A Liberia-flagged Anchor Handling Tug Supply (AHTS) vessel, Spec Nichole, was arrested in Singapore waters on Saturday (3 May). 

The vessel was added to the list of vessels under Sheriff’s arrest in Singapore’s court system. 

According to the list, the vessel was arrested at 10.17am and the arresting solicitor listed was law firm Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. The ship is currently held at Western Anchorage – Grid 4914A.

No details were provided in the list regarding the reason behind the arrest.

According to a social media post two months ago, the vessel is operated by ABC Maritime, a Swiss-based family-owned group of companies.

ABC Maritime commercially and technically manages a fleet of vessels including chemical tankers, offshore support vessels and bulkers.

Photo credit: ABC Maritime
Published: 7 May, 2025

Several resolutions for Vasi Shipping Pte Ltd, a small Singapore-based containership operator, were made during an extraordinary general meeting held on 28 April at 2pm, according to a notice in the Government Gazette on Monday (5 May).

The following resolutions were duly passed during the meeting:

Special Resolution

That it has been proved to the satisfaction of the meeting that the Company cannot by reason of its liabilities continue its business and accordingly the Company be wound up voluntarily pursuant to Section 160(1)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018.

Ordinary Resolution

That Mr. Abuthahir Abdul Gafoor and Ms. Yessica Budiman care of AAG Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd, 11 Collyer Quay, #07-02 The Arcade, Singapore 049317, be appointed as joint and several Liquidators of the Company for the purposes of winding up the affairs of the Company.

According to Lynerlytica on 10 April, Vasi Shipping filed for bankruptcy and has an outstanding debt of $19 million owed to creditors. 

The company was established in Singapore in January 2012 and operated primarily in the Southeast Asia, Bay of Bengal, India subcontinent, Red Sea and Middle East Gulf routes. 

Vasi has stopped operating any ships since early March 2025.

Photo credit: Benjamin Child
Published: 6 May, 2025

Law firm BlackStone & Gold recently provided Singapore-based bunkering publication Manifold Times its analysis on the significant Singapore High Court decision on the subject of payments under letters of credit (LCs) in the BCP v China Aviation Oil case:

The collapse of traders like Hin Leong Trading Pte Ltd and Zenrock Commodities Trading Pte Ltd (“Zenrock”) left banks who made payments under letters of credit (“LCs”) out of pocket when their customers went under without reimbursing them. The banks in this predicament have, in a spate of recent cases, attempted to recoup payments made to LC beneficiaries (who they alleged received payments for shipments that did not occur). But the law’s recognition of LCs as the “lifeblood of commerce” has permitted very limited instances of refusal to pay on LCs or recovery of sums paid under them. 

A significant clarification for banks resisting LC payments came from the Singapore Court of Appeal last year (in Winson Oil Trading Pte Ltd v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another suit [2024] SGCA 31, which we covered here). There, the Court of Appeal clarified that a bank would be able to decline payment in respect of a presentation which the beneficiary not only knew to be false, but also in respect of which it was reckless as to whether the statements it made to the bank were true or false. This is particularly acute in the oil trade where payment letters of indemnity provide representations as to the shipment of the goods and the title relating to it, which may turn out to be untrue. 

Another significant decision on the subject of LC payments from the Singapore courts last year was Banque de Commerce et de Placements SA, DIFC Branch & Anor v China Aviation Oil (Singapore) Corporation Ltd [2024] SGHC 145 (“BCP v CAO”). 

BCP v CAO case confirms the arduous task that a bank resisting an LC payment bears, and the importance of industry practice of the particular commodity in question in deciding whether a sale contract is a sham contract. In circumstances where a sale contract for cargo is performed in accordance with industry practice, is backed by evidence from persons who actually performed the trade, and forms parts of a string where the entire string is known, it would be difficult for a bank to show that the contract parties were not entitled to possession of the cargo or could not obtain title to it. 

Note: The full article by BlackStone & Gold can be read here.

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 6 May, 2025