Fraudulent asset transfers   Part 14 of our series on the tools and strategies for how international businesses can deal with an economic crisis.   Sadly, for some businesses, the economic crisis will put their backs against the wall. In those circumstances, some parties will be tempted to hide assets, rather than be exposed to liability. Following the financial collapse of 2008/2009, we saw an increase in fraudulent transfers.    Tim McGovern has experience securing claims against assets that have been the subject of such fraudulent transfers, including an action against a publicly traded entity in respect of a USD 70 million liability.  Tim sets out when and how these assets can be traced, so that they find their way back to the true creditor(s). For further information please contact Timothy McGovern or anyone from the ZFZ team to discuss this, or any of the other topics in the video series.

Asset attachments in the United States    Part 11 of our series on the tools and strategies that international businesses can use in an economic crisis to protect their positions.    Rule B attachment under US law allows a party to obtain security and jurisdiction over a counterparty. In time of economic turmoil when parties are faced with increasing counterparty risk and financial exposure, it can be an important tool to use.     When contracts are breached and payments are not made, our clients regularly look for assistance in securing their position. For us at ZFZ that means putting efforts in high gear and acting swiftly. We want to put a backstop to losses and prepare to recover as much as possible of any outstanding claim. Rule B attachment allows for parties with maritime claims to attach tangible and intangible property of a counterparty. It can be a valuable alternative to Rule C arrest, make up some of its shortcomings and help a commercial party to overcome difficulties in enforcing their claims.      Jonas Patzwall gives you the rundown on what to look for and what to expect when considering Rule B attachments. For further information please contact Jonas Patzwall or anyone from the ZFZ team to discuss this, or any of the other topics in the video series.

Bunker arrests   This is Part 7 of our series on how to deal with an economic crisis – a guide for international businesses.   In 2016, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the Res Cogitans, the leading case arising out of the OW Bunkers insolvency. That case had a profound effect on the shipping market, with many ship operators left with debts to the physical suppliers of the bunkers, and to OW Bunkers’ liquidators.    We are now entering the most serious economic downturn since that judgment. In that economic climate, it is fair to expect parties seeking security by ever more creative means, including an uptick in bunker arrests against time charterers. In the spirit of being prepared, we take a look at what the Res Cogitans means for bunker arrests.    In particular, in the Res Cogitans the Supreme Court held that where bunker supply agreements are made on credit terms, with a retention of title clause pending payment, title to the bunkers remained in the bunker supplier. We look at whether charterers can rely on that judgment to defeat the attachment – after all, if charterers don’t actually own the bunkers, how can the arrest succeed? Contact Calum, or your normal ZFZ, for more.