Die Bearbeitung von Seerechtsansprüchen und Havarien erfordert Erfahrung und spezifisches Fachwissen, sowohl auf globaler als auch auf lokaler Ebene.
Unsere Juristen beraten und vertreten Mandanten im Zusammenhang mit Frachtschäden, Kollisionen und Zusammenstößen, sowie zur Einhaltung von Sanktionsvorschriften, Personal Injury und Wrongful Death Klagen, Versicherungen, Vessel Arrests und zur Beschlagnahme von Assets.
Zeiler Floyd Zadkovich berät regelmäßig Schiffseigner, Terminalbetreiber, Logistikdienstleister, Eigentümer und Betreiber von Equipment, P&I-Clubs und Versicherer in allen Bereichen des See- und Transportrechts. Unser globales Team ist führend in diesem Sektor und nutzt umfassende Branchenerfahrung und juristisches Know-how, um unseren Mandanten einen effizienten und effektiven Service zu bieten.
Juristen unseres Teams haben umfassende Branchenerfahrung, beispielsweise als:
Darüber hinaus veröffentlichen unsere Juristen regelmäßig wissenschaftliche Beiträge, nehmen an Branchenseminaren teil und lehren Seerecht als Gastdozenten und Lehrbeauftragte an Universitäten.
Unsere praktische Herangehensweise an die kommerziellen Bedürfnisse unserer Mandanten wurde von Chambers and Partners und Legal 500 ausgezeichnet.
Unfälle, Kollisionen und Ölverschmutzungsschäden erfordern eine umgehende und überlegte Reaktion. Genau das bieten wir unseren Mandanten. Dabei hat für uns in jeder Unfallsituation die Berücksichtigung der Sicherheit von Schiff und Besatzung oberste Priorität.
Aufgrund unserer Erfahrung sind wir in der Lage, unterschiedliche involvierte Parteien zu koordinieren, darunter Responder, Bergungspersonal, technische Experten, Untersuchungsorgane, Medienvertreter, Versicherer/P&I-Clubs sowie Gegenparteien.
Die umfangreiche Beweissicherung ist ein weiterer wichtiger Aspekt unserer Arbeit. Dies beinhaltet z.B. die Einholung von Zeugenaussagen, die Sicherung von relevanten Schiffsdokumenten, die Teilnahme an Zeugenbefragungen durch Ermittlungsbehörden und die enge Zusammenarbeit mit anderen betroffenen Parteien, um relevante Informationen zu erhalten. Jeder Unfall erfordert eine individuelle Reaktion. Unsere langjährige Erfahrung ermöglicht es uns, in jedem Fall angemessen zu reagieren.
Im Notfall sind wir rund um die Uhr unter folgenden Telefonnummern erreichbar: +1 917 868 1245 oder +44 7920 519 233.
Back to topVerurteilungen aufgrund von Personal Injury und Wrongful Death haben einen historischen Höchststand erreicht.
Ob Unfälle auf See oder Verletzungen bei Verkehrsunfällen, unsere Juristen verfügen über die nötige Erfahrung und das Know-how, um den jeweiligen Vorfall zu untersuchen, Verteidigungsmöglichkeiten frühzeitig zu erkennen und die Interessen und Vermögenswerte unserer Mandanten zu schützen. Unsere Juristen vertreten Mandanten regelmäßig vor State und Federal Courts in den USA und erzielen dabei hervorragende Ergebnisse.
Wir sind stets bereit, umgehend auf Vorfälle auf See zu reagieren, kritische Beweise zu sichern, Zeugen zu befragen und bei Untersuchungen der US-Küstenwache zu helfen. Wir vertreten Mandanten in Gerichtsverfahren im Zusammenhang mit Ansprüchen nach dem Jones Act und LHWCA 905(b) sowie bei Verletzungs- und Todesfällen infolge von Schiffsunfällen.
Darüber hinaus vertreten wir Transport- und Logistikunternehmen, die mit Schadenersatzansprüchen konfrontiert sind. Zu unseren Mandanten zählen Transportunternehmen, Broker und Equipment Owners in den gesamten USA. Wir vertreten Mandanten vor Gericht, wahren vertragliche und gesetzliche Ansprüche und unterstützen Versicherer bei der Prüfung der Begründetheit von Ansprüchen, um angemessene Rückstellungen zu bilden.
Wir sind stolz darauf, mit unserer Branchenerfahrung und juristischen Fachkompetenz als gefragte Anwälte für P&I-Clubs, Versicherungsgesellschaften und Unternehmen in der See- und Transportindustrie tätig zu sein.
Back to topWir unterstützen Parteien auf beiden Seiten von Newbuild-Transaktionen: Wir werden sowohl für große Werften als auch für Schiffseigner tätig. Wir beraten Käufer während des gesamten Transaktionszeitraums und setzen Gewährleistungsansprüche für Käufer im Fall von nach der Lieferung durch.
Wir beraten und vertreten Mandanten auch bei Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit Schiffsverkaufsverträgen, unter anderem bei Problemen mit dem Zustand des Schiffs und den Lieferverpflichtungen des Verkäufers.
Back to topUnser Schifffahrtsteam verfügt über umfassende Vollstreckungserfahrung (dabei arbeiten wir in engem Kontakt mit unserem internationalen Kollegennetzwerk).
So haben wir bereits Forderungen für eine Reihe großer Finanzierungsinstitutionen gegen Schiffseigner vollstreckt. Wir betreuen unsere Mandanten während des gesamten Verfahrens, vom ersten Mahnschreiben bis zum gerichtlich angeordneten Verkauf eines Schiffes.
Wir verfügen auch über beträchtliche Erfahrung mit Schiffsfinanzierungsgeschäften, Darlehensverträgen und Schiffshypotheken.
Back to topWir wissen, wie man Charterverträge erstellt und verhandelt. und übernehmen verschiedene Aufgaben im Charterverfahren – von der Verhandlungsführung mit der Gegenpartei und der Abfassung des Vertragsentwurfs bis hin zur Beratung zu einzelnen Klauseln. Wir waren an zahllosen lang- und kurzfristigen Charterverhandlungen sowohl als in-house Counsel als auch als Anwälte beteiligt und arbeiten effizient mit unseren Mandanten zusammen, um Verträge präzise und zügig abzuschließen.
Back to topDie Durchsetzung eines Anspruchs ist erst erfolgreich, wenn die unterlegene Gegenpartei ihren Verpflichtungen auch tatsächlich nachkommt.
Wir handeln schnell und präzise, um die rechtliche Position unserer Mandanten zu sichern. Wir sind als Marktführer bei US-Security Actions anerkannt, wobei dies auch Klagen gegen “Alter-Ego”-Beklagte umfasst (piercing the corporate veil).
Unsere Leistungen umfassen zudem die Sicherung von Schiffen, die Geltendmachung von Pfandrechten an Fracht, Unterfrachten und Untervermietungen, die Pfändungen von Geschäftsforderungen oder die Pfändung anderer Vermögenswerte des Gegners, oftmals vor dem Hintergrund einer (drohenden) Insolvenz.
All dies erfordert sowohl Kreativität als auch detailgenaue Prüfungen. Wir leisten beides, um die Ansprüche unserer Mandanten durchzusetzen und rechtskräftige Titel zu Geld zu machen.
Back to topWir verfügen über umfassende Erfahrung mit Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit Schifffahrtsverträgen. Dazu gehören Bills of Lading, Charterverträge, Frachtverträge, Schadloshaltungserklärungen, Seefrachtbriefe und Wechsel.
Bei Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit Zeitcharterverträgen betreuen wir Off-Hire-Angelegenheiten, beraten bei Rücktritt wegen Nichtzahlung und Fragen der Wiederauslieferung sowie zu Hold Cleanliness Fällen, Garantien und anderen Angelegenheiten.
In Bezug auf Reisecharterverträge beraten wir unter anderem zu Liegegeldforderungen und Forderungen im Zusammenhang mit der Bezahlung von Fracht oder mit Fehlfracht. Wir beraten Mandanten auch im Zusammenhang mit Ansprüchen aus Bills of Lading, einschließlich Fehllieferungen oder Schäden an der Ladung.
Streitigkeiten im Schifffahrtsbereich werden regelmäßig im Wege eines Schiedsverfahrens (LMAA, LCIA, ICC, SMA, AAA, SIAC, HKIAC, CIETAC und ad-hoc) oder eines Gerichtsverfahrens ausgetragen und umfassen oft auch Anträge auf Erlassung einstweiliger Maßnahmen. Unser Team weiß, wie es unsere Mandanten zielgerichtet auch durch die komplexesten Verfahren führt.
Back to top
Assessing criminal and civil options, and coordinating an asset seizure search and attach strategy in Mexico for a major case for shipowners pursuing a Chinese mining conglomerate in Mexico. The underlying case involved allegations of cartel cooperation and fraudulent dissipation of assets (USD 2.5 million).
Representation and assisting the representation of several clients in several US Federal District Courts regarding seeking of security for underlying claims by way of maritime attachment proceedings.
Representation of International bank involving actions under the Insolvency Act 1986 to unwind a transaction at an undervalue/a transaction entered into with intent to defraud creditors. Part of a broader coordinated global approach to enforce a claim against an insolvent entity.
Representation of a major US oil refinery in relation to disputes under their shipping contracts during the COVID-19 crisis. The dispute related to delays under a bespoke charterparty.
Pursued a claim for major US commodities trading house for damages in respect of late delivery / unseaworthiness against vessel owners in LMAA arbitration proceedings. Also handled negotiations with Mediterranean receivers. Brought related actions in Texas and Turkey for discovery and vessel arrest against the owners.
Legal advice to a major American oil company on disputes relating to their fleet of vessels, including queries relating to demurrage, off-hire and cargo contamination.
Commenced ad hoc London arbitration proceedings for an Italian coal trader claiming wrongful arrest in respect of a time charterparty. Involved complex conflict of laws questions.
Pursued a large energy company for shipowner clients seeking damages arising due to delay / fire to a terminal in Brazil. We intervened into related English Court of Appeal proceedings and obtained a favourable outcome.
Assessing the laws on lifting the corporate veil on companies in Mexico for a major shipping demurrage case, where the underlying cargo interests were not in a position to accept delivery and the vessel carrying crude ended up waiting for months before discharge could occur (USD 3+ million).
Advised a major international trading house (Singaporean plc), in respect of a cargo claim against vessel owners. Travelled to Lagos and Port Harcourt, Nigeria, to take evidence from our trading clients, surveyors, port terminal operators and harbour masters. In the arbitration proceedings, the Owners counter-claimed for wrongful arrest in Nigeria / breach of London arbitration agreement.
Acted on an ad hoc arbitration claim for international London-based trading house, specialising in steel and metals trade, against an Italian receiver for liability under UK COGSA for quality issues.
Representation of major Danish shipowner in an off-hire and performance dispute which threw to both US and English jurisdictions.
Acted for a Belgian/Turkish shipowner in relation to outstanding sums under a series of charter parties. Obtained an award in the client’s favor. The matter involved dispute over jurisdiction, overdue hire payments and the validity of an assignment.
Preparation of bespoke template charterparty documents for vessel owners in the LNG industry. Advising on the terms of ShellLNGTime 1 and ShellLNGTime 2 to provide a comprehensive template/standard form document at an appropriate risk level for clients.
Representation of major international LNG supplier and charterer on their position in respect of a multi-million dollar off-hire claim. The dispute turned on bespoke off-hire wording and complex legal questions in LCIA arbitration.
Defense of logistics company against claims involving a cargo of copper that disappeared from a container in transit. Enforced package limitation under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and won appeal before Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Representation of client insurance company in the Eastern District of Wisconsin regarding damages to a cargo of food products carried from California.
Representation of European bank regarding recovery of a multi-million dollar claim against an insolvent entity under claims relating to mis-delivery of cargo. Assertively pursued security actions against possible assets and successfully obtained an attachment over assets belonging to an alter-ego in a US targeting a vessel in the Southern District of Texas. In a reported decision, successfully defeated post-discovery motion to vacate seizure order and dismiss action. Global litigation included proceedings in UK and East Asia.
Representation of Italian shipowners in defense of numerous cargo claims resulting from signficant vessel incident involving major container loss.
Advised on and drafted protective clauses for a major US oil refinery in relation to risk under their shipping contracts during the Covid-19 crisis.
Acted for a Norwegian chartering company in four separate arbitrations/charters. Issues include failure to nominate, coercion to pay outstanding demurrage, failure to pass on money received from sub-charterers and receipt of fund by agents for principals. There were separate Norwegian proceedings for security.
Advised a major Polish chemical company, as charterers, in relation to an LMAA arbitration claim brought by the Owners for demurrage and other outstandings.
Representation of global energy major in an LMAA arbitration in a long-term charterparty dispute for a LNG carrier.
Representation of European ro-ro operator and logistics services provider in relation to a multi-jurisdictional dispute arising from container damage at the Port of Cork, UK.
Defended oil spill indemnification claims against client time charterer following oil spill event on Mississippi.
Representation of Asian shipowner in US federal litigation brought against a publicly traded US minerals and mining company in connection with the pursuit of fraudulent transfer claims. In a reported decision, successfully defeated summary judgment motion made by defendant.
Secured a settlement at almost the entire value of the claim for a major shipping operator in respect of a shortage claim under bills of lading.
Defended an ICC arbitration claim for our Egyptian trader clients, as sellers, for short shipment under a sale and purchase contract.
Obtained dismissals based on U.S. maritime law defenses resulting in reduction of client’s damages from multimillion-dollar jury verdict to less than $300,000.00 in a lawsuit by former Jones Act employee and family.
Advising Mexican subsidiary of a major Austrian group in the oil drilling industry on its day-to-day corporate and employment issues, including the drafting and reviewing of master sales agreements that contain provisions stipulating specific timeframes and transportation information for delivery and return of rental equipment, as well as other complex commercial contracts.
Acted for an international metals trading house, and then its cargo underwriters, in a major subrogated claim against Owners, Shippers and Receivers in relation to stolen steel cargo. The case involved multi-layered court action across the world, including vessel arrest proceedings in Turkey and Lebanon, and other corporate criminal actions in Russia, Florida and Switzerland.
Representation of US energy major in defense of general average claims following vessel grounding. Claims not pursued following aggressive pursuit of international discovery and investigation. Handled global coordination of legal and investigatory team.
Defended demurrage claim based on a series of long-term delays at various load/discharge ports. Developing arguments based on tendering of an invalid NOR and deploying compelling fact-based evidence to fall within an exemption to demurrage
Advised coal trader on a 1.5 year coal supply contract dispute against the receiver. The receiver argued repudiation for alleged fraudulent conduct, namely backdating a B/L. Client claimed damages for wrongful repudiation in LCIA proceedings. There were related LMAA arbitration proceedings and UK court proceedings for freezing orders and vessel arrest.
Advised shipowner clients and its P&I Club on a cargo misdelivery claim and associated indemnity action. The bill holders’ claim was subject to LMAA arbitration proceedings and the indemnity proceedings were before the English High Court. Our client obtained freezing orders against the commodities trader in England, enforced those in Switzerland and Rule B attachments against the indemnifying party in the US, having defended a sister-ship arrest in Morocco and related proceedings in Dakar.
Obtained dismissal of employee’s workers’ compensation claim for Longshore Act employer client at trial level, resulting in settlement for amounts previously paid following appeal of court’s dismissal.
Representation of a Singaporean shipping company with its main seat of business in London in enforcement and recognition of foreign award proceedings (USD 5.7 million, Mexican courts).
Advised a large US commodities trader in an arbitration claim for overpaid hire and bunkers on a time charterparty. This involved insolvency proceedings in Greece and various actions for security.
Vagin (author), “Who Can Sue for Losses Caused by a Collision Under U.S. and English Law: Robins Dry Dock and Exceptions to It”, 45 Tulane Maritime Law Journal 509, July 2021.
In the recent case of the DIVINEGATE, the English court was faced with a difficult jurisdictional question. The Claimant arrested a vessel in Gibraltar thought to belong to the Defendant. The Defendant argued that the arrest was wrongful, and that the Defendant was in fact the time charterer of the arrested vessel.
The Defendant brought a counter-claim against the Claimant, for losses arising as a result of the wrongful arrest. The Claimant argued that the wrongful arrest claim was subject to Gibraltarian jurisdiction.
Luke and Calum discuss the decision, looking in detail at the multi-jurisdictional nature of the world of international trade.
Subscribe/follow for more!
This episode responds to our first request. Inspired by recent events in the Suez, we are taking a look at the law of General Average.
The case is a fascinating one. In January 2009, Pirates boarded the LONGCHAMP in the Gulf of Aden. They demanded a ransom of USD6m. That was negotiated down to USD1.85 over a period of 51 days. The ransom and the negotiator’s fees fell squarely within General Average. But what about the Vessel’s operating expenses for the 51 day period of negotiations?
Luke and Calum discuss the result (with a little disagreement between themselves!) but additionally look to the wider application on the law of General Average, and what parties can do when facing a General Average claim.
In a wonderfully wide-ranging judgment, the Court of Appeal recently looked at the rights and obligations between two parties relating to the sale of a Ferrari 250 GTO.
By looking at this judgment, Luke and Calum discuss the Sale of Goods Act, signing contracts “as agent”, and how the Court can penalise a party in costs where that party fails to take steps to resolve a dispute at an early stage.
Parties routinely exclude “consequential losses” in their contractual agreements. But what is a consequential loss, and what is actually covered by a consequential loss exclusions?
Luke and Calum look at a recent Arbitration decision, London Arbitration 13/21, and explore the law on consequential losses.
Anyone familiar with the world of shipping, commodities and international trade will be familiar with agreements where the key commercial terms are agreed in a “recap”, with full conditions to be incorporated by reference to a separate document (the “printed terms”).
But what happens when the terms in the Recap would give a different result – if read in isolation – to the terms in the printed terms? Should the parties try to read both together, to find a way of giving effect to both provisions – or should one set of terms prevail, at the expense of the other?
This was exactly the question before the Court in Septo Trading Inc v Tintrade Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 718, which Luke and Calum discuss in this podcast.
In this week’s episode, Luke and Calum look to the US Courts and a recent decision on the law regarding “alter ego” attachments.
An “alter-ego” attachment is where a claimant attaches a vessel, or some other asset, owned by a person or corporation that is not, strictly speaking, the respondent to the proceedings on the basis that the person who owns the attached asset is an “alter ego” of the person who is the respondent in the underlying proceedings.
The position under US law is not straight-forward and while there is generally a right to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ in certain circumstances, different US Circuits apply different tests. Luke and Calum look at the tests, the indicating factors for an “alter ego” attachment, and discuss some real-life examples.
Luke Zadkovich and Calum Cheyne discuss CVLC v Arab Maritime Petroleum Transport Company [2021] EWHC 551 (Comm).
In this week’s case, Luke and Calum look at Cockerill J’s confirmation that once the Court has given permission to appeal under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 at a permission hearing, the question of whether or not leave to appeal ought to have been granted cannot then be re-opened as a defence in the substantive trial on the appealed issues.
The Judge’s reasoning was that the question of permission is a standalone issue, dealt with at the permission stage, which does not require re-visiting at the substantive hearing of the appeal. In this case, the Defendant sought to argue that the question on appeal was not a question that the Tribunal had answered in the arbitration – if that had been correct, it would not have satisfied Section 69(3)(b) Arbitration Act 1996, and the appeal should not have been allowed.
In this case, even though the Judge held that the question could not be re-opened, the Judge also found that even if it was re-considered, permission was in any event rightly granted.
The case also looks at the question of maritime security, and the question of whether there is an implied term in a guarantee that the guarantee itself is sufficient security and no further security can be sought by the beneficiary.
The conversation looks at maritime security instruments, Section 69 appeals and urgent maritime applications. In the conversation, Calum mentions an article by Clare Ambrose, Michael Collet QC and Karen Maxwell on emergency relief in maritime arbitrations. That article is available here: https://twentyessex.com/interim-and-emergency-relief-in-support-of-maritime-arbitration-under-english-law/.
In this episode, Calum and Luke look at the recent decision of Alpha Marine Corp. v. Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co. Ltd., [2021] EWHC 1157 (Comm).
Owners claimed against charterers for a series of losses arising under a time charterparty. Owners demanded payment of freight directly from shippers, in order to satisfy the alleged debt. Shippers didn’t know who to pay: Owners under the bill, or charterers under the voyage charterparty? Ultimately, Shippers made partial payment into escrow before going insolvent.
Owners’ claims against Charterers largely failed. Charterers claimed that owners’ demands for the freight (against Shippers) were unlawful and were the cause of the delayed/reduced payment.
Owners said they were entitled to take the freight. Charterers argued that a time charterparty contains an implied term that owners could only exercise this right where they were owed money by charterers.
The High Court found no such implied term – reinforcing an owners’ right to demand freight directly.
Judgment available here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/1157.pdf
Listen in for the analysis.
Two great announcements to get our weekend started properly:
“Presenting expert evidence in US and English maritime arbitration”
With Charles Anderson, James Clanchy, John Walker & Ian Hodges, moderated by our Luke Zadkovich & Eva-Maria Mayer.
Monday, 28 June 2021
10:00 Eastern Standard Time | 15:00 British Summer Time | 16:00 Central European Time
Watch the full webinar recording here.
We’re delighted to have been recognized for our US shipping work once again from Chambers and Partners USA!
In Alpha Marine Corp. v. Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co. Ltd., owners claimed against charterers under a time charterparty (CP).
We’re delighted to welcome Richard Murray to our London office!
In The Frio Dolphin, a subrogated marine cargo insurer mistakenly sued the manager of the carrying vessel in Spain, in breach of the London arbitration clause in the bill of lading.
We are delighted to announce Howard Quinlivan has joined our London team as a senior associate, specializing in shipping and maritime law.
In January, the US Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), issued a ruling that the entire seabed on the US outer continental shelf is a “coastwise” point for purposes of US coastwise laws, which we previously wrote on here.
It is well established under US law that maritime liens attach to a vessel allowing for in rem actions against the vessel itself.
INEA was listed as an SDN by OFAC on January 19, 2021.
