PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. It has been prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP in connection with its representation of Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this memorandum to any person other than its intended recipients, or any person authorised by the Responsible Partner, is strictly prohibited.
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 45 Moorgate, London EC2R 6AR, United Kingdom
MEMORANDUM
TO: Samuel Eklund, Responsible Partner; Hannah Brinkley, Lead Associate
FROM: Patrick Gallagher, Working Associate
DATE: 12 August 2024
RE: Singapore Enforcement Strategy — Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA v. Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. (LCIA No. 224718)
MATTER: Enforcement of LCIA Award — Multi-Jurisdictional Campaign
REVIEWED BY: Hannah Brinkley
Right-click to update Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyse the enforcement options available to our client, Thalassa Shipping & Logistics SA ("TSL"), in the Republic of Singapore against Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. ("KMH") and its Singapore subsidiary, Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. ("Korinthian Bulkers"), in respect of LCIA Award No. 224718 dated 28 June 2024 (the "Award"). The Award was rendered in the amount of £96,450,000 (approximately USD $120,000,000 at an exchange rate of £1 = USD $1.2441) plus costs of £12,150,000, yielding a total of £108,600,000 (the "Total Award Amount"). Post-award interest continues to accrue on the principal sum at 5.25% per annum simple from 29 June 2024.
This memorandum identifies three primary enforcement avenues in Singapore:
(i) Recognition and enforcement of the LCIA Award under the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) ("IAA"), by way of originating summons to the General Division of the High Court seeking leave to enforce the Award as if it were a judgment of the Singapore courts;
(ii) Admiralty arrest of M/V *Crimson Horizon (IMO 9801334), a Handymax bulk carrier of 37,500 DWT flying the Liberian flag, under the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap. 123) ("HCAJA*") and Order 70 of the Rules of Court, on the basis that the vessel is beneficially owned by KMH through its wholly-owned SPV structure, and that the underlying claims fall within the scope of admiralty jurisdiction; and
(iii) Garnishee proceedings against Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd. to attach funds held in accounts of Korinthian Bulkers at Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd., 6 Battery Road, #20-01, Singapore 049909, pursuant to Order 49 of the Rules of Court.
Singapore has been identified as a high-priority enforcement jurisdiction within the multi-jurisdictional recovery campaign for the following reasons:
(a) Korinthian Bulkers is incorporated and registered in Singapore at 80 Robinson Road, #14-02, Singapore 068898, and maintains bank accounts at Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd. that, based on intelligence from Hartwell Pemberton LLP, hold significant sums comprising charter hire receipts, vessel sale proceeds, and operational float;
(b) M/V Crimson Horizon is a vessel that actively trades in the Asia-Pacific region and may enter Singapore territorial waters for bunkering, loading, or discharge operations, presenting an opportunity for in rem arrest;
(c) Singapore maintains a well-established, pro-enforcement legal framework as a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (the "New York Convention"), implemented domestically through the IAA, and Singapore courts have a strong track record of enforcing international arbitral awards with minimal judicial interference; and
(d) the Singapore judiciary is internationally respected for its efficiency, sophistication, and independence, and enforcement proceedings in Singapore carry significant reputational and commercial pressure on the respondent.
Local counsel has been engaged to conduct the Singapore proceedings. Our local correspondent is Straits Meridian LLP, 1 Raffles Place, #44-01 One Raffles Place Tower 2, Singapore 048616, with the matter being handled by David Teo Wei Lin, Partner, and Priya Subramaniam, Senior Associate. Straits Meridian has been fully briefed on the background to the dispute, the Award, and the parallel enforcement proceedings in England & Wales, Cyprus, and the United Arab Emirates.
Based on the analysis set out in this memorandum, our recommendation is as follows: TSL should instruct Straits Meridian to file an originating summons under the IAA simultaneously with an application for a Mareva injunction freezing the Pinnacle Bank accounts on 14 August 2024. In parallel, all necessary documentation for the admiralty arrest of M/V Crimson Horizon and the garnishee proceedings against Pinnacle Bank should be prepared in advance and held in readiness for immediate deployment. Coordinated timing across these three enforcement avenues — and with the parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions — is essential, given KMH's demonstrated pattern of asset dissipation and its apparent efforts to restructure its corporate and vessel holdings to frustrate enforcement.
2. Background
2.1 The Underlying Dispute and Award
The Parties.  TSL is a Greek-incorporated société anonyme (Anonymos Etairia), domiciled and registered in Piraeus, Greece (AFM EL-801456729). TSL operates a fleet of 34 vessels, predominantly dry-bulk carriers and tankers, and reported annual revenues of approximately €620 million for the financial year ended 31 December 2023. TSL is privately held, with 72% of its share capital held by the Papadimitriou family trust and the remaining 28% held by Aegean Capital Partners SA, a Greek private equity fund. TSL is a well-established and reputable operator in the international shipping market.
KMH is a company incorporated in Cyprus under registration number HE 387421, with its registered office at 28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 601, Nicosia 1066, Cyprus. KMH is beneficially owned and controlled by the Volkov family, principally Andrei Volkov (who acts as the ultimate beneficial owner and de facto director) and Sergei Volkov (a named director). KMH controls approximately 18 dry-bulk carriers through a network of single-purpose vehicles ("SPVs") established in various jurisdictions, including Singapore, the British Virgin Islands, Liberia, and the marshall Islands. KMH's pre-dispute net asset value was estimated at approximately USD $280 million, although there is reason to believe that significant asset dissipation has occurred since the commencement of the arbitration.
The Charter-Party Agreements
TSL and KMH entered into three time charter-party agreements between 2019 and 2021, each governed by English law and each containing an LCIA arbitration clause designating London as the seat of arbitration:
(a) M/V *Aegean Fortuna* Charter — signed on 15 March 2019, providing for the time charter of M/V Aegean Fortuna for a period of approximately 36 months;
(b) M/V *Crimson Horizon* Charter — signed on 22 January 2020, providing for the time charter of M/V Crimson Horizon for a period of approximately 30 months; and
(c) M/V *Volga Spirit* Charter — signed on 10 June 2021, providing for the time charter of M/V Volga Spirit for a period of approximately 24 months.
These three charter-party agreements formed the basis of a significant commercial relationship between TSL and KMH, with total contracted charter hire exceeding £130 million over the aggregate charter periods.
KMH's Repudiatory Breaches
In mid-2022, KMH committed a series of repudiatory breaches across all three charter-party agreements:
(a) M/V *Aegean Fortuna*: KMH wrongfully redelivered the vessel on 18 June 2022, approximately 14 months before the contractual expiry of the charter period. KMH purported to terminate the charter on the basis of alleged deficiencies in the vessel's condition, but the tribunal found that these allegations were unsubstantiated and that the redelivery was wrongful and repudiatory.
(b) M/V *Crimson Horizon*: KMH ceased payment of hire from 1 July 2022. Hire arrears accumulated to £4,280,000 before TSL exercised its right to withdraw the vessel on 15 September 2022 following compliance with the anti-technicality notice provisions. The tribunal found that KMH's non-payment was deliberate and without justification, constituting a repudiatory breach.
(c) M/V *Volga Spirit*: KMH made fabricated off-hire deductions totalling approximately £2,740,000, which the tribunal found to be entirely without merit. KMH's deductions were characterised by the tribunal as dishonest, having been calculated to reduce its net payment obligations under the charter.
The LCIA Arbitration
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, comprising Sir Malcolm Fenton-Clarke (presiding arbitrator), Professor Athena Drakopoulos (co-arbitrator nominated by TSL), and Dr. Henrik Dalmqvist (co-arbitrator nominated by KMH). 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 fully represented and had ample opportunity to present their cases.
The tribunal issued its Final Award on 28 June 2024. The Award is detailed, running to 287 pages, and addresses each of TSL's claims comprehensively. The Award was unanimous on all material issues.
The Award.  The Award grants TSL the following sums:
Post-award interest accrues at 5.25% per annum simple on £96,450,000 from 29 June 2024 until the date of payment. As of the date of this memorandum, that represents approximately £620,000 in accrued post-award interest.
KMH has failed to make any voluntary payment against the Award. KMH has filed an application in the English Commercial Court under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 seeking to challenge and appeal the Award on grounds of serious irregularity and error of law. That application has not yet been determined as of the date of this memorandum. However, it is our assessment — shared by our colleagues handling the English proceedings — that KMH's challenge has very limited prospects of success. The section 68 challenge is based on alleged procedural irregularity in the tribunal's treatment of certain witness evidence, which the tribunal addressed squarely in the Award. The section 69 appeal raises questions of law on the measure of damages for wrongful redelivery, which are well-settled under English shipping law. Neither ground meets the high threshold required to disturb a final LCIA award.
Importantly, the pendency of a set-aside or appeal application in the seat country does not automatically preclude enforcement in other jurisdictions. Under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention and s. 31(2)(f) of the IAA, the Singapore court has discretion — but is not obligated — to refuse or adjourn enforcement where the award has been "set aside or suspended" by a competent authority of the country in which it was made. A mere pending application does not engage this ground, and Singapore courts have consistently upheld the pro-enforcement policy of the Convention.
2.2 KMH's Corporate Structure and Singapore Assets
Corporate Structure.  KMH is at the apex of a multi-layered corporate structure through which it holds and operates its fleet of approximately 18 dry-bulk carriers. The structure is typical of the international shipping industry, in which individual vessels are held through SPVs to ring-fence liabilities and facilitate financing. However, the evidence gathered through the English worldwide freezing order ("WFO") disclosure process and the preliminary asset tracing conducted by Hartwell Pemberton LLP suggests that KMH exercises centralised operational and financial control over all its SPVs, which operate as bare nominees or conduits for KMH rather than as independent commercial entities.
The key entities in the chain relevant to the Singapore proceedings are as follows:
(a) KMH — Korinthian Maritime Holdings Ltd. (Cyprus, HE 387421; 28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 601, Nicosia 1066) — the ultimate parent company and the judgment debtor under the Award. Beneficially owned and controlled by Andrei Volkov and Sergei Volkov.
(b) Oceangate Ventures Ltd. — (Cyprus, HE 401293; 28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 604, Nicosia 1066) — an intermediate holding company incorporated in Cyprus, which serves as the holding vehicle for a number of KMH's fleet SPVs. Oceangate is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KMH.
(c) Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. — (Singapore; 80 Robinson Road, #14-02, Singapore 068898) — a Singapore-incorporated subsidiary held (directly or indirectly) through Oceangate Ventures Ltd. Korinthian Bulkers is the registered owner of M/V Crimson Horizon and maintains bank accounts at Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd.
A corporate structure chart based on Hartwell Pemberton's preliminary findings dated 15 August 2024 is attached at Appendix A.
M/V *Crimson Horizon*
M/V Crimson Horizon (IMO 9801334) is a Handymax bulk carrier of 37,500 DWT, flying the Liberian flag. The vessel is registered in the name of Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. as the SPV owner. The vessel actively trades in the Asia-Pacific region, carrying dry-bulk cargoes on both time charter and voyage charter arrangements.
Intelligence from Straits Meridian and from commercial shipping databases indicates that M/V Crimson Horizon regularly calls at Singapore for bunkering and ancillary purposes, and has done so on at least five occasions in the past twelve months. Vessel tracking data (AIS) is being monitored on a continuous basis by Straits Meridian in coordination with Northcape Maritime Advisory Ltd.
There is intelligence to suggest that KMH has attempted, or may be in the process of attempting, to sell M/V Crimson Horizon post-Award to frustrate enforcement. Any such disposal would be in breach of the worldwide freezing order granted by the English Commercial Court on 16 July 2024. The risk of disposal underscores the urgency of having the admiralty arrest documentation prepared and ready for immediate execution.
Vessel particulars for M/V Crimson Horizon are set out at Appendix B.
Pinnacle Bank Accounts
Korinthian Bulkers maintains bank accounts at Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd., 6 Battery Road, #20-01, Singapore 049909. Hartwell Pemberton LLP has been engaged for global asset tracing, and its preliminary findings (report dated 15 August 2024) identify funds held at Pinnacle Bank in the accounts of Korinthian Bulkers. Intelligence suggests that the accounts hold significant sums, in the range of SGD $25–35 million, comprising charter hire receipts, vessel sale proceeds from prior transactions, and operational float.
A summary of the Pinnacle Bank account information, as identified by Hartwell Pemberton and through the WFO disclosure process, is set out at Appendix C.
Asset Tracing.  Hartwell Pemberton LLP (Rebecca Saunders, Partner; Mark Huxley, Director; 25 Old Broad Street, London EC2N 1HN) has been engaged to conduct global asset tracing on behalf of TSL. Their preliminary findings report, dated 15 August 2024, identifies the following principal asset pools within the KMH group that are relevant to the Singapore enforcement:
(a) the bank accounts at Pinnacle Bank held in the name of Korinthian Bulkers (estimated SGD $25–35 million);
(b) M/V Crimson Horizon itself (estimated fair market value USD $20–25 million); and
(c) various receivables and contractual rights arising from the ongoing trading activities of Korinthian Bulkers in the Asia-Pacific region.
Hartwell Pemberton's investigation is ongoing, and further findings are expected as additional disclosure is obtained through the English WFO and the parallel proceedings in Cyprus and the UAE.
2.3 Parallel Enforcement Proceedings
The Singapore proceedings form part of a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional enforcement campaign being conducted by Calderwood & Harkness on behalf of TSL. The parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions are summarised below.
England & Wales
TSL's primary enforcement proceedings are being pursued in the jurisdiction of the seat of arbitration:
(a) An application under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for permission to enforce the Award as a judgment of the High Court was filed on 15 July 2024 (Claim No. CL-2024-000487, Commercial Court).
(b) A worldwide freezing order was granted without notice on 16 July 2024 by Mr. Justice Ashworth in the amount of up to £108,600,000. The WFO restrains KMH, its directors, officers, agents, and any person acting on its behalf or instructions from disposing of, dealing with, diminishing the value of, or removing from the jurisdiction any of KMH's assets worldwide. The WFO was continued with modifications on the return date hearing on 30 July 2024.
(c) Permission to enforce the Award as a judgment was granted by the Commercial Court on 2 August 2024.
(d) An interim third-party debt order against Meridian Trust Bank Ltd. (50 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9EA) was granted on 5 August 2024, attaching funds in KMH's London accounts.
(e) KMH filed an application to set aside the enforcement order and the WFO on 19 August 2024. This application is pending and is expected to be heard in September or October 2024. As noted above, KMH has also filed an application under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to challenge and appeal the Award.
Cyprus.  Given that KMH is a Cypriot company and that key entities in the corporate structure (including Oceangate Ventures Ltd.) are also Cypriot, enforcement in Cyprus is a priority:
(a) An application for recognition and enforcement of the Award was filed on 9 August 2024 in the Nicosia District Court (Case No. 2247/2024).
(b) A freezing injunction over the shares of Oceangate Ventures Ltd. and KMH's Cyprus bank accounts was granted on 12 August 2024.
(c) Local counsel: Kyprianos Makrides & Partners (Andreas Kyprianos, Partner; Nadia Makrides, Associate), Nicosia.
United Arab Emirates
KMH operates in the UAE through Korinthian DMCC, a subsidiary registered in the Jumeirah Lake Towers free zone in Dubai:
(a) An enforcement application is planned for filing in the Dubai Court of First Instance (expected Case No. 1893/2024; target filing date 22 August 2024).
(b) A precautionary attachment over accounts held by Korinthian DMCC (Unit 3407, Almas Tower, JLT, Dubai) at Emirates Gulf Commercial Bank PJSC (Gate Village 3, DIFC, Dubai) is under preparation.
(c) Local counsel: Al-Rashid Hatem & Associates (Tariq Al-Rashid, Partner; Leila Hatem, Senior Associate), Dubai.
Each of these proceedings targets a distinct pool of KMH's assets. However, all recoveries across all jurisdictions will be credited against the single global obligation of £108,600,000 plus post-award interest, in order to prevent any possibility of double recovery. Calderwood & Harkness is maintaining a multi-jurisdictional recovery tracker to monitor and coordinate recoveries across all enforcement jurisdictions.
3. Recognition and Enforcement Under the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A)
3.1 Legal Framework
The New York Convention and the IAA
The Republic of Singapore is a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). The Convention is given the force of law in Singapore through the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) ("IAA"), which was originally enacted in 1994 and has been amended on several occasions since. Singapore has not entered a reciprocity reservation under the Convention, meaning that it will recognise and enforce arbitral awards made in any state, whether or not that state is also a party to the Convention. Nor has Singapore entered a commercial reservation.
The IAA is the primary statutory vehicle for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Singapore. It reflects Singapore's well-known and deeply-held commitment to the finality of international arbitration and to the facilitative role of the courts in supporting the arbitral process. The Singapore judiciary has consistently adopted a pro-enforcement stance, and the rate of successful enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Singapore is among the highest in the world.
Section 19 — Enforcement of Awards
Section 19 of the IAA provides that a foreign arbitral award may, with the leave of the High Court, be enforced in Singapore in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court to the same effect. Upon grant of leave, the Award may be entered as a judgment of the court, and all remedies available to enforce a judgment become available to enforce the Award. This includes, critically, execution against assets in Singapore — whether by way of garnishee proceedings, writs of seizure and sale, or other execution mechanisms.
Section 29 — Grounds for Refusal
Section 29 of the IAA sets out the grounds on which recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award may be refused. These grounds mirror Article V of the New York Convention and are as follows:
(a) Section 31(2): The court may refuse enforcement if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that:
(i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity, or the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which the parties subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made;
(ii) the party against whom enforcement is sought was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case;
(iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;
(iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or
(v) the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.
(b) Section 31(4): The court may also refuse enforcement if it finds that:
(i) the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Singapore; or
(ii) enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of Singapore.
These grounds for refusal are exhaustive and are to be narrowly construed. The burden of proof lies on the party resisting enforcement to establish one or more of these grounds. Singapore courts have repeatedly emphasised that the threshold for refusal is extremely high and that a reviewing court should not re-examine the merits of the underlying dispute.
Application to the LCIA Award
The LCIA Award satisfies all the requirements for enforcement under the IAA:
(a) Place of arbitration: The Award was issued in London, which is within the territory of the United Kingdom — a Contracting State to the New York Convention. The Award is therefore a "foreign award" within the meaning of the IAA.
(b) Governing law: The three charter-party agreements are governed by English law, and the LCIA arbitration clauses designate London as the seat of arbitration. The arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable under English law.
(c) Finality: The Award is final and binding on the parties. The LCIA Rules provide for the finality of awards, and no appeal or set-aside has succeeded. KMH's pending application under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in England does not render the Award "not yet binding" or "suspended" within the meaning of Article V(1)(e) of the Convention. The Singapore court retains discretion to enforce the Award notwithstanding the pendency of a challenge at the seat, and it is likely to exercise that discretion in TSL's favour given the high threshold for setting aside LCIA awards under English law and the absence of any order of the English court actually setting aside or suspending the Award.
(d) Due process: KMH was fully represented throughout the LCIA arbitration by experienced counsel. It was given proper notice of the proceedings and had full opportunity to present its case over a ten-day evidentiary hearing. There is no basis for a due process objection.
(e) Scope of arbitration: The claims submitted to the tribunal fell squarely within the scope of the LCIA arbitration clauses in the three charter-party agreements. The tribunal's decisions did not exceed the scope of the submission to arbitration.
(f) Public policy: There is no basis for arguing that enforcement of the Award would be contrary to Singapore public policy. The claims arise from commercial shipping disputes, and the remedies awarded are compensatory in nature.
Enforcement Against Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
It is important to note that the Award was rendered against KMH, not against Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Korinthian Bulkers was not a party to the arbitration and is not named in the Award. Enforcement of the Award under the IAA is therefore directly available only against KMH.
However, the assets that TSL seeks to attach in Singapore — the Pinnacle Bank accounts and M/V Crimson Horizon — are held in the name of Korinthian Bulkers. This creates a legal challenge that must be addressed through one or more of the following strategies: (i) piercing the corporate veil to treat Korinthian Bulkers' assets as KMH's assets for enforcement purposes; (ii) the admiralty "associated ship" or "beneficial ownership" doctrine for the purpose of vessel arrest; and (iii) garnishee proceedings with supporting arguments on beneficial ownership and alter ego. Each of these strategies is addressed in the relevant sections below (Sections 4 and 5).
3.2 Procedure for Leave to Enforce
Filing of Originating Summons
The application for leave to enforce the LCIA Award is made by way of originating summons ("OS") to the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, pursuant to section 19 of the IAA and Order 69A of the Rules of Court.
The OS is to be filed by Straits Meridian LLP on behalf of TSL. The proposed filing date is 14 August 2024, which is two days from the date of this memorandum. This timeline has been agreed with Straits Meridian, and preparation of the necessary documentation is underway.
Supporting Affidavit.  The OS must be supported by an affidavit exhibiting the following documents:
(i) an authenticated or certified copy of the LCIA Award (all 287 pages);
(ii) the original or certified copies of the arbitration agreements — that is, the LCIA arbitration clauses contained in the three charter-party agreements (M/V Aegean Fortuna Charter dated 15 March 2019, M/V Crimson Horizon Charter dated 22 January 2020, and M/V Volga Spirit Charter dated 10 June 2021); and
(iii) translations into English of the Award and arbitration agreement, if they are in a language other than English.
In this case, both the Award and the arbitration agreements are in the English language. No translations are required.
The supporting affidavit will set out the factual background to the dispute, the arbitration proceedings, the terms of the Award, and KMH's failure to satisfy the Award. The affidavit will be sworn by Captain Dimitrios Kouretas, Head of Chartering & Operations at TSL, who has direct personal knowledge of the commercial relationship with KMH, the breaches of the charter-party agreements, and the arbitration proceedings. Captain Kouretas swore a witness statement in the English proceedings and is well-versed in the facts.
Service.  Upon the grant of leave, the enforcement order must be served on KMH. Service may be effected at KMH's registered address in Cyprus (28 Themistokli Dervi Avenue, Suite 601, Nicosia 1066, Cyprus) and/or at any Singapore address associated with KMH or its subsidiaries, including the registered address of Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. at 80 Robinson Road, #14-02, Singapore 068898. The question of service out of jurisdiction is addressed under the Singapore Rules of Court; Straits Meridian will advise on the appropriate mode and will apply for leave to serve out of jurisdiction if required.
KMH will have 14 days from the date of service of the enforcement order (or such longer period as the court may allow) to apply to set aside the order granting leave to enforce.
Estimated Timeline.  In uncontested matters, leave to enforce a foreign arbitral award is typically granted within approximately three to four weeks of filing the OS. If KMH opposes the application, a contested hearing would be required, which could add an additional four to six weeks to the timeline depending on the court's availability and the complexity of the issues raised.
KMH's Likely Opposition
Based on KMH's conduct in the English proceedings and its demonstrated willingness to deploy dilatory tactics, it is anticipated that KMH may oppose enforcement in Singapore. The likely grounds of opposition include:
(a) An argument under section 31(2)(e) of the IAA that the Award has not yet become binding, on the basis that KMH's pending application under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in England renders the Award subject to challenge. As noted above, this argument is weak: the Award is final and binding under the LCIA Rules; no court order setting aside or suspending the Award has been made; and the Singapore court has discretion to enforce notwithstanding a pending challenge.
(b) An argument under section 31(4)(b) of the IAA that enforcement would be contrary to Singapore public policy. This argument is very unlikely to succeed on the facts. There is nothing in the Award that engages Singapore public policy concerns.
(c) An application for an adjournment or stay of the enforcement proceedings under section 31(5) of the IAA, pending the determination of the English set-aside application. The Singapore court has discretion to grant such an adjournment on such conditions as it considers appropriate, including requiring the party seeking the adjournment to provide suitable security. It is our recommendation that TSL should resist any such adjournment application, and should argue that any adjournment should be conditional on KMH providing security for the full amount of the Award.
The prospects of KMH successfully opposing enforcement are assessed as low. The Award is well-reasoned, was rendered after a full hearing by a distinguished tribunal, and none of the limited grounds for refusal under the New York Convention are engaged on the facts.
Effect of Enforcement Order
Once leave to enforce is confirmed and any set-aside application is dismissed, the Award may be enforced as a Singapore judgment. This opens the door to the full range of execution mechanisms available under Singapore law, including but not limited to garnishee proceedings (Order 49), writs of seizure and sale, and examination of judgment debtor proceedings. The garnishee proceedings against Pinnacle Bank, discussed in Section 5 below, are the primary execution mechanism contemplated in the Singapore enforcement strategy.
3.3 Documentary Requirements and Preparation
The following preparatory steps are required for the IAA application:
(a) Certified copies of the Award: Calderwood & Harkness will prepare certified copies of the LCIA Award (all 287 pages). These copies will be certified by the LCIA Registrar as true and correct copies of the original Award.
(b) LCIA Registrar's certificate: We will obtain from the LCIA Registrar (Fiona Beckett, Tribunal Secretary for LCIA No. 224718) a certificate confirming the authenticity of the Award, its date of issue, and its finality under the LCIA Rules.
(c) Certified copies of the arbitration agreements: Calderwood & Harkness will prepare certified copies of the three charter-party agreements, with the LCIA arbitration clauses clearly identified. The charter-party agreements will be authenticated by a notarial attestation and, if required by the Singapore court, apostilled in accordance with the Hague Apostille Convention.
(d) Supporting affidavit of Captain Dimitrios Kouretas: Calderwood & Harkness will prepare a draft of the supporting affidavit, setting out the factual background, the arbitration, the Award, and KMH's failure to pay. The draft will be provided to Straits Meridian for review and adaptation to Singapore procedural requirements. Captain Kouretas will swear the affidavit, which may need to be sworn before a notary public in Greece and apostilled for use in Singapore.
(e) Transmission to Straits Meridian: All documentation will be transmitted to Straits Meridian in final form no later than 13 August 2024, to enable filing on the target date of 14 August 2024.
4. Admiralty Arrest of M/V *Crimson Horizon*
4.1 Basis for Admiralty Jurisdiction
Statutory Framework.  The admiralty jurisdiction of the Singapore High Court is governed by the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap. 123) ("HCAJA") and Order 70 of the Rules of Court. The HCAJA is modelled on the United Kingdom's Administration of Justice Act 1956 (now the Senior Courts Act 1981), and the Singapore courts have drawn extensively on English admiralty jurisprudence in interpreting its provisions.
Nature of the Claims
Section 3(1) of the HCAJA confers admiralty jurisdiction on the High Court in respect of a range of maritime claims. The claims relevant to the present case include, in particular:
(a) claims arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship (section 3(1)(h)); and
(b) claims for damage done by a ship (section 3(1)(d)), though this ground is less directly relevant.
The underlying claims in LCIA No. 224718 arise from three time charter-party agreements for the hire of vessels. These claims fall squarely within the categories of admiralty claims enumerated in section 3(1)(h) of the HCAJA. There is no question that the Singapore High Court would have admiralty jurisdiction to entertain such claims.
In Rem Jurisdiction
The critical issue for the arrest of M/V Crimson Horizon is not whether admiralty jurisdiction exists in the abstract, but whether an in rem action may be brought against this particular vessel in respect of TSL's claims.
Section 4(4) of the HCAJA provides that an in rem action may be brought against a ship if the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam ("the relevant person") was, when the cause of action arose, the owner or charterer of, or in possession or in control of, the ship in connection with which the claim arose. However, under section 4(4)(b), where the action is to be brought against a different ship — that is, a ship other than the one in connection with which the claim arose — the action may be brought against any ship of which the relevant person is the beneficial owner at the time when the action is brought.
In this case, the judgment debtor is KMH. The vessel TSL seeks to arrest, M/V Crimson Horizon, is registered in the name of Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. KMH is not the registered owner. However, if KMH can be shown to be the beneficial owner of M/V Crimson Horizon, in rem jurisdiction under section 4(4)(b) would be engaged — regardless of whether M/V Crimson Horizon is the specific vessel in connection with which the underlying charter-party claims arose or whether it is an "associated ship" owned by the same beneficial owner.
It bears noting that M/V Crimson Horizon is in fact one of the vessels that was the subject of the charter-party agreements giving rise to the underlying dispute. The M/V Crimson Horizon Charter dated 22 January 2020 is one of the three agreements at issue. This provides an additional basis for in rem jurisdiction, as the vessel is directly connected to the claim, not merely an "associated ship." However, even treating it as an associated ship, the beneficial ownership analysis set out below would support the arrest.
4.2 The Associated Ship Doctrine and Beneficial Ownership
The Doctrine.  The "associated ship" doctrine, as reflected in section 4(4)(b) of the HCAJA, permits the arrest of any ship beneficially owned by the person who would be liable in personam on the underlying claim. The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent shipowners from evading in rem enforcement by holding their vessels through SPVs, a practice that is ubiquitous in the international shipping industry.
The key question is whether KMH, the judgment debtor, is the "beneficial owner" of M/V Crimson Horizon, notwithstanding that the vessel is registered in the name of Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
Corporate Structure and Control
The factual basis for the beneficial ownership argument is as follows:
(a) Korinthian Bulkers is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KMH, held through Oceangate Ventures Ltd. (HE 401293), which is itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of KMH.
(b) KMH exercises full operational, financial, and strategic control over Korinthian Bulkers. All material decisions regarding the vessel — including chartering, deployment, crewing, maintenance, and disposition — are made by KMH's management in Nicosia or by the Volkov family directly.
(c) Korinthian Bulkers has no independent commercial existence separate from its role as a vessel-holding SPV for KMH. It has no employees of its own (its operations are managed by KMH or by third-party managers appointed by KMH). It has no independent board of directors that exercises autonomous judgment. Its sole function is to hold legal title to M/V Crimson Horizon and to receive and disburse funds in connection with the vessel's trading activities.
(d) The charter hire and other revenues generated by M/V Crimson Horizon flow through the Pinnacle Bank accounts of Korinthian Bulkers to KMH or are applied as directed by KMH.
(e) Korinthian Bulkers was incorporated for the specific purpose of holding M/V Crimson Horizon as part of KMH's fleet. The use of single-purpose vehicles to hold individual vessels is a standard practice in the shipping industry, typically adopted for liability ring-fencing and financing purposes, but it does not alter the economic reality that the vessels are beneficially owned by the group parent.
Singapore Case Law
The Singapore courts have adopted a pragmatic approach to the question of beneficial ownership in the admiralty context. In the landmark decision of The Andres Bonifacio [1993] 3 SLR 521, the Court of Appeal held that "beneficial ownership" in the context of the admiralty jurisdiction statute is not to be given the same narrow technical meaning as it might bear in trust law. Rather, the court should look at the substance of the matter and consider whether the alleged owner is the true owner of the vessel in the commercial and economic sense, looking behind the corporate veil where the registered owner is a mere nominee, alter ego, or puppet of the true owner.
Subsequent decisions have refined this approach. In The Skaw Prince [1994] 3 SLR 379, the court emphasised that the key inquiry is whether the registered owner exercises independent control over the vessel or whether it is merely a conduit for the true owner. Where the registered owner is a single-ship company with no independent commercial existence, the court will readily look through the corporate form to identify the beneficial owner.
More recently, in The Ashbury Pension Trust Eagle [2012] SGHC 25, the court confirmed that the beneficial ownership inquiry in the admiralty context is more flexible than the general corporate law test for piercing the corporate veil. The court need not find fraud, impropriety, or abuse of the corporate form in order to identify the beneficial owner; it is sufficient that the registered owner is, in substance, a bare nominee or holding vehicle for the true owner.
Application to the Present Case
Applying these principles, there is a strong basis for the argument that KMH is the beneficial owner of M/V Crimson Horizon:
(a) Korinthian Bulkers is a single-purpose vehicle with no independent commercial existence;
(b) KMH controls all aspects of the vessel's operations through centralised management;
(c) The vessel's revenues flow to KMH or are applied at KMH's direction;
(d) The corporate structure (KMH → Oceangate → Korinthian Bulkers) is a typical fleet-holding structure designed for liability ring-fencing, not for the creation of genuine economic separation; and
(e) Hartwell Pemberton's asset tracing findings confirm that Korinthian Bulkers operates as a conduit for KMH, with no independent management, decision-making, or operations.
We assess the prospects of establishing beneficial ownership as good, though not without some risk (see Section 4.5 below).
4.3 Procedure for Arrest
Filing of In Rem Writ
The admiralty arrest is initiated by the filing of an in rem writ of summons in the Admiralty Division of the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, pursuant to Order 70 of the Rules of Court.
The writ must identify the vessel by name, IMO number, and other relevant particulars (M/V Crimson Horizon, IMO 9801334, Handymax Bulk Carrier, 37,500 DWT, Liberian flag) and must set out the nature of the claim and the statutory basis for in rem jurisdiction.
Warrant of Arrest
Following the filing of the in rem writ, TSL will apply for a warrant of arrest. The application must be supported by an affidavit setting out:
(i) the nature of the claim and its amount;
(ii) the name and a description of the vessel against which the claim is brought;
(iii) the basis for the court's in rem jurisdiction, including the statutory ground under section 4(4) of the HCAJA and the facts supporting the beneficial ownership argument;
(iv) confirmation that, to the best of the deponent's knowledge, no security or caution has been given by or on behalf of the vessel; and
(v) any other facts relevant to the application.
The warrant of arrest is executed by the Sheriff of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Upon execution, the vessel is taken into the custody of the Sheriff and is prevented from leaving Singapore territorial waters.
Requirement for Vessel to Be in Singapore Waters
Critically, the vessel must be within Singapore territorial waters at the time the warrant of arrest is executed. It is not possible to arrest a vessel that is outside Singapore's jurisdiction. The arrest is a physical act requiring the Sheriff to attend at the vessel and affix the warrant.
Vessel intelligence and Readiness
Intelligence from Straits Meridian and from commercial shipping intelligence sources indicates that M/V Crimson Horizon regularly trades in the Asia-Pacific region and frequently calls at Singapore for bunkering. AIS (Automatic Identification System) tracking data confirms that the vessel has called at Singapore on at least five occasions in the twelve months preceding the date of this memorandum.
Straits Meridian has been instructed to monitor M/V Crimson Horizon's movements on a continuous basis using AIS tracking and port call databases. Straits Meridian is prepared to execute the arrest on short notice — potentially within hours — upon the vessel's entry into Singapore territorial waters. All necessary documentation (the in rem writ, the supporting affidavit, and the application for a warrant of arrest) will be prepared in advance and held in readiness, requiring only the insertion of the vessel's location and the date of the arrest.
Northcape Maritime Advisory Ltd. (Captain Ian Forsyth) has also been asked to provide tracking intelligence and to alert the team to any movements of M/V Crimson Horizon toward Singapore.
Release of Vessel and Alternative Security
Upon arrest, KMH and/or Korinthian Bulkers may apply to release the vessel by providing alternative security to TSL, typically in the form of a P&I club letter of undertaking or a bank guarantee in an amount to be agreed or determined by the court. In practice, the amount of security is usually equivalent to the value of the claim plus costs, capped at the value of the vessel. Given that the value of M/V Crimson Horizon (estimated at USD $20–25 million on a fair market value basis) is substantially less than the full amount of the Award, any security offered would cover only a fraction of TSL's total claim.
If adequate security is offered and accepted, the vessel will be released. If no security is offered, TSL may proceed to apply for the judicial appraisement and sale of the vessel.
4.4 Judicial Sale Process and Recovery Estimate
Judicial Sale Procedure
If M/V Crimson Horizon is not released on the provision of alternative security, TSL will apply to the court for a commission for appraisement and sale of the vessel. The standard procedure is as follows:
(a) The court appoints independent brokers and/or appraisers to determine the vessel's fair market value.
(b) The vessel is advertised for sale in accordance with the court's directions, typically in international shipping publications and local newspapers. The advertising period is usually at least four to six weeks.
(c) The sale is conducted by competitive bidding, either by sealed tender or by public auction, as directed by the court.
(d) The highest bidder (subject to court approval) acquires the vessel free and clear of all liens and encumbrances — the judicial sale gives "clean title."
(e) The sale proceeds are paid into court and distributed by the court in accordance with the established priority of maritime claims.
Vessel Valuation.  Northcape Maritime Advisory Ltd. (Captain Ian Forsyth, 3 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1WY) has been engaged to provide an independent valuation of M/V Crimson Horizon. Northcape's preliminary estimate, based on available market data and comparable transactions, is as follows:
A formal written valuation report will be prepared by Northcape for use in the judicial sale process. The valuation will take into account the vessel's age, condition, DWT, class status, trading history, and prevailing market conditions for Handymax bulk carriers.
Priority of Claims and Distribution
The proceeds of a judicial sale are distributed in accordance with the established priority of maritime claims under Singapore admiralty law. The order of priority, in simplified form, is:
1.  Court costs and Sheriff's expenses (including the costs of arrest, custody, appraisement, sale, and distribution);
2.  Maritime liens (in order of their established priority: salvage, damage done by a ship, wages of master and crew, master's disbursements, bottomry and respondentia);
3.  Possessory liens (for repairs, salvage, or storage);
4.  Statutory liens arising from in rem claims (including the claims of the arresting party);
5.  Unsecured claims.
TSL's claim, as a judgment creditor enforcing an arbitral award arising from charter-party disputes, would rank as a statutory lien arising from an in rem claim. This means that TSL's claim would rank after maritime liens and possessory liens but ahead of unsecured creditors.
Based on available intelligence, the risk of competing maritime liens ranking ahead of TSL's claim is assessed as low. However, Straits Meridian will conduct a comprehensive maritime liens search upon arrest to identify any potential prior claims.
Net Recovery Estimate
After deduction of Sheriff's costs, port charges, and any admiralty priorities ranking ahead of TSL's claim, the net proceeds available for application to TSL's enforcement judgment are estimated in the range of USD $15,000,000 – $20,000,000 (approximately £12,000,000 – £16,000,000 at current exchange rates). While this represents only a fraction of the Total Award Amount, it constitutes a meaningful recovery and, combined with the garnishee proceedings and recoveries in other jurisdictions, would materially advance the enforcement campaign.
Any net proceeds would be remitted to TSL's recovery account at Ionian National Bank SA, 22 Stadiou Street, Athens 105 64, Greece, or to such other account as TSL may designate.
Estimated Timeline for Judicial Sale
The judicial sale process from the date of arrest to the distribution of proceeds typically takes approximately two to three months, assuming no significant objections or complications. The estimated timeline is:
•  Arrest to appraisement: 2–3 weeks
•  Advertising period: 4–6 weeks
•  Sale and completion: 2–3 weeks
•  Distribution: within 30 days of sale completion
4.5 Risks and Mitigation
The following risks have been identified in relation to the admiralty arrest strategy, together with proposed mitigation measures:
Risk 1: Pre-arrest disposal or sale of M/V *Crimson Horizon*
KMH may attempt to transfer or sell M/V Crimson Horizon before the vessel enters Singapore waters, in order to frustrate the arrest. There is intelligence suggesting that KMH has explored such options since the Award was issued.
Mitigation: (a) The worldwide freezing order granted by the English Commercial Court on 16 July 2024, and continued on 30 July 2024, expressly restrains KMH from disposing of any assets, including vessels held through subsidiaries. Any sale or transfer in breach of the WFO would be a contempt of court. (b) AIS tracking of the vessel is being conducted on a continuous basis, and Straits Meridian is prepared to execute the arrest on short notice. (c) The Cyprus freezing injunction over the shares of Oceangate Ventures Ltd. provides an additional layer of protection, as Oceangate is the intermediate holding company for Korinthian Bulkers.
Risk 2: Re-flagging or change of registered ownership
KMH may attempt to re-flag M/V Crimson Horizon under a different flag state, or to transfer the registered ownership from Korinthian Bulkers to a new entity, in order to defeat the arrest.
Mitigation: (a) The WFO disclosure obligations require KMH to disclose all assets exceeding £25,000, including any changes in ownership or registration. A failure to disclose, or a disposal in breach of the WFO, would constitute contempt. (b) Any transfer of registered ownership would be detectable through flag state registries and class society records, which are being monitored by Northcape Maritime Advisory. (c) A transfer made with the purpose of defeating enforcement may be challenged as a fraudulent transfer or a breach of the WFO.
Risk 3: Competing maritime liens
Other creditors may have maritime liens or other claims against M/V Crimson Horizon that would rank ahead of TSL's claim in the distribution of judicial sale proceeds.
Mitigation: This risk is assessed as low based on available intelligence. The vessel appears to be in good operational condition and to have been regularly maintained. However, Straits Meridian will conduct a comprehensive maritime liens search upon arrest, including inquiries with the vessel's P&I club, classification society, and known creditors. If competing claims are identified, TSL will need to assess their validity and quantum, and may need to participate in a priority hearing.
Risk 4: Challenge to beneficial ownership
KMH may contest the beneficial ownership argument, asserting that Korinthian Bulkers is a separate legal entity and that KMH is not the beneficial owner of the vessel.
Mitigation: This risk is assessed as moderate. While the Singapore courts have adopted a flexible approach to beneficial ownership in the admiralty context, the standard is fact-sensitive and requires careful evidentiary support. The evidence from Hartwell Pemberton's asset tracing, the WFO disclosure, and the corporate structure analysis provides a strong foundation for the beneficial ownership argument. However, a fully contested hearing on this issue cannot be excluded. Straits Meridian should be prepared to present detailed evidence of KMH's control over Korinthian Bulkers, including board minutes, management agreements, financial records, and correspondence showing KMH's direction of the SPV's affairs.
5. Garnishee Proceedings Against Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd.
5.1 Legal Basis
Order 49 of the Rules of Court
A judgment creditor may apply under Order 49 of the Rules of Court for a garnishee order directed at a third party (the "garnishee") who is indebted to the judgment debtor. The purpose of the garnishee order is to attach the debt owed by the garnishee to the judgment debtor and to redirect payment of that debt to the judgment creditor in satisfaction (or partial satisfaction) of the judgment.
The requirements for a garnishee order are:
(i) there must be a judgment or order for the payment of money by the judgment debtor to the judgment creditor — in this case, the enforcement order once leave to enforce the LCIA Award is granted under the IAA;
(ii) a third party (the garnishee) must be indebted to the judgment debtor — in this case, Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd. must owe a debt to KMH; and
(iii) the debt owed by the garnishee must be a debt that is ascertainable and presently due and owing, or will become due and owing in the future.
Application to the Present Facts
Pinnacle Bank (Singapore) Ltd. (6 Battery Road, #20-01, Singapore 049909) holds bank accounts in the name of Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. A bank deposit gives rise to a debt owed by the bank (the depositary) to the account holder (the depositor). In the ordinary course, therefore, the debt owed by Pinnacle Bank is a debt owed to Korinthian Bulkers — not directly to KMH.
This creates the central legal challenge for the garnishee proceedings: the garnishee order can only attach debts owed to the judgment debtor, which is KMH. If the accounts are held in the name of Korinthian Bulkers, and if Korinthian Bulkers is treated as a separate legal entity from KMH, then the debt owed by Pinnacle Bank is not a debt owed to KMH, and the garnishee order cannot be made.
There are two approaches to overcoming this challenge, discussed in Section 5.2 below.
5.2 Piercing the SPV Structure / Attribution of Assets
Approach 1: Alter Ego / Piercing the Corporate Veil
The first approach is to argue that Korinthian Bulkers is KMH's alter ego, and that the court should look behind the corporate form to treat the debts owed by Pinnacle Bank to Korinthian Bulkers as debts owed to KMH for the purposes of the garnishee proceedings.
The arguments in support of this approach are as follows:
(a) No independent existence: Korinthian Bulkers has no independent commercial existence separate from its role as a vessel-holding and fund-receiving SPV for KMH. It has no employees, no independent management, and no business activities other than holding legal title to M/V Crimson Horizon and receiving and disbursing funds at KMH's direction.
(b) Common beneficial ownership: Both KMH and Korinthian Bulkers are beneficially owned by the Volkov family (Andrei Volkov and Sergei Volkov). The interposition of Oceangate Ventures Ltd. as an intermediate holding company does not alter the fact that the same family controls the entire corporate chain.
(c) Centralised management and control: All material decisions regarding Korinthian Bulkers' affairs are made by KMH's management or by the Volkov family. Korinthian Bulkers has no independent board of directors that exercises autonomous judgment. Its directors (if any are appointed) act on instructions from KMH.
(d) Fund flows: The funds in the Pinnacle Bank accounts derive from charter hire and vessel sale proceeds that are the economic property of KMH. These funds flow through Korinthian Bulkers as a matter of administrative convenience, not as a result of any genuine commercial separation.
(e) Evasion of obligations: Under Singapore law, the court has discretion to look behind the corporate form where the subsidiary is used as a device to evade obligations. KMH's use of the SPV structure to hold assets beyond the reach of its creditors — particularly in circumstances where it has failed to satisfy a substantial arbitral award — supports the application of the alter ego doctrine.
Singapore law on piercing the corporate veil is generally conservative, following the English common law approach established in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 and refined in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34. However, the Singapore Court of Appeal in Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito [2013] 4 SLR 308 acknowledged that the corporate veil may be pierced where the company is a mere facade or sham, or where it would be just and equitable to do so. In the enforcement context, Singapore courts have shown a willingness to adopt a pragmatic approach, particularly where the SPV structure has been used to place assets beyond the reach of judgment creditors.
Approach 2: Direct Enforcement Against Korinthian Bulkers
An alternative approach is to seek a basis for enforcing the Award or obtaining a judgment directly against Korinthian Bulkers (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. If enforcement or judgment can be obtained directly against Korinthian Bulkers, the garnishee proceedings become straightforward — the debt owed by Pinnacle Bank to Korinthian Bulkers can be directly attached.
Possible routes to direct enforcement or judgment against Korinthian Bulkers include:
(a) Application under the IAA on the basis that Korinthian Bulkers was a party to, or bound by, the arbitration agreement: This is a difficult argument on the present facts, as Korinthian Bulkers was not a signatory to any of the three charter-party agreements. However, there is a developing body of international arbitration jurisprudence (the "group of companies" doctrine) under which a non-signatory may be bound by an arbitration agreement where it is part of a group of companies that participated in the underlying transaction. This doctrine has been applied in certain civil law jurisdictions but has received only limited recognition in common law systems, including Singapore. We do not recommend relying on this argument as the primary route.
(b) Separate Singapore proceedings against Korinthian Bulkers as alter ego of KMH: TSL could commence separate proceedings in Singapore against Korinthian Bulkers, seeking a declaration that Korinthian Bulkers is KMH's alter ego and that it is jointly liable for KMH's obligations under the Award. If successful, this would provide a direct basis for garnishee proceedings. However, this would involve a contested trial on the alter ego issue and would add significant time and cost to the enforcement campaign.
(c) Enforcement of the English judgment against Korinthian Bulkers: If the English courts grant enforcement of the Award against Korinthian Bulkers (for example, on an alter ego basis or by variation of the WFO to include Korinthian Bulkers as a respondent), the English judgment could potentially be enforced in Singapore under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap. 264). This is an indirect route but may be worth pursuing in parallel.
Recommended Approach.  We recommend pursuing a combination of Approach 1 and elements of Approach 2, as follows:
(i) Apply for leave to enforce the LCIA Award against KMH in Singapore under the IAA;
(ii) Simultaneously apply for a Mareva-type injunction to freeze the Pinnacle Bank accounts in the name of Korinthian Bulkers, pending the garnishee application, on the basis that there is a real risk of dissipation and that the funds are beneficially owned by or held on behalf of KMH;
(iii) Once the enforcement order is obtained against KMH, apply for a garnishee order to show cause against Pinnacle Bank in respect of accounts held by Korinthian Bulkers, with supporting arguments on beneficial ownership and alter ego; and
(iv) In p