Export credit agency (ECA) supported financing has been a stable source of funding for the shipping and offshore industry for many years but the financial crisis triggered an increased role for export credit agencies in all sectors of shipping and offshore, from cruise ships to drilling rigs and liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. The involvement of ECAs is often much welcomed by banks in order to allow them to (a) mitigate their capital allocation requirements for what is a very capital intensive industry particularly in light of stricter capital requirements and risk-weighting changes under Basel IV and (b) alleviate the risks associated with financing exports to a foreign buyer (including political risk, commercial risk and interest rate risk). ECAs offer, among other things, direct credit, insurance and guarantees to support ship financing transactions and protect the interests of domestic shipbuilders exporting globally. The financing structure and documentation involved will vary depending on what type of support is offered by the ECA. What are Export Credit Agencies? An

Introduction The main forms of standard security taken in a ship finance transaction comprise a vessel mortgage (supplemented by a separate deed of covenant in jurisdictions which use a short form statutory mortgage such as the UK) and an assignment (often referred to as a 'general assignment') of the insurances, earnings and requisition compensation in respect of the vessel (for more information on the types of security typically taken in shipping finance transactions, see Practice Note: Shipping finance—security and Precedent: Deed of covenant: for a ship mortgage). Taking specific security over the insurances and earnings is especially relevant in shipping finance as the borrower will often be a single vessel owning company which will typically have no material assets other than the vessel and its insurances and income. In most jurisdictions (including those of the UK), a mortgagee of a vessel does not automatically obtain a security interest in the vessel's insurances. The mortgage is invariably governed by the law of the vessel's place of registration, whereas security over earnings and

This Practice Note looks at the enforcement of security by a mortgagee following an event of default under a ship finance transaction and in particular, covers: • the mortgagee's right to take possession of the vessel • private sale of the vessel by the mortgagee • arrest and sale of the vessel by the court (judicial sale), and • maritime and possessory liens If the owner of a vessel commits an event of default, amounts secured under the ship mortgage will usually become immediately due and payable. If the amounts due are not paid, the mortgagee may enforce its security and look to sell the ship and recover amounts due. In order for the mortgagee to obtain maximum protection in the UK, the ship mortgage should be registered against the vessel at the UK ship registry and, if the mortgagor is a body corporate under Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), at Companies House under section 859A within 21 days of its creation. If the mortgage is not registered, although it may still be

This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated content that is relevant to shipping finance lawyers. The cases are divided by topic area and include: • Charterparties • Carriage of goods by sea • Shipbuilding contracts • Sale contracts • Limitation of liability • Insurance • Jurisdiction, and • Security Charterparties Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content Skyros Maritime Corp v Hapag-Lloyd AG 'Skyros' & 'Agios Minas' [2025] EWCA Civ 1529 28 November 2025 The Court of Appeal, Civil Division allowed an appeal by the appellants vessel owners against a Commercial Court decision regarding damages for late redelivery of time-chartered vessels. The case concerned two container vessels, 'SKYROS' and 'AGIOS MINAS', which were redelivered late by the respondent Hapag-Lloyd after the owners had committed to selling them. The key issue was whether owners could recover substantial damages (measured by the difference between market and charter rates) for the overrun period despite having arranged to sell the vessels and having no intention of re-chartering them. The Court of Appeal ruled that

This Practice Note considers the principal types of security that a lender may look to take in a ship finance transaction. The main type of security is a first priority mortgage over the ship but, depending on the position in the particular transaction, the lender may also demand all or some of the following types of security: • assignment of insurances, earnings and requisition compensation • parent company guarantee • charge over shares, and • charge over a bank account This Practice Note is relevant for all vessels that may be included in a typical ship finance transaction. For further detail in relation to superyachts in particular, see Practice Note: Superyacht finance—taking security over superyachts. Ship mortgage The lender’s primary source of security will be over the vessel itself and a legal mortgage will allow the lender, in the case of default, to exercise its powers of possession and sale. The mortgage will be governed by the law of the country or jurisdiction where the vessel is registered. In the UK, a legal mortgage over

Law360: Losses of vessels exceeding 100 gross tonnes reached a historic low of 26 ships in 2023, down from 41 in 2022, according to a report published on 22 May 2024 by Allianz SE.

Arbitration analysis: The Commercial Court (the ‘Court’) decided an appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) from a Partial Final Award by an arbitration tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’). The underlying dispute concerned the cancellation by the Defendant Buyers (‘Buyers’) of a Memorandum of Agreement (the ‘MOA’) for the sale of the MV ‘LILA LISBON’ (the ‘Vessel’). Seller failed to deliver the Vessel by the required cancellation date. In the subsequent arbitration, the Tribunal found that this failure was due to Seller’s ‘proven negligence’ and went on to award Buyer loss of bargain damages for the difference between the contract price and market price of the Vessel. The Court found, however, that this aspect of the award was wrong in law. The trigger for the right to claim damages under Article 14 of the MOA was a failure to give notice of readiness by the relevant cancellation date. Such a failure was not a repudiatory breach of the contract and could not give rise to loss of bargain damages. Written by Alex Wilbraham, independent arbitrator and member of Arbitra International.

A partnership.

A partnership based on joint ownership.

A partnership based on credit.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant sustained severe brain damage during a hip operation carried out by independent consultants at a private hospital and sued the private hospital for breach of contract in respect of the consultant’s alleged negligence. The court held that, on proper analysis of the terms of the contract, the scope of the contract between the private hospital and the claimant did not encompass the private hospital providing the consultants’ services; these were provided by the consultants directly to the patient and so the private hospital was not liable for breach of contract for any failure in the standard of care provided by the consultants. This is a rare and important decision about where liability may lie when something goes wrong resulting in injury in a private hospital in England and Wales. The claimant is seeking permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal. Written by Alexander Hutton KC, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

The Sunday Trading Act 1994 (STA 1994), Sch 1, para 2 prohibits 'large shops', defined as shops with a relevant floor area in excess of 280 square metres, from being open on Sunday for the service of retail customers.