hearing before a substantive court is required, ARH should assess the time and cost implications and report to Calderwood & Harkness before proceeding.
Failure to file declaration. For any third-party debtor that fails to file a declaration within the statutory fifteen-day period, ARH should promptly apply to the execution judge for an order deeming the debt to be admitted in the full amount claimed. As noted above, Article 253 of the UAE Civil Procedure Law provides for this consequence, and the practical effect is that the third-party debtor will be treated as having confirmed the full amount of the debt, enabling TSL to obtain a payment order.
5.4 Coordination with Calderwood & Harkness LLP
Effective coordination between Calderwood & Harkness and Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates is critical to the success of this exercise. The following coordination protocols should be observed:
Reporting. ARH shall provide Calderwood & Harkness (attention: Patrick Gallagher, with copies to Samuel Eklund and Hannah Brinkley) with written status updates on a weekly basis (every Wednesday), covering: (i) the status of attachment applications filed or pending; (ii) third-party declarations received or outstanding; (iii) any contested matters or hearings scheduled; (iv) funds recovered or payment orders obtained; and (v) any unanticipated developments or risks.
Documentation. Calderwood & Harkness will supply ARH with copies of all relevant documentation from the WFO disclosure and Hartwell Pemberton's reports as needed to support the attachment applications and any contested hearings. All such materials should be treated as privileged and confidential and should not be disclosed to any third party without prior authorization from Calderwood & Harkness.
Multi-jurisdictional coordination. Calderwood & Harkness maintains a multi-jurisdictional recovery tracker for the enforcement campaign, which records all recoveries obtained across jurisdictions and credits them against the outstanding balance under the Award. ARH's recoveries will be credited against the overall balance to avoid any risk of double-recovery. ARH should report all recoveries (whether by payment order, voluntary payment, or otherwise) promptly, and Calderwood & Harkness will confirm updated outstanding balances.
Anti-tipping-off protocols. Given the risk that KMH may take steps to redirect receivable flows or to warn third-party debtors if advance notice is received of the attachment applications, ARH should seek ex parte grant of the attachment orders where possible and should not provide advance notice to KMH, Korinthian DMCC, or any third-party debtor prior to service of the attachment orders. ARH should advise on whether UAE procedural rules permit ex parte service in this context.
5.5 Timeline
The following timeline is proposed for the receivables attachment exercise:
We note that the timeline may be affected by the year-end holiday period, as UAE courts observe holidays for UAE National Day (2–3 December 2024) and the court calendar may be impacted. ARH should confirm the court's sitting schedule and adjust the timeline accordingly. If necessary, priority filings or urgent applications may be warranted to ensure that the attachment applications are processed before any holiday recess.
The target for completion of UAE receivables recoveries is mid-January 2025.
6. Assessment of Recovery Prospects
6.1 Estimated Recovery
Of the estimated total receivables of AED 53,400,000 (approximately £11,340,000), we assess that a conservative 80% to 90% may be recoverable through the attachment process described in this memorandum. The discount from the gross figure reflects the following contingencies:
(a) Set-off claims: Certain sub-charterers and freight counterparties may assert legitimate set-off claims for bunker adjustments, off-hire deductions, speed and performance claims, or cargo-related counterclaims. Hartwell Pemberton estimates that set-off exposure across the portfolio is unlikely to exceed 10–15% of gross receivables;
(b) Disputed receivables: The freight receivable from Karachi Port Trading Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. is partially disputed, and some smaller receivables may be subject to quantum adjustments. The overall quantum of genuinely disputed receivables is estimated at no more than 5–10% of the total;
(c) Timing issues: Some receivables may not yet have fallen due at the date of attachment, in which case the attachment will freeze the debt but payment cannot be compelled until maturity. This may delay but should not reduce recovery;
(d) Pre-attachment payments: There is a risk that some receivable debtors may have made partial payments to Korinthian DMCC between the date of Hartwell Pemberton's most recent analysis and the date of attachment, reducing the outstanding balance. The EGCB account attachment should capture any such payments that have been deposited, but direct payments (e.g., by cash or by transfer to accounts outside the UAE) would not be captured;
(e) Insurance claim adjustments: The insurance and P&I club receivables are inherently uncertain, as insurers retain the right to adjust or deny claims. The estimates in Section 3.2.4 are based on Hartwell Pemberton's best assessment, but actual proceeds may vary.
The estimated recovery range is therefore:
For the purposes of the overall enforcement tracker, we recommend using the base case figure of approximately £9,640,000 as the working estimate for UAE receivables recovery.
6.2 Context Within Overall Enforcement Campaign
The following table summarizes the current status of the multi-jurisdictional enforcement campaign as of the date of this memorandum, incorporating the UAE receivables recovery estimate:
Against the Award plus Costs figure of £108,600,000, the total recovered and expected (including the UAE receivables estimate) represents approximately 83% of the obligation. Including post-award interest through 15 March 2025, the total obligation is approximately £112,207,726.03, and the recovery percentage is approximately 81%.
The remaining shortfall, after full UAE recovery at the base case estimate, would be approximately £21,703,000 (against the interest-inclusive figure). This shortfall underscores the importance of continuing to identify and pursue additional assets across all jurisdictions. Hartwell Pemberton's ongoing tracing work has identified potential additional asset pools in Greece, the British Virgin Islands, and the marshall Islands, which are the subject of separate analysis.
The UAE receivables recovery would represent the sixth-largest individual recovery in the enforcement campaign and would bring TSL past the 80% recovery threshold, which is a significant milestone in the Client's recovery objectives as communicated by Ioanna Christodoulou (General Counsel) and Elena Stavridis (CFO) at the status meeting of 14 November 2024.
6.3 Risks and Mitigants
We have identified the following principal risks to the receivables attachment exercise, together with corresponding mitigants:
Risk 1: Collusion between third-party debtors and KMH to conceal or reduce receivables.
It is possible that third-party debtors, particularly those with ongoing commercial relationships with the KMH group, may be incentivized to understate the amounts owed to Korinthian DMCC in their statutory declarations, or to claim fictitious set-offs or counterclaims. This risk is heightened in respect of counterparties that are closely connected to the Volkov family or the KMH group.
Mitigant: Hartwell Pemberton's independent forensic analysis provides a baseline against which the third-party declarations can be tested. Bank records from EGCB show historical payment patterns that establish the expected quantum of receivables. Any third-party debtor that files a false or materially incomplete declaration exposes itself to personal liability under UAE law (including potential criminal liability for making a false statement to a court) and to civil claims by TSL. Calderwood & Harkness should ensure that ARH puts each third-party debtor on notice of these consequences when serving the attachment orders.
Risk 2: Post-award assignment or diversion of receivables by Korinthian DMCC.
KMH may have taken steps, following the issuance of the Award on 28 June 2024 (or following the WFO on 16 July 2024), to assign Korinthian DMCC's receivables to third parties, to redirect payment flows to other group entities, or to instruct sub-charterers and counterparties to pay to alternative accounts not subject to attachment. Hartwell Pemberton's Post-Award Asset Movement Analysis dated 25 November 2024 has identified some evidence of changes in payment patterns, including a reduction in the volume and frequency of payments into Korinthian DMCC's EGCB accounts after August 2024.
Mitigant: The Worldwide Freezing Order prohibits KMH and its subsidiaries from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of their assets. Any post-WFO assignment of receivables would be in breach of the order and potentially voidable as a transaction defrauding creditors under applicable law. If evidence of post-WFO asset diversion is confirmed, Calderwood & Harkness should consider: (i) a contempt application against KMH and its directors in the English proceedings; (ii) applications to set aside any assignments or payments made in breach of the WFO; and (iii) claims against the recipients of diverted funds. Hartwell Pemberton should be instructed to prioritize the analysis of post-award asset movements in its ongoing tracing work.
Risk 3: Currency fluctuation between AED and GBP.
The receivables are denominated in AED, while the Award is denominated in GBP. Currency fluctuation could affect the GBP value of the UAE recoveries.
Mitigant: The AED is pegged to the US dollar at a fixed rate of approximately AED 3.6725 = USD 1.00, which provides relative stability against major currencies. GBP/USD and therefore GBP/AED fluctuations remain a factor, but the pegged nature of the AED reduces the risk of extreme volatility. We recommend prompt conversion of recovered AED funds to GBP upon receipt, to minimize exposure to exchange rate movements. TSL's treasury function (overseen by Elena Stavridis, CFO) should be consulted regarding the timing and mechanism for conversion.
Risk 4: KMH instructs UAE counsel to oppose the attachment applications.
To date, KMH has not separately instructed UAE counsel for Korinthian DMCC, and Harkness Whitford & Co. has not filed any substantive objection to the UAE enforcement proceedings. However, the filing of receivables attachment applications may prompt KMH to retain UAE counsel to resist the applications, seek to set aside the attachment orders, or challenge the enforceability of the Dubai court's orders against Korinthian DMCC (e.g., on grounds of separate corporate personality or lack of alter ego findings).
Mitigant: The enforcement order in Case No. 1893/2024 has already been granted and is now final. While KMH could, in theory, appeal the enforcement order, the time for appeal may have expired or be expiring shortly. As to corporate personality arguments, the precautionary attachment over Korinthian DMCC's accounts was granted on the basis that Korinthian DMCC holds assets on behalf of or for the benefit of KMH, and the Dubai court has already accepted this jurisdictional basis. ARH should be prepared to resist any opposition and should file the attachment applications promptly to establish TSL's position before any opposition materializes.
Risk 5: Delays in the UAE court process.
The UAE court system, while generally efficient, may experience procedural delays, particularly during holiday periods (National Day, Ramadan) or if the execution judge's calendar is congested.
Mitigant: ARH should file the attachment applications as soon as practicable and should request urgent processing given the risk of asset dissipation. The proposed timeline in Section 5.5 accounts for reasonable processing times and should be achievable in the absence of unexpected delays.
7. Fee and Cost Implications
The fee and cost implications of the receivables attachment exercise are as follows:
Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates. ARH's fees for the receivables attachment process are expected to fall within the existing fee arrangement for the UAE enforcement proceedings. The total ARH fee budget for the UAE enforcement matter (including the initial enforcement application, the precautionary attachment, and the post-enforcement execution phase) was set at AED 620,000 (approximately £131,700). Of this budget, approximately AED 380,000 has been incurred to date in connection with the enforcement application and the precautionary attachment, leaving approximately AED 240,000 (approximately £51,000) available for the receivables attachment phase and ongoing execution. ARH has indicated that this remaining budget should be sufficient to cover the attachment applications, service costs, and routine execution steps, but that additional fees may be incurred if contested hearings are required in respect of disputed receivables. Any budget overrun will require prior approval from Calderwood & Harkness.
Court fees and disbursements. Court fees for the attachment applications in the Dubai Court of First Instance are based on the value of the claim and are expected to be modest relative to the amounts at stake. ARH has estimated court filing fees of approximately AED 15,000–25,000 for the consolidated attachment applications, plus service costs of approximately AED 5,000–8,000 for process service on the identified third-party debtors. These costs will be treated as disbursements and billed to the Client in the ordinary course.
Calderwood & Harkness LLP. Calderwood & Harkness's time on this analysis and ongoing coordination with ARH falls within the enforcement phase fee cap of £4,200,000 agreed with the Client for the overall multi-jurisdictional enforcement campaign. Fees billed to date (across all jurisdictions) total £3,870,000, leaving £330,000 remaining under the cap. We anticipate that the UAE receivables phase will require approximately £40,000–60,000 of Calderwood & Harkness time over the next 6–8 weeks, which is within the remaining budget. However, if contested proceedings arise or if additional asset tracing work is required, we may need to discuss a revision of the fee cap with the Client.
Hartwell Pemberton LLP. No additional Hartwell Pemberton fees are anticipated for the receivables attachment phase specifically, as the relevant asset tracing work has already been completed and is reflected in the reports dated 15 August 2024, 1 October 2024, and 25 November 2024. If ARH requires Hartwell Pemberton's assistance in preparing evidence for contested hearings, additional fees may be incurred under the existing engagement terms, but we do not anticipate this at present.
8. Recommendations
In light of the foregoing analysis, this memorandum makes the following recommendations for Samuel's and Hannah's approval:
1. Instruct Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates to immediately commence third-party attachment applications against the identified receivable debtors of Korinthian DMCC, targeting the specific counterparties and amounts set out in Section 3.2 and Annex A of this memorandum. The applications should be filed with the execution judge in Case No. 1893/2024 within seven days of the date of this memorandum (target: 5 December 2024).
2. Provide ARH with the detailed schedule of receivables derived from Hartwell Pemberton's reports and the WFO disclosure materials, together with supporting documentation including relevant EGCB bank records, sub-charter agreement extracts, and forensic analysis summaries. Patrick Gallagher will prepare and transmit this documentation package within 48 hours.
3. Request ARH to pursue an order from the execution judge compelling Korinthian DMCC to produce a comprehensive receivables schedule, to ensure completeness and to identify any receivables not yet captured in our analysis.
4. Maintain close coordination between Calderwood & Harkness, Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates, and Hartwell Pemberton LLP to ensure information sharing, prompt escalation of issues, and avoidance of double-recovery risks across jurisdictions. The weekly reporting cadence and coordination protocols described in Section 5.4 should be implemented immediately.
5. Report results to the Client — specifically, to Ioanna Christodoulou (General Counsel) and Elena Stavridis (CFO) of Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA — through the established bi-weekly status reporting process. Th