1. society
2. work
3. contracts

ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
APRIL 2015
CONTENTS
Contract
Termination – some practical pointers
2
Termination clauses and repudiatory breach – court finds payment of charter hire is not a condition: Astra not followed
3
Termination notices – the importance of getting them right 4
Liquidated damages – Unaoil Ltd v Leighton Offshore Pte Ltd [2014] EWHC 65 (Comm) 4
Execution of contracts – Court of Appeal provides valuable reminder of the importance of formalities of execution 6
Dispute Resolution
New CIETAC arbitration rules
7
The Singapore International Commercial Court
8
Renewable Energy
Flagging the floating turbine unit: Navigating towards registerable, first-ranking security
interests in floating wind turbines
9
The tail wagging the dog: New offshore wind contracting principles migrating back to oil and gas
11
International Trade – Sanctions
Russia and Crimea sanctions – where are we at the start of 2015?
12
Firm News
Insurance alert
15
Smart Contracting Seminars – Spring 2015
15
The Smart Contracting bulletin is aimed at professionals in the energy industry worldwide. The purpose is to highlight
relevant issues and offer guidance on how to avoid or minimise the associated risks.
If you have colleagues who would be interested in receiving this bulletin please email [email protected]
02
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
CONTRACT
Termination – some practical pointers
“If it ain’t a mess, it’ll do till the mess gets here...”1
Belts are of course tightening across the industry. For many
operators the price drop has been deemed too sharp and the
run-off periods on their current contracts too long. They cannot
or will not wait to make savings and that means cutting or
renegotiating contracts.
The reasons given for the terminations are many and various. In
each case the fundamental motivation is generally the same.
The oil price is not high enough to make the contracts
worthwhile or in some instances affordable at all.
Operations
In a termination situation matters can move quickly. It is
important that your operations team know the legal issues
being considered and of paramount importance that your legal
team know what is being said and done on the ground,
preferably before it is said and done. Great care must be taken
with communications to avoid prejudicing your position and to
ensure consistency. Everyone must pull together as a team and
communicate in detail. Time spent on this in a potential
termination situation will reap rewards later.
Records
Once it appears a termination is possible then, as with any
dispute, record keeping and privilege issues become extremely
important. What is said and done should be documented
carefully, having in mind the likelihood of the material being
pored over by a judge or tribunal. A contractor will wish to
demonstrate it has acted reasonably and diligently under
difficult circumstances. Documentation (including notebooks
and hard copy materials) should be preserved, organised and
reviewed by the legal team at the earliest opportunity.
Sometimes this motivation matters. Often it does not. A legal
right to terminate exists or it does not. If the right clearly does
exist then, usually, it matters not why it was exercised. If the
right clearly does not exist then the termination will be wrongful
and the client will ultimately, usually adopt one of two positions Privilege is always a thorny issue. Care should be taken when
– either it will use whatever commercial leverage is available to
seeking legal advice from in-house counsel that the relevant
it or it will say it is simply no longer good for the money.
communication is kept separate from commercial issues. It
should also be made clear that the purpose of the
In practice three factors therefore influence the outcome of a
communication is to seek legal advice in relation to an
termination dispute:
anticipated dispute. Communication in a termination situation
and related issues of privilege will be two of the subjects dealt
1. The legal merits of the termination and the resulting right
with in some of the Smart Contracting Seminars over the next
to damages.
few months so anyone interested in the subject may wish to
2. The nature and importance of the commercial relationship. join us for those (or contact us for papers if they cannot do so).
3. Whether the contracting party is capable of paying any
damages.
Cost of commencing
All these will be weighed in the balance when deciding strategy
and each case is highly individual as a result. Important legal
issues will often arise and we looked at some of these in last
year’s Smart Seminar Series.
However, experiences in the financial crisis of 2008/2009 and
in the last few months have also highlighted a few practical
points which are worth particular attention in a situation where
a termination is threatened.
Financial information
Your treasury team can provide key assistance in assessing
financial risk. That risk assessment should not end with the
conclusion of a contract. All available financial information
should be gathered and evaluated if there are any concerns
about a counterparty. News alerts should be set up with
appropriate sources to ensure that you are the first to know any
publically available information on its financial position. All this
should be fed back to legal as a central point and the status of
payment of invoices monitored carefully. The poorer the
condition of the client’s finances the greater the need to
monitor invoice payments and, often, the more there is to be
said for an early cash settlement in the event of a dispute.
Knowledge, in these circumstances, really is power.
1 No Country for Old Men, Cormac McCarthy (2005).
Finally, there are pros and cons to all dispute resolution systems
and here is not the place to debate them. However, there is
much to be said in a termination situation for being able to
commence a claim without incurring large institutional
arbitration fees. This is particularly the case if your counterpart
(or indeed you yourself) are suffering financial difficulties.
English High Court fees have gone up from their previous,
minimal levels but the maximum filing fee is GBP10,000.
Clare Kempkens
Partner, London
[email protected]
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
Termination clauses and repudiatory breach – court
finds payment of charter hire is not a condition: Astra
not followed
Spar Shipping AS v. Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co.
Ltd [2015] EWHC 718 (Comm)
Readers may recall our report in July 2014 on The Astra and
visitors to our Smart seminars will have heard us speak about
the case and its discussion of repudiatory breach. In a decision
handed down on 18 March 2015, another Commercial Court
judge has declined to follow Flaux J’s decision in The Astra
and has concluded that payment of hire by the Charterers was
not a condition of the charterparty. Mr Justice Popplewell
reached his decision following a careful consideration of the
authorities on this issue, including those on repudiatory
breach.
Why does this matter?
It is relevant to all who draft and negotiate termination
clauses. If a right to terminate is granted in your contract, in
the event that payment is not made within a certain period, is
that right to terminate all you get? Or can you claim for the
loss of the remaining contract period, in other words back log.
If the obligation to pay within that period was, properly
construed, a condition of the contract the answer is you can
claim back log (subject to any exclusions). If it was simply an
innominate term, then that will not automatically be the case.
You would need to show that the failure to pay had deprived
you of substantially the whole benefit of the contract or that
there had been a repudiation of the contract in some other
respect, entitling you to terminate and claim damages.
In The Astra Flaux J. considered an NYPE charterparty form
and concluded that the payment of hire was a condition of the
contract and therefore that the failure to pay a single hire
payment entitled the Owners to withdraw the vessel and claim
loss of profit for the remaining charter period. He suggested
that the granting of the right to terminate for non-payment
was itself evidence that punctual payment was intended to be
a condition of the contract.
In Spar Shipping, Popplewell J. disagreed. He found that the
right to terminate/withdraw the vessel was just that: a
contractually agreed right. It did not of itself mean that the
payment term was intended to be a condition. In fact he noted
that time for payment was not generally “of the essence” in
commercial contracts, in other words it was not generally
considered to be a condition. In other words mere breach of
the payment term and a consequent termination did not
entitle the Owners to loss of future hire.
In this instance Owners were entitled to claim in respect of the
balance of the charters, but only on the basis that the conduct
of the Charterers, objectively assessed, evinced an intention
not to perform the charters in a way which deprived the
Owners of substantially the whole benefit of the charters.
Conclusion
This case, pending any appeal, restores the position as it was
generally, pre-Astra, understood to be. It does mean however,
that Contractors who are presently not being paid should
exercise great care before exercising any termination rights
they may have if they wish to be able to claim their back log.
Only a repudiatory breach will enable them to do so. Those
who are negotiating contracts and wish to ensure that a claim
for back log survives termination for breach of a payment term
should ensure it is clear in the contract that the time for
payment is intended to be a condition of the contract.
Contact
For further details or more information from our shipping
team please sign up to our Shipping E-Brief on our website at
http://incelaw.com/en/sectors/shipping under News and
Updates – Keep in touch on the left hand column.
Clare Kempkens
Partner, London
[email protected]
Amanda Urwin
Senior Associate, London
[email protected]
03
04
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
Termination notices – the importance of getting them
right
Liquidated damages – Unaoil Ltd v Leighton Offshore
Pte Ltd [2014] EWHC 2965 (Comm)
In January the High Court ruled on the importance of
compliance with formal notice provisions in a contract when
serving termination notices.
Often contracts are amended prior to or during performance.
If they contain a liquidated damages clause, this should not be
overlooked.
The Claimant entered a claim for breach of contract and
misrepresentation in Ticket2Final OU v Wigan Athletic AFC Ltd
[2015] EWHC 61b (Ch) when the Defendant failed to supply it
with certain football match tickets which it had previously
agreed to provide. The Defendant purported to terminate the
contract for late payment prior to the alleged failure to supply
tickets. It had the right to do so if sums were overdue and a
seven day notice to correct was given in writing without the
sums being paid. A formal notice clause was also included in the
contract which clearly specified that any notice should not only
be in writing but also delivered by hand, by post or by fax.
Many industry contracts contain a liquidated damages clause, a
pre-agreed sum payable to one party for a specific breach of
contract by another party. These commonly address contractor
delay and/or defective performance. Key advantages of such
clauses are that they offer both parties certainty over the
damages payable for delay, and provide scope to limit a
contractor’s liability.
The Defendant failed to comply, having sent its notice by email.
It argued firstly that the formal notice clause did not apply to
the seven day notice and secondly that the parties had always
communicated by email which had therefore given rise to an
implied term that this was acceptable.
As to the first argument, it was held that the formal notice
clause did apply to notices in connection with termination, and
indeed that there was no justification at all for not requiring the
Defendant to satisfy it in the context of something as important
as termination. It was also held that notices were required to be
served in the manner set out in the contract in order that “the
recipient can be in no doubt about their importance”.
As to the second, namely that conduct between the parties
showed agreement that even formal notices could be served by
email, it was held that no facts which might support this
argument had been provided. The Defendant also claimed that
sending an email to a person with whom there was regular
correspondence would come to the Claimant’s attention more
easily than a letter sent to its Head Office. The court described
this as “an entirely bad point” and rejected it.
This case offers a timely reminder as to the importance of
adhering to the letter of a formal notice clause, and the need to
draft such a clause to include email if parties so choose.
The factual finding in this case that there was no evidence to
support joint acceptance of non-compliance with a formal
notice clause is key. If sufficient evidence of that had been
available the position might well have been different.
Charles Lockwood
Partner, London
[email protected]
Nicholas Iles
Trainee Solicitor, London
[email protected]
The recent case of Unaoil Ltd v Leighton Offshore Pte Ltd
[2014] EWHC 2965 (Comm) serves to illustrate that where a
contract is amended to reflect a lower price, if the liquidated
damages clause remains unchanged, there is a risk of the
liquidated damages provision becoming unenforceable as a
penalty.
The facts
The case concerned Leighton Offshore Pte Ltd (Leighton)
tendering for engineering and construction work on an oil
pipeline project in Iraq. A memorandum of agreement (MOA)
was drawn up under English law between Leighton and Unaoil
Ltd (Unaoil) and executed in December 2010, envisaging Unaoil
performing work on the project.
The MOA provided for an agreed price of US$75m and clause
8.1 stated:
“If LEIGHTON OFFSHORE is awarded the contract for the
PROJECT by the CLIENT, and LEIGHTON OFFSHORE does
not subsequently adhere to the terms of this MOA and is
accordingly in breach hereof, LEIGHTON OFFSHORE shall
pay to UNAOIL liquidated damages in the total amount of
US$40 million. After careful consideration by the Parties,
the Parties agree such amount is proportionate in all
respects and is a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that
UNAOIL would incur as a result of LEIGHTON OFFSHORE’s
failure to honour the terms of the MOA.”
The MOA also provided for a non-refundable advance payment
to Unaoil of 15% of the contract price, as well as a “Non
Refundable Pipe Laying Equipment Asset Write Down And
Mobilisation Payment of 7.5%” of the contract price.
Amendment to the MOA
The MOA was amended in March and again in April 2011, with
the main difference being a reduction in the contract price to
US$55m. As part of the amendment, Unaoil would also be paid
a marketing fee of 5% on any amount Leighton received on the
project above US$500m, set at a minimum of US$25m.
The dispute
Leighton’s tender was successful, but Leighton then chose not
to formally sub-contract with Unaoil. Unaoil continued to
prepare for the project and submitted an invoice for advance
payments which Leighton failed to pay.
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
In Commercial Court proceedings Unaoil claimed the following:
the specified advance payments as a simple debt claim;
damages for loss of profit resulting from Leighton’s repudiatory
breach; and liquidated damages of US$40m.
Judgment
The court rejected all of Leighton’s defences as to the debt
claim and awarded Unaoil US$12,577,500, as the two advance
payments due under the contract. The loss of profit claim
however failed. Although Leighton had breached the contract
by deciding not to sub-contract with Unaoil, such that Unaoil
was entitled to damages, this was only to the extent that the
loss of profit exceeded the advance payment. The court had
difficulty in quantifying the precise loss of profit, and concluded
it to be in the region of US$5.8m, despite Unaoil claiming
US$25m for support services which Leighton had never used.
The precise value was of less importance however, for because
the sum was noticeably less than the value of the debt claim, it
had already been covered by the advance payments.
As for the liquidated damages claim, the court ruled that the
sum stated in the MOA (US$40m) was an unenforceable
penalty, and referred to Talal El Makdessi v Cavendish Square
Holdings BV and another [2013] EWCA Civ 1539. The
applicable principles for determining whether a liquidated
damages clause will be unenforceable as a penalty were
discussed in El Makdessi and the case demonstrates a recent
shift in the approach of the courts. Traditionally, a primary
consideration was whether the liquidated damages were
“extravagant and unconscionable” in comparison with the
greatest conceivable loss such that the effect was one of
deterrence of breach (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New
Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1). El Makdessi concerned
a Share Purchase Agreement which provided for liquidated
damages on the seller’s breach. Whilst the court ruled that the
particular provision had been agreed by commercial equals on a
level playing field, and that the damages were extravagant,
unreasonable, lacked commercial justification and fell into the
category of deterrence, such that they were unenforceable, the
court suggested that the term “unconscionable” might
nowadays be more appropriately applied to a clause which
provides for extravagant payment without commercial
justification.
Whilst the court in Unaoil found that the liquidated damages
may have represented a genuine pre-estimate of the loss when
the MOA was signed, it held that where a contract has been
amended in a material respect, the relevant date was the date
at which the MOA was amended. This approach appears logical,
considering that there could be numerous potential changes to
a contract which could render an earlier liquidated damages
sum no longer commercially justified.
The court considered that, following the reduction of the
contract price from US$75m to US$55m, the original liquidated
damages amount of US$40m could no longer be seen as
commercially justified. In its view and in the absence of clarity as
to why the liquidated damages clause was not considered at the
same time as the amendments, it was highly unlikely that both
parties would have agreed to the original liquidated damages in
the context of the amendments.
What does this mean for contractors?
The situation of Unaoil is quite different from usual examples of
liquidated damages, as the clause in question was intended to
compensate the subcontractor for the contractor’s breach,
whereas the more common use is to compensate an employer
company for a contractor’s delay.
This case however highlights the importance of checking
whether amendments to a contract impact on other provisions
and particularly whether an existing liquidated damages sum
may fall into the category of a penalty. If the liquidated damages
sum is not amended, and absent commercial justification for the
sums identified, a court may be inclined to hold the provision
unenforceable as a penalty. This is especially relevant in
engineering contracts which may undergo significant changes
throughout the duration of the contract, whether increasing or
decreasing the price of the contract and/or the scope of work
to be performed.
Charles Lockwood
Partner, London
[email protected]
Nicholas Iles
Trainee Solicitor, London
[email protected]
05
6
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
Execution of contracts – Court of Appeal provides
valuable reminder of the importance of formalities
of execution
The recent case of Integral Petroleum S.A. v SCU-Finanz AG
[2015] EWCA Civ 144 concerned an agreement between two
Swiss trading companies for the sale and purchase of up to
400,000 metric tons of oil products per year at the seller’s
option. The contract provided that it would be governed by
English law and that the English High Court would have
exclusive jurisdiction. A number of matters, including the
particular products, quantities and prices, were left to be
specified in separate addenda to the contract and, it appears,
were never agreed.
No products were ever delivered to the buyer under the
contract and the buyer claimed US$1,150,000 in lost profits
and damages on the basis that the seller had failed to deliver
any products. The buyer commenced proceedings in the High
Court, but the seller failed to file a defence and judgment was
entered against it in default. The seller subsequently appealed
against the judgment in default, for which it had to establish
that it had a defence with a reasonable prospect of success. In
doing so, the seller relied, among other things, on a defence
that the contract had not been validly executed and therefore
was not binding at all.
At first instance, the seller succeeded in setting aside the
default judgment. The buyer then appealed to the Court of
Appeal, asserting that the judgment in default should be
maintained. The questions before the Court of Appeal
included the question of whether the contract had been
validly executed. The seller contended that execution was
invalid because the contract bore only one of the two
authorised signatures of the seller company that were
required by Swiss law. The buyer argued that the question of
execution should be determined under English law, being the
law governing the substance of the contract.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the relevant conflict of laws
rules under common law and statute and confirmed that the
question of execution was an issue of the authority of one
signatory to bind the seller company, which was a matter for
the company’s constitution. This was governed by Swiss law,
being the place of the seller’s incorporation. As Swiss law
required the contract to be signed by two authorised
signatories and it had only been signed by one, the contract
was not binding on the seller. The Court found therefore that
the first instance judge had been correct in finding that the
seller’s defence was bound to succeed and dismissed the
buyer’s appeal.
As this decision concerned only an appeal against the setting
aside of a default judgment, the full merits of the buyer’s claim
were not considered by the Court and, at first instance, the
judge described the evidence as to what actually happened
pursuant to the contract as extremely sparse. The judge
commented that the argument that there was a contractual
obligation to supply a minimum quantity of each product was
open to serious question, presumably because the contract
only provided that “up to” the specified amounts of cargo
were to be delivered at the Seller’s option.
Integral’s experience is a reminder to parties to check at the
time contracts are entered into that any necessary formalities
are complied with and that those signing on behalf of a
company have authority to bind it under their local law. Where
there is any doubt it may be prudent to obtain confirmation
from local lawyers.
For SCU-Finanz of course this lack of formal compliance
offered a welcome exit route from the contract. The case was
unusual in the fact that the issue of execution appears to have
been largely a question of the actual authority of the signatory
to bind the company, which was governed by the law of the
place of the company’s incorporation, and issues of ostensible
authority, which would instead be governed by the putative
proper law of the contract (i.e. English law), do not appear to
have arisen. The case was also slightly unusual in the fact that
neither party appears to have taken steps to perform the
contract and the Judge at first instance clearly doubted
whether, even if the Contract had been validly executed, the
Seller had been under any obligation at all. Where the parties
have taken steps to perform or rely upon the contract, the
question of whether they are bound by a contract in
circumstances where execution formalities have not been
complied with are likely to be complicated by issues of agency,
waiver and estoppel. This case is unlikely to trouble those
concerned with active contracts. Nevertheless, as SCU-Finanz
discovered in some circumstances it may well be worthwhile in
the event of a dispute to check whether the relevant contract
has been properly executed.
Clare Kempkens
Partner, London
[email protected]
Robin Acworth
Solicitor, London
[email protected]
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The rules try to address the difficulties caused by the schism
between CIETAC Beijing and the Shanghai and South China
(Shenzhen) sub-commissions. Article 2 provides that, where a
New CIETAC arbitration rules
CIETAC sub-commission no longer exists or its authorisation
has been terminated, the case will be administered by the
On 4 November 2014, the China International Economic and
Arbitration Court. Article 2 also tries to reserve CIETAC’s right
Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) adopted its new
to decide these jurisdictional questions. Current thinking is
Arbitration Rules, which apply to all domestic and international
that these rules are not binding on the PRC courts. As a result,
arbitration references commenced on or after 1 January 2015. the risk of inconsistent judicial decisions remains. Caution is
In this article, we set out a brief introduction to the key changes. still needed when drafting arbitration clauses, to make sure
that the clause is effective and to avoid expensive satellite
Chapter VI contains special provisions for the new Hong Kong litigation.
Arbitration Center in the Hong Kong SAR. Article 74 makes it
Kirsty Cattanach
clear that arbitrations administered by the CIETAC Hong Kong Paul Ho
Senior Associate, Hong Kong
Arbitration Center are Hong Kong awards, that the seat of the Partner, Shanghai
[email protected]
[email protected]
arbitration is Hong Kong and that the arbitration law of Hong
Kong is the applicable governing law unless the parties agree
otherwise. In the ordinary course, Hong Kong judgments are
enforceable in mainland China under reciprocal agreement
legislation.
The 2015 Rules contain new procedures for arbitrations
concerning multiple contracts. Article 14 now allows a
claimant to start a single arbitration for disputes arising out of
or in connection with multiple contracts, provided that the
contracts satisfy certain criteria. This is an important
development. In the past, parties with multiple disputes arising
out of the same set of facts but under separate contracts had
to commence a separate arbitration for each contract. That
involved the risk that different tribunals would reach
inconsistent conclusions. This risk can now be avoided. In
addition, Article 19 now expands on the old rules on
consolidation of arbitrations, previously set out at Article 17.
Whereas before, CIETAC required the consent of all parties
before consolidating two or more arbitrations, Article 19.1
potentially gives CIETAC the power to consolidate at the
request of just one party, provided certain conditions are met.
In deciding to consolidate, CIETAC must take into account the
opinions of all parties. This of course raises the question of
whether claimants in multiple arbitrations against nonresponsive respondents might use the new provisions at
Article 19 to get those arbitrations consolidated.
Other changes include the provision at Article 2 for an
Arbitration Court to handle references, rather than a
Secretariat. It remains to be seen what this will mean in
practical terms for the administration of cases. The
Arbitration Court enjoys new powers, including the power
under Article 45.1 to suspend an arbitration at the request of
just one party. Perhaps most significantly, the Arbitration
Court can grant emergency relief under the CIETAC
Emergency Arbitrator Procedures at Appendix III of the 2015
Rules. In suitable cases, the Arbitration Court will appoint an
Emergency Arbitrator within one day of receiving a party’s
application for an Emergency Arbitrator and its advance on
costs. The Emergency Arbitrator must make his decision
within just 15 days of his acceptance of appointment.
07
8
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
The Singapore International Commercial Court
On 5 January 2015, the Singapore International Commercial
Court (SICC) was launched as a division of the High Court of
Singapore to hear and try high-value, complex, cross border
commercial cases which may or may not have any connection
with Singapore.
Some of the salient features of the SICC include:
Jurisdiction
Generally, the SICC has the jurisdiction to hear and try any
action that the Singapore High Court may hear if:
a.
the claim in the action is of an international and
commercial nature;
b.
the parties to the action have submitted to the SICC’s
jurisdiction under a written jurisdiction agreement; and
c.
the parties to the action do not seek any relief in the form
of, or connected with, a prerogative order (including a
mandatory order, a prohibiting order, a quashing order or
an order for review of detention).
In addition, the SICC may also hear cases which are
transferred to it from the Singapore High Court.
Judges
Proceedings in the SICC will generally be presided over by a
single Judge or a panel of three Judges (if agreed by the
parties or so directed by the Chief Justice). Any appeal against
the judgment of the SICC shall be to the Singapore Court of
Appeal and the appeal shall be heard before three Judges of
Appeal or five Judges of Appeal (if the parties so agree or the
Chief Justice so directs).
Apart from the Chief Justice, Senior Judge, Judges of Appeal
and Judges of the High Court of Singapore, an SICC action
may also be presided over by one of the International Judges
of the SICC. Presently, the 11 International Judges hail from
Australia, Austria, England, France, Germany, Hong Kong
(SAR), Japan and the USA.
Representation in the SICC
Being a division of the High Court of Singapore, generally, only
members of the Singapore Bar have right of audience before
the SICC. However, in cases which have no substantial
connection to Singapore (referred to as an “offshore case”),
foreign lawyers who have been registered under the Legal
Profession Act may represent a party either fully or together
with a Singapore registered lawyer (depending on the ambit of
their registration).
Joinder of additional parties
The Court has the power to join a party to the SICC action
without that party’s consent so long as the requirements for
the joinder of a party provided in the Rules of Court (e.g. the
existence of common questions of fact or law and the relief
claimed arises out of the same transaction or series of
transactions) are satisfied. A party can be joined to the SICC
action even if the claim by or against that party is not of an
international and commercial nature.
Confidentiality
Proceedings in the SICC would, as a general rule, be heard in
open court. However, for “offshore cases” or where parties
agree that confidentiality is desirable (or upon the successful
application of one of the parties), appropriate measures may
be taken by the Court to maintain confidentiality such as by
hearing the action in camera, issuing a “gag” order or ordering
that the Court’s file be sealed.
Proof of foreign law
The Court may, in appropriate circumstances, and upon an
application of a party, order that any question of foreign law
arising in any cause or matter in the Court be determined on
the basis of submissions instead of proof.
International enforceability of SICC judgments
A judgment or order of the SICC can be enforced in Singapore
or in other jurisdictions in the same manner as a judgment of
the High Court of Singapore.
Concluding remarks
The SICC seeks to further boost Singapore’s value as a leading
forum for legal services and international commercial dispute
resolution by offering litigants the option of having their
disputes adjudicated, in a neutral venue, by a panel of
experienced judges comprising specialist commercial judges
from Singapore and international judges from both civil law
and common law traditions, in a manner which incorporates
the advantages of “traditional” litigation and arbitration into a
single dispute resolution process. It remains to be seen to
what extent contracting parties will agree to SICC jurisdiction
in their contracts and, where parties have agreed on
Singapore High Court jurisdiction, the extent to which the
High Court will refer matters to the SICC.
Bernard Yee
Director, Incisive Law LLC
[email protected]
Alvin Ong
Associate, Incisive Law LLC
[email protected]
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Flagging the floating turbine unit: Navigating towards
registerable, first-ranking security interests in
floating wind turbines
Synopsis of article by Alexander Severance1 and Martin
Sandgren2 published in Volume 39 of the Tulane Maritime Law
Journal 2014 (39 TUL. MAR. L.J. 2014)
As offshore wind farms are located in deeper waters,
technological and economic constraints will force developers
to mount wind turbine generators on floating hulls (FTUs)
instead of mounting them on fixed foundations permanently
attached to the seafloor. The ability to take a first-ranking,
registerable security interest in the resulting Floating Turbine
Unit will be a critical issue for lenders providing financing to
deep water offshore wind farms. Floating Turbine Units are a
novel class of marine moveable property not adequately
addressed by current legislation. Traditional admiralty law may
provide a solution – ship mortgages are a form of registerable,
domestic law security interests which are internationally
recognized and enforceable as a result of various multilateral
conventions. This article explores the concept of a “ship”
under various international maritime conventions and the
possibility of treating the Floating Turbine Unit as a “ship” for
the purposes of obtaining a ship mortgage under the laws of
several key maritime jurisdictions.
vessel, utilising a traditional single horizontal hull to move
goods or passengers between ports. However, it is less clear
to which extent other floating structures and objects, such as
the FTU, qualify as ‘ships’.
There is no uniform definition of “ship” or “vessel” in
international maritime conventions. What is treated as a “ship”
varies widely. If desired, the natural place for an overreaching
definition of ‘ship’, whether including FTUs or not, would be
UNCLOS or a separate specific convention. However, we
submit, that, in view of their diverse nature and purpose and
the political compromises, it would not be possible or
meaningful to develop a general definition of “ship”
appropriate for all of the conventions. Any continued work on
the Draft Convention on Offshore Mobile Craft should take
into account the potential future development of FTUs, while
taking into consideration the FTU’s unique characteristics.
International conventions give Flag States significant
discretion to determine what may be registered as a vessel.
The variation between Flag States in categories of vessels
capable of registration is as varied and diverse as the
differences in culture, language and national character.
Domestic legislation of several Flag States permit registration
of a variety of specialized vessels that do not fall within the
definition of a traditional vessel. There are plenty of examples
of flagged non-traditional vessels operating as power plants.
In the United Kingdom, statutes, regulations and case law
interpreting the term “ship” do not provide any clear answer as
As the number and size of offshore wind farm projects located to whether or not FTUs would be eligible to be registered as
ships and subject to statutory ship mortgages under the
in deeper waters increase, FTUs can be expected to become
increasingly important in the future. The availability of project Merchant Shipping Act 1995. There are good arguments that
FTUs would be eligible, but there is considerable uncertainty.
finance and other sources of finance will be of increasing
The Secretary of State may clarify the situation by using his
importance for the development and growth of the FTU
discretion to decide that an object designed or adapted for
market. One of the key factors in procuring necessary
use at sea is or is not to be treated as a “ship” for purposes of
financing will be the ability of the lenders to take a strong
the Act. There may be an alternative path to U.K. registration
security interest over the assets financed. While a share
pledge in the project company, assignment of revenue streams and mortgage of FTUs through the so called “Red Ensign”
and insurance, and other means of security not directly related possibility in the Crown Dependencies and the U.K. Overseas
to the wind turbines themselves provide some security for the Territories.
lenders and may be sufficient for purposes of fixed foundation
offshore wind farms, it may not be sufficient for FTU financing. Current U.S. legislation, regulations and judicial interpretation
of the term “vessel” do not provide absolute certainty with
This is partially due to the more mobile nature (and intrinsic
regard to the characterization of FTUs as vessels for ship
independent value in foreclosure) of FTUs in comparison to
mortgage and documentation purposes under the Ship
the traditional fixed foundation offshore wind farms. SelfMortgage Act. Although there are arguments to distinguish
evidently, the ability to take a registerable in rem security
FTUs from other watercraft found not to be vessels and
interest in FTUs will be more important in relation to larger
analogize FTUs to watercraft ultimately found to be vessels,
wind farms and wind farms where the FTUs may be moved
the strength of the arguments is not clear in light of recent
between different jurisdictions for purposes of manufacture,
case law.
installation, operation and/or maintenance. The availability of
ship finance may also provide developers of FTU wind farms
with an additional source of finance, potentially on more
attractive terms and conditions than currently available to
traditional offshore wind farm developers.
It has been said and repeated that, ‘there is no watertight
definition, even of a ship’. Most intuitively associate the
concept of a ‘ship’ with a large self-propelled and manned
©2014 Alexander Severance and Martin Sandgren
1 Legal Counsel, Siemens AG, Wind Power Division.
2 Of Counsel, Ince & Co., London.
While it may already be possible to register an FTU in the ship
register in certain jurisdictions, we are not aware of any
jurisdiction in which an FTU is explicitly registerable. Both the
United Kingdom and the American approach have resulted in
litigation and potential confusion, an unwelcome situation for
lenders seeking unambiguous first-ranking security interests
over unusual craft such as FTUs. Considering the large
investments required and the political and economic
9
10
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
importance of renewable energy production, this uncertainty
is unacceptable. It should be noted that, there is a risk that the
validity of any FTU registration and/or ships mortgage may
later be challenged, for example in connection with an
enforcement or bankruptcy proceeding, as has occurred in
bankruptcy cases relating to floating casinos registered in the
United States.
At a minimum, a state which wishes to provide certainty as to
title and security in FTUs should either include a provision in
their ship registration statute to the effect that FTUs shall be
treated as ships or vessels for purposes thereof or enact a
separate statutory provision providing for a separate FTU
register. In jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, where
the authority to determine whether a floating object is to be
treated as a “ship” for various purposes has been delegated,
this could be done through an administrative, rather than
legislative, act.
Flag States also have a choice between considering FTUs to
be “ships” for all purposes, no purposes or some purposes.
The legal models for registration and mortgaging of certain
types of specialized fixed and floating maritime assets by
Norway and offshore ocean thermal energy conversion
facilities by the United States provide useful examples of how
a legislature may use its discretion to legally categorize
non-traditional maritime assets for limited purposes.
Legislatures seeking to provide certainty regarding FTU legal
status for purposes of title and security should consider going
beyond merely stating that the FTU is considered a “ship” for
registration and mortgage purposes and explicitly address
how the remainder of admiralty law will or will not apply to
FTUs, the extent to which the generally applicable law of the
Flag State remains applicable, and the correct forum (or fora)
for hearing of disputes. They should consider FTUs in the
context of criminal and civil liability for collisions, other
damage, pollution, health, safety and security, taxes,
competition law and industry and labor regulations. Selfevidently, any change in law should not be made without
analysis of the desirability, costs and benefits and other
consequences thereof.
In addition, if and when it is possible for FTUs to be registered
in a Flag State other than the Host State in which it is to be
used, the recognition of the Flag State ship mortgage over the
FTU as a valid first-ranking security interest by the Host State
will be of much greater importance and the issues more
complex. For various reasons, Host States may wish to open
their waters to foreign-flagged FTUs in order to encourage
and accelerate the development of offshore wind resources.
Lenders will want to know that their Flag State ship mortgage
over the FTU is valid and enforceable in the Host State. In
addition, the interaction and priority of the relevant regulatory
and fiscal regimes of the Host State and Flag States will need
to be clarified by the Host State.
It is ultimately up to Flag States and Host States to determine
what form or forms (if any) of security interests over FTUs will
be recognized, and which priority the interests will be given.
Although there may be alternatives, the ship mortgage
provides one possibility of creating a domestic law firstranking registerable security interest over FTUs which
theoretically would be recognized and enforced by other
nations. The fact that FTUs do not resemble traditional
vessels should not be an impediment.
If you would like to read the full article published in the Tulane
Maritime Law Journal please contact Martin Sandgren.
Martin Sandgren
Of Counsel, London
[email protected]
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
The tail wagging the dog: New offshore wind
contracting principles migrating back to oil and gas
As a result of various offshore wind industry participants
expressing an interest in BIMCO developing a wind industry
specific time charter party, BIMCO developed WINDTIME,
which was released in 2013. A driving factor for the initiative
Similar to many other new industries which have learnt from
was the concern of certain owners, including of crew transfer
older similar industries, the emerging offshore wind industry
vessels, who felt that they were forced to accept charterer
has taken much inspiration from the more mature offshore oil
developed charter friendly forms. This is similar to BIMCO’s
and gas industry, including on legal concepts and contracting
development of the original Supplytime in the mid 1970’s,
formats, such as the use of Supplytime. There is an interesting
largely in response to the use by major operators of their own
reverse trend of cross pollination back to the oil and gas
industry from renewables, including a recent initiative by BIMCO heavily charter friendly forms.
to update and possibly rebalance the owner/charterer risk split
WINDTIME is a Supplytime based wind industry specific time
in Supplytime on the back of the success of the new BIMCO
charter party for crew transfer and other service vessels. It can
WINDTIME charter party. It remains to be seen to what extent
easily be adapted for other and larger vessels (in particular the
this cross pollination and “tail wagging the dog” phenomenon
12 hour operation needs to be adjusted to 24/7 operation),
between the two industries will migrate to other legal areas.
such as jack-up installation vessel. Like Supplytime is used in oil
and gas, in theory it could also be used in oil and gas.
The offshore wind industry arguably currently is at a similar
stage of development to where offshore oil and gas was in the
mid 70’s. Both migrated from onshore and faced similar
additional challenges when they went to sea. Even if there are
large differences between the industries, such as in
environmental risks, climate impact, market price sensitivity,
risk and reward etc., there are many similarities, in particular
the marine, energy and construction aspects. Oil and gas
looked a lot to shipping for guidance in its early days. Due to
the additional common energy and construction elements the
offshore wind industry arguably has been able to piggy back
on oil and gas to an even larger extent.
In both industries there has been a general tension between the
original onshore and newer maritime culture and thinking. One
of the most prominent examples thereof is the two
fundamentally different liability profiles in the two main types of
contract format commonly used at different levels in the
contract chain on an offshore wind project. Inspired by oil and
gas, Supplytime has generally been used for time chartering of
vessels further down the contracting chain and, sometimes in
heavily amended form for lump sum like installation work. FIDIC
like contracts, normally Yellow Book, are generally used for
construction and main component supply higher up the chain.
In Supplytime, the owner faces limited or no liability if he does
not deliver the vessel on time or it does not operate properly.
Property damage and personal injury/death is dealt with
through a knock-for-knock concept. There is a consequential
loss disclaimer, but no cap. By contrast, the contractor under a
FIDIC like contract faces heavy financial liabilities if he does not
deliver the project on time or there are defects (liquidated
damages for delay and breach of performance or availability
warranties). There are negligence based indemnities for
property damage and personal injury/death. There is a
consequential loss disclaimer and caps (overall and sub-caps for
liquidated damages). The tension is much less prominent in oil
and gas, which over time has developed industry specific
construction and service contracts, such as the LOGIC suite of
contracts in the UK sector and the Norwegian forms (NF, NTK
etc.) in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. These include
FIDIC like liability for delay and defects and Supplytime like
knock-for-knocks for damages and injuries.
WINDTIME fundamentally rebalanced the risk split between
owners and charterers. As a default, owners face liquidated
damages in the amount of the day rate for late delivery and
risk paying damages if the vessel is not as agreed. As a
counterbalance, WINDTIME introduced a monetary cap on
liability. It maintains a traditional knock-for-knock. WINDTIME
also includes clarified drafting on several points, including the
details and mechanics of the termination clause and an update
of the knock-for-knock and consequential losses clauses in
order to bring them in line with recent case law and current
practices.
WINDTIME has been well received in the market. It appears
that any fears that it would not be accepted by owners due to
the increased potential liabilities were not warranted. By
contrast, it has lead certain main charterers, such as Siemens,
to generally shift from internally developed charter friendly
forms to the more balanced WINDTIME, at least for crew
transfer vessels, reducing time for negotiating and, arguably,
the risk that owners accept risks they cannot manage or terms
they do not understand.
Following hot on the heels of the success of WINDTIME, a
revision of Supplytime 2005 is scheduled to begin later in
2015. BIMCO believes that WINDTIME introduced a number
of useful amendments to the Supplytime wording that may be
worthwhile incorporating into Supplytime itself. There
appears to be an increasing perception at BIMCO and in the
industry that the owner/charterer risk balance in Supplytime is
ripe for an overhaul. Many of the updates resulting from recent
legal developments, clarifying drafting and other minor
changes should be relatively uncontroversial. It will be
interesting to see to what extent the new WINDTIME concepts
are feed back into the “mother” form.
Offshore wind can be expected to continue to implement legal
concepts from oil and gas. For example, the knock-for-knock
concept may become embraced more generally, which should
be beneficial for the industry as a whole. One step in that
direction would be if FIDIC would adopt a knock-for-knock
concept in any new contract format or principles it may
11
12
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
develop as part of its currently ongoing Renewables
Contracting Initiative. We are part of the working group and
we actively are taking part in that process, similarly to our
participation in the development of WINDTIME. It remains to
be seen to what extent the recent trend of cross pollination,
rather than one way fertilisation, will continue in more general.
We expect this to take place on a case-by-case basis when
there are good reasons therefore and mutual benefit in both
industries, rather than wholesale.
Martin Sandgren
Of Counsel, London
[email protected]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE – SANCTIONS
Russia and Crimea sanctions – where are we at the
start of 2015?
2014 was a busy year for EU sanctions and once again, as was
seen with the Iranian sanctions, the energy industry is a key
target of the new restrictions. In this article, we give an
overview of the various sanctions imposed on Russia / Crimea
over the last 12 months which are likely to impact the energy
industry and projects involving these regions.
Background
Over the course of 2014, the sanctions that were imposed by
the international community and EU authorities increased,
particularly following the tragic shooting down of Flight MH17
in Ukrainian airspace on 17 July 2014. Whilst a ceasefire
agreement has been concluded, there is no guarantee that this
will hold, and there is no indication that the sanctions
implemented to date are going away. Indeed, EU foreign
ministers have agreed to extend existing sanctions against
Russia until September 2015 and further names were added
to the list of individuals subject to EU asset freezes and travel
bans as recently as 16 February 2015. Sanctions will
undoubtedly continue to play a role in 2015, with the potential
for further measures to be introduced if no lasting solution is
found to the crisis.
Application of the EU sanctions
The jurisdictional reach of the EU sanctions regimes in respect
of Russia and Crimea is the same as that found in other EU
sanctions regimes such as Iran and Syria. As such, the
sanctions apply as follows:
i.
within the territory of the EU;
ii.
on board any aircraft or vessel under the jurisdiction of an
EU country;
iii.
to any EU national wherever located;
iv.
to any legal person, entity or body incorporated or
constituted under the law of an EU country; and
v.
to any legal person, entity or body in respect of any
business done in whole or in part within the EU.
Those with EU connections should remain vigilant when
transacting any business with a Russian or Ukrainian element
(including Crimea / Sevastopol). Even if you consider that
neither you nor your business is subject to the sanctions, there
could be restrictions on those providing financing or insurance
to any projects you are involved in. Even if not a concern for
you, it may be a requirement that your counterparty ensures
that they comply with the EU sanctions in any transactions
with you.
Leaving aside the restrictions that have been imposed on
certain Ukrainian individuals and entities, the EU sanctions
affect two geographical regions: (A) Crimea / Sevastopol and
(B) Russia. We discuss the restrictions on the energy industry
in each of these regions as below:
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
(A) Crimea / Sevastopol
Pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 of 27
March 2014, Crimea and Sevastopol continue to be
considered part of Ukraine. The EU authorities have continued
to condemn what is considered the illegal annexation of
Crimea and Sevastopol and restrictions have been introduced
in response to this annexation, effectively trying to restrict
trade and assistance to the region, including assistance to the
energy industry in the territory. In summary, the restrictions
implemented on the energy industry can be broken down as
follows:
i. Sale or supply of goods and technology
It is prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export certain goods
and technology to any natural or legal person, entity or body in
Crimea / Sevastopol or for use in Crimea / Sevastopol.
These are goods and technologies that relate to the following
key sectors:
a.
transport;
b.
telecommunications;
c.
energy; and
d.
the prospection, exploration and production of oil, gas and
mineral resources.
Prohibited goods include, amongst others, pumps, boilers,
ships’ derricks, machine tools, electric motors, mineral fuels
and oils, iron and steel, motor vehicles for the transport of
people and goods, ships, boats and floating structures. The list
is extensive and includes various items which may be used in
fulfilling energy projects in the region.
There is a limited exception to this restriction relating to the
execution, until 21 March 2015, of obligations arising from
contracts (or ancillary contracts) concluded before 20
December 2014, provided that certain formalities with the
relevant EU Member State authorities are complied with.
It is also prohibited to provide technical assistance, or
brokering, construction or engineering services directly
relating to infrastructure in Crimea / Sevastopol to the
industry sectors outlined above.
ii. Investment in Crimea
There are also a number of restrictions that curtail investment
in Crimea / Sevastopol. It is prohibited to:
a.
acquire any new or extend any existing participation in
ownership of real estate located in Crimea / Sevastopol or
of an entity in Crimea / Sevastopol;
b.
grant or be part of any arrangement to grant any loan or
credit or otherwise provide financing to any entity in
Crimea / Sevastopol; and
c.
create any joint venture in Crimea / Sevastopol or with an
entity in Crimea / Sevastopol.
The above restrictions, are likely to have an impact on any
energy projects where the involvement of a local entity is
required as part of the licencing requirements for the
development to proceed.
(B) Russia
EU Regulation 833/2014 came into force on 31 July 2014 in
response to Russia’s failure to comply with EU demands
regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol. This
Regulation targeted the military, oil and financial services
industry and was further amended by EU Regulation
960/2014, which entered into force on 12 September 2014,
and EU Regulation 1290/2014, which entered into force on 5
December 2014. A summary of the restrictions imposed to
date are as follows:
i.Military
It is prohibited to make available dual-use goods and
technology, originating inside or outside the EU, to anyone in
Russia or for use in Russia, if those items are for military use or
for military end users, such as the Russian army. We do not
consider that such a restriction should impact on the energy
industry but we highlight it here in case there are items to be
exported to Russia which could be considered of a dual-use
nature.
ii.Technology
The Regulation prohibits making available, directly or
indirectly, a wide range of technologies originating inside or
outside the EU, to anybody in Russia or to anyone outside
Russia for use in Russia, without prior authorisation.
If the authorities have reasonable grounds to determine that
the technologies will be used in deep water or Arctic oil
exploration / production and shale oil projects in Russia, no
authorisation will be given, save that authorisation may be
granted if a contract was entered into before 1 August 2014.
The types of technology that are prohibited include, amongst
other items, drill pipes, mobile drilling derricks, floating or
submersible drilling or production platforms and sea-going
light vessels. Again, there are a number of key items which will
be used in energy projects and care should be taken to ensure
that those transacting such business in Russia fully evaluate
whether any aspect of their project is affected by these
restrictions.
Oil exploration
It is prohibited to provide, directly or indirectly, associated
services necessary for the following categories of exploration
and production projects in Russia (including its Exclusive
Economic Zone and Continental Shelf):
a.
Oil exploration and production in waters deeper than 150
metres or in the offshore area north of the Article Circle;
or
b.
Projects that have the potential to produce oil from
resources located in shale formations by way of hydraulic
fracturing (excluding exploration and production through
shale formations to locate or extract oil from non-shale
reservoirs).
Associated services means:
a.
drilling;
b.
well testing;
13
14
ENERGY
THE SMART CONTRACTING BULLETIN
c.
logging and completion services; and
d.
supply of specialised floating vessels.
The prohibition does not apply if an obligation arises from a
contract (or ancillary contract) entered into before 12
September 2014, or where the services are necessary for the
urgent prevention or mitigation of an event likely to have a
serious and significant impact on human health and safety or
the environment. Provided in both cases that certain steps
have been taken with the relevant EU Member State authority.
Over recent times, Russia has been looking to expand its
energy output, particularly through drilling in the northern
region. With this in mind, anyone involved in such projects, or
considering tendering for this type of work, should consider
how sanctions may impact on the logistics and evaluate any
current arrangements to see whether they are potentially
caught by the latest restrictions.
Sanctioned persons
The Crimean / Russian sanctions also include restrictions on
providing funds and economic resources, directly or indirectly,
to designated persons. These persons are commonly referred
to as ‘sanctioned persons’.
It is worth highlighting that a number of commercial
enterprises in Crimea and Russia are subject to these
designations, including among others, the Crimean ports of
Sevastopol and Kerch.
In addition, the EU authorities have designated various Russian
entities as subject to certain sectoral sanctions. These
sectoral sanctions are designed to prevent specific business
dealings with the entity involved. They restrict, for example,
financial investment involving these persons, but notably fall
short of listing that entity as a sanctioned person and the
wider restrictions that would be imposed by such a
designation, not least an asset freeze.
With the varying levels of restrictions, checks should be
undertaken on any business involving such entities to ensure
that the relevant EU sanctions are complied with.
Comment
The EU has, in particular, targeted the energy sector in Crimea
and Russia. The US has introduced similar restrictions. Given
the uncertain situation in Ukraine there could be an
introduction of further sectoral or other sanctions against
Russia by the EU and US. Given the importance of the energy
industry to the Russian economy, it is highly likely that it will be
targeted again if future sanctions are introduced.
As such, we recommend that contracts related to these areas
be kept under review and that legal advice be sought where
necessary. Those subject to the EU sanctions would do well to
ensure rigorous due diligence on existing projects or new
business connected to Russia or Crimea. In respect of any
future projects, thought should be given to appropriate
sanctions exclusion clauses or other contractual protection to
protect a party from existing or future sanctions against
Russia and/or Crimea.
We have significant experience of advising on a range of EU
sanctions matters for clients in the energy, shipping and trade
sectors. In particular, this has included evaluating risks that
may arise under a particular contract / project. This evaluation
can include due diligence checks on parties to the transaction
to ensure that they are not listed as sanctioned entities by any
government authorities; advice on the steps that should be
taken both pre- and post- contract stage; and drafting wording
in contractual documents such as warranties and sanctions
exclusion clauses to help guard against some of the pitfalls
that may arise as a result of sanctions.
Contact
If you should have any questions regarding the latest
sanctions, please contact Michelle Linderman, James Rose,
Carlijn Ruers, or your usual contact at Ince & Co.
Michelle Linderman
Partner, London
[email protected]
Carlijn Ruers
Solicitor, London
[email protected]
James Rose
Solicitor, London
[email protected]
FIRM NEWS
Insurance alert
Readers who have been following the outcome in the BP v
Ranger dispute in Texas may be interested in a recent case in
the UK, Rathbone Brothers v Novae, and in the commentary
from our insurance team on Ranger from an English law
perspective. Rathbone was on fairly specialist facts but is
nevertheless an interesting decision for risk teams on waivers
of subrogation, rights of co-assureds and the use of insurance
cover as the primary source of indemnity. Articles on both
these points will appear in our forthcoming Insurance Ebrief.
Readers can sign up for this publication on our website at
http://incelaw.com/en/sectors/insurance-and-reinsurance
under News and Updates – Keep in touch on the left hand
column.
Smart Contracting Seminars – Spring 2015
Our “Smart Contracting” seminar series continues during
Spring 2015. In March we launched our Smart Spring
season in Piraeus and also delivered the Smart Contracting
Hamburg event which focuses on the renewables sector.
Other dates in our seminar series include:
Piraeus:
Hamburg:
Houston:
Singapore:
Kuala Lumpur:
Dubai:
Aberdeen:
12 March
19 March
16 April
6 May
7 May
12 May
19 May
If you are interested in attending a “Smart Contracting”
event please email [email protected].
Ince & Co is a network of affiliated commercial law firms with offices in Beijing, Dubai, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Le Havre, London, Monaco,
Paris, Piraeus, Shanghai and Singapore.
E: [email protected]
incelaw.com
24 Hour International Emergency Response Tel: + 44 (0)20 7283 6999
LEGAL ADVICE TO BUSINESSES GLOBALLY FOR OVER 140 YEARS
The information and commentary herein do not and are not intended to amount to legal advice to any person on a specific matter. They are furnished for information purposes only and free of
charge. Every reasonable effort is made to make them accurate and up-to-date but no responsibility for their accuracy or correctness, nor for any consequences of reliance on them, is
assumed by the firm. Readers are firmly advised to obtain specific legal advice about any matter affecting them and are welcome to speak to their usual contact.
© 2015 Ince & Co International LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with number OC361890. Registered office and principal place of business:
International House, 1 St Katharine’s Way, London, E1W 1AY.