Connect with us

Legal

BlackStone & Gold: Transferring marketable title under LOIs used for LC payments

Law firm focuses on a recent judgement which is significant for clarifying scope of fraud exception to payments under LCs and the construction of payment LOIs frequently used in oil trading.

Admin

Published

on

Blackstonegold team MT 02 1

BlackStone & Gold lawyers recently provided Singapore-based bunkering publication Manifold Times comments on the recent Crédit Agricole v PPT Trading judgment from the Singapore Court of Appeal, which clarified the scope of the fraud exception to payments under LCs and the construction of payment LOIs frequently used in oil trading:

By Baldev Bhinder, Managing Director, and Ramandeep Kaur, Associate Director of BlackStone & Gold 

Crédit Agricole v PPT Energy (Appeal)

The aftermath of trade fraud scandals has resulted in a number of significant cases concerning letter of credit (“LC”) payments being heard before the Singapore courts recently, with banks trying to avoid liability to pay for trades which did not occur. Another judgment on this theme from the Singapore Court of Appeal came out last week. In Crédit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Singapore Branch v PPT Trading Energy Co. Ltd [2023] SGCA(I) 7, the Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, and found that Crédit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Singapore Branch (“CACIB”) was entitled to recovery of losses from having paid its beneficiary, PPT Trading Energy Co. Ltd (“PPT”). PPT was found to have breached its warranty as to “marketable title” in the payment letter of indemnity (“LOI”) that it presented to receive payment under the LC. The decision is significant for clarifying the scope of the fraud exception to payments under LCs and the construction of payment LOIs frequently used in oil trading.  

Facts

The facts and the first instance decision are covered in our earlier update (here). Briefly, Zenrock had created a fictitious trade to raise financing. The trade involved a string of FOB contracts from Totsa to Socar to Zenrock and back to Totsa. Zenrock was financed by ING in this chain. Zenrock created a circular trade within this string and another (fabricated) sale contract purporting to sell the same cargo again to Totsa. The circle involved Zenrock selling the cargo it got from Socar to Shangdong, who would sell it to PPT, before the cargo came back to Zenrock. Zenrock then purported to sell this cargo to Totsa a second time over under the fabricated contract at an inflated price of Platts plus 3.60 (while the actual sale contract to Totsa priced the cargo at Platts minus 3.60). CACIB financed Zenrock’s purchase from PPT. As is common practice in oil trading, PPT presented its invoice and a payment LOI (in lieu of original bills of lading) for payment. CACIB did not reject this presentation. Before the due date for the LC payment however, CACIB suspected double financing, having received Totsa’s confirmation that Zenrock had assigned the receivables from the Zenrock-Totsa contract twice. At first instance, the SICC found CACIB liable to pay PPT, as it was not satisfied that PPT’s presentation of documents under the LC was fraudulent. The SICC also found that CACIB could not invoke a breach of warranties in PPT’s LOI, as the warranties were only triggered in consideration of payment by CACIB “at due date”, which CACIB failed to make. In any event, the court found no breach of warranties. 

Finding on appeal

The appeal raised two main issues. First, whether CACIB could rely on Zenrock’s undoubted fraud to set aside and avoid liability to pay under the LC issued in favour of PPT. The Court of Appeal found that it could not, explaining that an LC creates a contract between the bank and the beneficiary that is separate and autonomous from the underlying sale contract. The established common law exception for avoiding an LC payment requires the beneficiary to be a party to the fraud. CACIB’s arguments to the contrary were found to be unsupported by authority, and liable to undermine the “whole system of documentary credits”. Allowing a bank to decline payment on the basis of a fraud committed by an LC applicant would in the court’s view have the effect that no beneficiary could be assured of payment without investigating the integrity of the issuing bank’s customer in its relationship with the issuing bank, which is a practical impossibility. 

The second issue before the Court was whether CACIB could decline payment on the basis of PPT’s breach of warranties in its LOI. PPT’s LOI mirrored LOIs typically used in oil trade, containing reference to a shipment of the relevant cargo; the fact that PPT was unable to provide the full set of original BLs; and PPT’s warranties “in consideration of [CACIB] making payment” for the shipment “at the due date for payment [under the PPT/Zenrock sale contract]”. Among other things, by way of its LOI, PPT warranted that “at the time property passed under the contract, [PPT] had marketable title to such shipment, free and clear of any lien or encumbrance”, and it agreed to indemnify CACIB from any losses arising from a breach of its warranties. 

At first instance, the SICC was of the view that PPT’s LOI never came into effect since CACIB had not made payment “at the due date” under the PPT/Zenrock sale contract. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and found that the LOI was effective from the moment of its issue. Examining the underlying arrangements, the Court noted that in the absence of original BLs, PPT had no choice but to provide an LOI and CACIB could not decline payment if an LOI had been presented. Further, PPT could not withdraw the LOI once it had been presented or once CACIB had indicated that it was accepting it. The Court considered that CACIB making payment “at the due date” of the underlying sale contract was not a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the LOI, as the obligation of timely payment is not a condition that makes time of the essence. If CACIB’s obligation to pay by the due date was not a condition under the LC, it would be “strange”, the Court concluded, to construe the equivalent obligation under the LOI as a condition. 

Having found that the LOI was effective from the date of its issue, the Court proceeded to consider whether PPT had breached its warranty of marketable title. The Court clarified that the words “marketable title” had to be given their own effect, instead of being equated to “free and clear of any lien or encumbrance”. In this regard, the Court clarified that marketable title is a title that may at all times and under all circumstances be forced on an unwilling buyer, as opposed to a title which will expose the buyer to litigation of hazard. On the facts, PPT’s title was not found to be free from litigation or hazard. The title that Shandong obtained from Zenrock and PPT from Shandong was of uncertain value in circumstances where Zenrock had granted inconsistent floating charges to CACIB and ING over the same goods, floating charges had crystallised by reason of Zenrock’s fraud, Zenrock was not a seller acting in the ordinary course of business in its fraudulent endevaours, and PPT was not a bona fide purchaser for value. The Court of Appeal considered that “PPT was hardly a bona fide purchaser” in light of factual findings made below, in particular, the finding that PPT was aware of the round-tripping and Zenrock’s position as both seller and buyer, and of Zenrock wanting to conceal its presence at more than one place in the chain from financing banks. As such, the court found that there were well founded concerns about the marketability of the title held by PPT. 

Comment

It was somewhat of a missed opportunity as CACIB did not appeal the judge’s findings that PPT’s presentation under the LC was not fraudulent – the Court of Appeal noted this against the backdrop of the judge’s findings relating to PPT’s ignorance of even the general level of market price and its disinterest in what was going on, which the Court of Appeal found “remarkable”. 

Since this appeal was heard, the High Court in Winson Oil v OCBC (see our update here) disagreed with the test of fraud applied by the first instance decision in Credit Agricole v PPT, and instead held a reckless indifference as to the truth or falsity of representations in documents presented under an LC, to fall within the fraud exception. 

The Court of Appeal’s decision on marketable title arises from the premise that PPT’s title was indeed subject to litigation given the inconsistent charges that had crystallized as well as the findings of the first instance judge as to PPT’s conduct which led the Court of Appeal to conclude that PPT was not a bona fide purchaser. Putting the recent cases of Credit Agricole v PPT and Winson Oil v OCBC next to each, the message to traders is the same: do not insert yourself blindly into a string of trades and ignore its peculiarities seeking comfort in an LC. That may turn out be cold comfort in the circumstances.

Related: BlackStone & Gold: Does a beneficiary’s reckless presentation under LCs amount to fraud?

Photo credit: BlackStone & Gold LLC
Published: 2 November, 2023

Continue Reading

Crime

Vietnam: Two ships seized over 170,000 litres of unknown origin diesel oil

Vietnam Coast Guard said vessels were transporting various quantities of oil cargo: KG-91487- DR was transporting about 145,000 litres and KG-91602-TS transported about 25,000 litres.

Admin

Published

on

By

Vietnam: Two ships seized over 170,000 litres of unknown origin diesel oil

The Vietnam Coast Guard on Tuesday (20 February) said it seized a total of about 170,000 litres of unknown origin diesel oil in an operation. 

Patrol boats belonging to Coast Guard Region 4 Command detected two fishing boats – KG-91487- DR and KG-91602-TS – displaying several suspicious signs.

Initial investigations found all vessels without invoices and documents proving legal origin of the oil material.

The vessels were transporting various quantities of oil material: KG-91487- DR was transporting about 145,000 litres and KG-91602-TS transported about 25,000 litres.

The authorities made records of administrative violations,and escorted the vessels to Fleet Port 422 in Phú Quốc city, Kiên Giang province for further investigations and handling in accordance with the law.

 

Photo credit: Vietnam Coast Guard
Published: 23 February, 2024

Continue Reading

Winding up

Xihe Holdings liquidators issue intended dividend notice to creditors

Creditors will need to produce proofs of debt to liquidators of the company by 8 March 2024 at 5pm, according to Government Gazette notice.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED Drew Beamer

A notice to declare intended dividend of Xihe Holdings Pte Ltd to its creditors has been posted on Singapore’s Government Gazette on Friday (16 February). 

Xihe Holdings Pte Ltd and its subsidiaries are owned by the Lim family, who are also the owners of the embattled Hin Leong Trading.

Details of the notice of intended dividend are as follows:

Name of Company : Xihe Holdings (Pte) Ltd (In Liquidation)

Unique Entity No. / Registration No. : 199002021M

Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Court : High Court of Singapore

Number of Matter : HC/CWU 40/2022

Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 8 March 2024 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected] 

Name of Liquidators : Seshadri Rajagopalan, Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee

Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1

Singapore 018960

 

Photo credit: Drew Beamer
Published: 21 February, 2024

Continue Reading

Legal

Malaysia: MMEA detains modified fishing boat suspected of smuggling diesel oil

Three men, aged 32 to 40, were suspected to be involved in smuggling the subsidised oil estimated to be 6,000 litres, worth almost MYR 13,000 (USD 2,712).

Admin

Published

on

By

Malaysia: MMEA detains modified fishing boat suspected of smuggling diesel oil

The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) on Monday (19 February) said it detained a fishing vessel and three local men who were onboard after they allegedly tried to smuggle 6,000 litres of diesel worth MYR 13,000 (USD 2,712) on 18 February. 

In the 11pm incident, the men, aged 32 to 40, onboard the ship were found with the diesel at 0.6 nautical miles north of Pulau Langgun, Langkawi. 

“During the inspection of the boat in question, officers found there was an additional space on the deck and covered with plywood in the intention of hiding it from authorities,” said MMEA. 

Malaysia: MMEA detains modified fishing boat suspected of smuggling diesel oil

“Officers then proceeded to dismantle the plywood and found two storage containers that were converted into extra oil barrels.”

“As a result of that discovery, the suspects are suspected to be involved in smuggling subsidised oil estimated to be 6,000 litres, worth almost MYR 13,000.”

MMEA detained the fishing vessel and men before they were brought to Bukit Malut Maritime Jetty for further investigations.

 

Photo credit: Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency
Published: 20 February, 2024

Continue Reading
Advertisement
  • Consort advertisement v2
  • Aderco advert 400x330 1
  • RE 05 Lighthouse GIF
  • EMF banner 400x330 slogan
  • SBF2
  • v4Helmsman Gif Banner 01

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS

  • Triton Bunkering advertisement v2
  • HL 2022 adv v1
  • Singfar advertisement final
  • 102Meth Logo GIF copy


  • MFA logo v2
  • Central Star logo
  • E Marine logo
  • endress
  • Golden Island logo square
  • Victory Logo
  • Cathay Marine Fuel Oil Trading logo
  • Trillion Energy
  • Kenoil
  • Uni Fuels logo advertisement white background
  • VPS 2021 advertisement
  • Advert Shipping Manifold resized1
  • 400x330 v2 copy
  • Headway Manifold

Trending