1. Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” Development in the Ship Arrest Field with a particular focus on Bunker Supply and recent Liquidation of OW Bunker Alessandro Tricoli MIS Seminar on Recent Developments in Maritime, Transport and Insurance Law 23 rd November 2015 - Dubai

2. Overview Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” Pros and Cons of arrest in the UAE Practical implications of the OW collapse. The (contractual) links between the parties The commercial approach English and other jurisdictions Recent UAE Court of Appeal decision

3. Pros and Cons of UAE arrest Pros Jurisdiction Wrongful arrest compensation still nearly impossible to obtain. Extremely difficult to obtain vessel release without security. No pre-emptive action to resist arrest. Knowing how to work with the system. Our verdict: the UAE is an arrest friendly jurisdiction. Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012”

4. Pros and Cons of UAE arrest Cons Wrongful arrest compensation – recent judgment. Must issue main claim proceedings. Heavy reliance upon AIS. No UAE Warrant. Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012”

5. Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” OW Bunker Collapse

6. The Physical Supplier’s Claims Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” OWB (in liquidation) Vessel ING Bank Charterer Owners Liquidators

7. The (contractual) links between the parties involved Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” Owner/Charterer Physical SupplierOWB Vessel ING Bank Commercial Control / Charter Purchase Order Bunker Supply Security Agreement Contract Physical Exchange

8. Practical Implications caused by the OW Collapse Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” Once the physical supplier has arrested the vessel – will the Court sustain the arrest? In other words: Whom should owners/charterers pay? OW (contractual party) Physical Bunker Supplier ING – Assignee of OW Receivables

9. Whom to pay? Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” Owner / Charterer Physical Supplier OWB (in liquidation) Vessel ING Bank Contractual Claim Assigned Right Claim “in rem” Dilemma: The owners stopped payments to avoid multiple payments

10. Commercial Approach Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” Question to ask: Who would be the ultimate receiver of the purchase price had OW not gone bust? Answer: The physical supplier. Reason: OW was only the “middle man” and would as such have only been entitled to the margin between the purchase and the sale of the bunkers.

11. English, and other jurisdictions Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” England – Res Cogitans Canada – charterers released after paying physical suppliers Israel – Payment to physical suppliers discharges the obligation to pay OW (under appeal to the Supreme Court) Belgium – Arrest by supplier was lifted on the basis that the owner had paid OW (under appeal)

12. UAE Courts Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” Several indicative first-instance decisions in favour of physical suppliers Now: Khorfakkan Court of Appeal decision Arrest on the basis of the BDN confirmed No contract, but statutory right ING’s appeal was rejected.

13. Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” Q & A

14. Winner of Seatrade “ Best Maritime Firm 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 & 2015 ” Winner of Finance Monthly Law Awards 2013 “Corporate and Commercial Law Firm of the Year” Winner of Lloyd’s List “Maritime Lawyer of the Year 2012” Thank You Fichte & Co Legal Consultancy Sheikh Zayed Road | Business Bay | Prism Tower | 19th floor | P.O. Box 116637 | Dubai | UAE T: +971 4 43 57 577 | www.fichtelegal.com info@fichtelegal.cominfo@fichtelegal.com | jasamin.fichte@fichtelegal.comjasamin.fichte@fichtelegal.com