Tag: shipping

Maritime Law: Origins, Development and Present

Pic1

Maritime law also called admiralty law, or admiralty, the body of legal rules that govern ships and shipping.  Maritime law and “law of the sea” have, etymologically, the same meaning.

The former term is generally applied to private shipping law, whereas the latter, usually prefixed by “international,” has come to signify the maritime segment of public international law. The Convention on the Law of the Sea, on the other hand, is a UN agreement regarding territorial waters, sea lanes, and ocean resources. 119 nations originally signed the Convention on Dec. 10, 1982.

Origins – Maritime law in the jurisprudence of the Rhodians

The Rhodians (people from the Greek island of Rhodes) were the earliest people that actually created, absorb and dictated a system of marine law. They obtained the governance of the seas approximately one thousand years before the Christian era and were celebrated for their naval power and discipline. Their laws concerning navigation were received at Athens, and in all the islands of the Aegean Sea, and throughout the coasts of the Mediterranean, as part of the law of nations.  Thanks to the wisdom of Roman law for salvaging, through all the destruction of nations, segments of this once celebrated maritime code, whose parts are still incorporated in current maritime law.

The Athenians, though, became the incomparable masters of the seas which would mean the masters of the ancient world.  Encouraged, by their laws, navigation, and trade; and there was a particular jurisdiction at Athens for the cognizance of contracts, and controversies between merchants and mariners. There were numerous laws relative to the rights and interests of merchants, and of their navigation; and in many of them there was an endeavor to remove, as much as possible, the process and obstacles which afflicted the operations of commerce.

alexanderchristodoulakisWe are, therefore, to look to the collections of, the Byzantine-Greek Emperor Justinian, for all that remains to us of the commercial law of the ancients. The Romans did not absorb nor were they interested in any code of maritime regulations, as they were primarily distinguished by the method and system which they gave to their municipal law.  They were quite contented with the maritime codes of the republic of Rhodes. The genius of the Roman government was military and infrastructural, and not commercial.

The collection of laws, under the title of Rhodian laws, was published at Basle, in 1561, and at Frankfort, in 1596.  The Rhodian laws, by this authoritative recognition, became rules of decision in all maritime cases in which they were not contrary to some express provision of the Roman law.

commentaire-alexanderchristodoulakisThey were truly, as Valin (French jurist of the 18th century, specialized in maritime law) has observed; the cradle of nautical jurisprudence.

Maritime legislation of the middle ages – the Amalphitan Table

After the devastation of the Western empire of the Romans and the resumption of trade and commerce, maritime rules became necessary. The earliest code of modern sea laws was compiled for the free and trading republic of Amalphi, in Italy, about the time of the first crusade, towards the end of the eleventh century. This known became known as the Amalphitan Table and superseded the ancient laws, and its authority was acknowledged by all the states of Italy. 

The Consolato del Mare

Other states and cities began to form collections of maritime law; and a compilation of the usages and laws of the Mediterranean powers was made and published, under the title of the Consolato del Mare. This commercial code is said to have been digested at Barcelona, in the Catalan tongue, during the middle ages, by order of the kings of Aragon. The Spaniards vindicated the claim for their country.  Contrary to this claim come the Pisans, in Italy proving that they compiled this maritime code due to their maritime prosperity.  Others lay claim that it is a collection of maritime laws De Jure Mercatorum, hold it to be a collection made in the time of the crusades, from the maritime ordinances of the Greek emperors, of the emperors of Germany, the kings of France, Spain, Pisans of Syria, Cyprus, the Baleares, and from those of the republics of Venice and Genoa. It was probably a compilation made by private persons; but whoever may have been the authors of it, and at whatever precise point of time the Consolato may have been compiled, it is certain that it became the common law of all the commercial powers of Europe.

shipmast-alexanderchristodoulakis

The Laws of Oleron

The laws of Oleron were the next collection in point of time and celebrity. They were collected and promulgated in the island of Oleron, on the coast of France, in or about the time of Richard I, to include their interests for navigation on the coasts of the Atlantic.

The laws of Oleron were borrowed from the Rhodian laws, and the Consolato, with alterations and additions, adapted to the trade of western Europe. They have served as a model for subsequent sea laws, and have at all times been extremely respected in France, and perhaps equally so in England, though not under the impulse of the same national feeling of partiality. They have been admitted as an authority on admiralty questions in the courts of justice in this country.

The Laws of Wisbuy

The laws of Wisbuy were compiled by the merchants of the city of Wisbuy, in the island of Gotland, in the Baltic Sea, about the year 1288. It had been contended by some writers, that these laws were more ancient than those of Oleron, or even than the Consolato. But Cleirac says, they were but a supplement to the laws of Oleron and constituted the maritime law of all the Baltic nations north of the Rhine, in like manner as the laws of Oleron governed in England and France, and the provisions of the Consolato on the shores of the Mediterranean. They were, on many points, a repetition of the judgments of Oleron, and became the basis of the ordinances of the Hanseatic League.

The renowned Hanseatic association was begun at least as early as the middle of the thirteenth century, and it originated with the cities of Lubec, Bremen, and Hamburgh. The free and privileged Hanse Towns became the asylum of commerce, and the retreats of civilization, when the rest of Europe was subjected to the iron sway of the feudal system, and the northern seas were infested by “savage clans, and roving barbarians.” Their object was a mutual defense against piracy by sea, and pillage by land. They were united by a league offensive and defensive and with an inter-community of citizenship and privileges. The association of the cities of Lubec, Brunswick, Dantzick, and Cologne, commenced in the year 1254, according to Cleirac, and in 1164, according to Azuni; and it became so safe and beneficial a confederacy, that all the cities and large towns on the Baltic, and on the navigable rivers of Germany, to the number of eighty-one, acceded to the union. One of the means adopted by the confederates to ensure prosperity to their trade, and to protect them from controversies with each other, was the formation of a code of maritime law. The consuls and deputies of the Hanseatic league, in a general convention at Lubec in 1614, added to their former ordinances of 1597, (or 1591, as Azuni insists,) from the laws of Oleron, and of Wisbuy, and establish a second and larger Hanseatic ordinance, under the title of the Jus Hanseaticum Maritimum. This digest of nautical usages and regulations was founded evidently on those of Wisbuy and Oleron, and from the great influence and character of the Confederacy, it has always been deemed a compilation of authority.

Ship-AlexanderChristodoulakis

The development of maritime legislation into modern times

But all the former ordinances on maritime law were eclipsed by the French ordinance upon commerce in 1673, whose negotiability was prominent; and more especially by the celebrated marine ordinance of 1681. This monument of legislative wisdom in the reign of Louis XIV was erected under the influence of the genius and patronage of Colbert, who was not only the minister and secretary of state to the king but inspector and general superintendent of commerce and navigation. It was by the special direction of that minister, and with a view to illustrate the advantages of the commerce of the Indies.  It required such a work as the ordinance, to consolidate the establishment of all the maritime power. 

In continental Europe, loss of uniformity in the maritime law began with the late Renaissance and gained momentum with the rise of nationalism in the 17th century, which witnessed adoption of the Maritime Code of Christian XI of Sweden (1667), the Marine Ordinances of Louis XIV of France (1681), and the Code of Christian V of Denmark (1683). Of these, as we already described, the most significant was the Ordinances, prepared under Louis XIV’s finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert,

The individuality of the maritime law—its “separation” from other types of law—was accentuated by the Ordinances, which gathered in one code all of the criminal, private, procedural, and public laws relating to the sea.

Although the Code de Commerce was widely adopted in the first half of the 19th century, in some cases by choice and others by conquest, the German Commercial Code of 1861, revised in 1897, marked a departure from French law, and revisions of the Spanish and Italian codes showed the influence of the new German law. These, in turn, had their effect in countries under an Italian and Spanish influence.  The High Court of Admiralty, which sat in London, and the Vice Admiralty Courts, set up in the other ports, were a later development.

Although the powers of the English Admiralty are today quite broad, in practice it is rare for cases other than those involving marine collisions and salvage to be brought before it. Controversies respecting charter parties, ocean bills of lading, and marine insurance, for example, are more generally brought before the Commercial Court.

In the United States, the federal district courts are by statute granted original jurisdiction, “exclusive of the courts of the States, meaning that if a maritime claimant wishes to have his claim litigated by admiralty procedure, he must invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts. However, he is free to sue in a state court, unless the defendant is a citizen of another state, in which case the suit may be tried as an ordinary civil action in the district court.

Book-AlexanderChristodoulakis

Components of maritime law

Maritime liens

Although admiralty actions are frequently brought in personam, against individual or corporate defendants only, the most distinctive feature of admiralty practice is the proceeding in rem, against maritime property, that is, a vessel, a cargo, or “freight,” which in shipping means the compensation to which a carrier is entitled to the carriage of cargo.

Under American maritime law, the ship is personified to the extent that it may sometimes be held responsible under circumstances in which the shipowner himself is under no liability. The classic example of personification is the “compulsory pilotage” case. Some state statutes impose a penalty on a shipowner whose vessel fails to take a pilot when entering or leaving the waters of the state. Since the pilotage is thus compulsory, the pilot’s negligence is not imputed to the shipowner. Nevertheless, the vessel itself is charged with the pilot’s fault and is immediately impressed with an inchoate maritime lien that is enforceable in court.

Maritime liens can arise not only when the personified ship is charged with a maritime tort, such as a negligent collision or personal injury, but also for salvage services, for general average contributions, and for breach of certain maritime contracts.

In a proceeding in rem, the vessel, cargo, or freight can be arrested and kept in the custody of the court unless the owner obtains its release by posting a bond or such other security as may be required under the applicable law or as may be acceptable to the plaintiff. More frequently, however, the owner will post security to avoid a threatened arrest, and the property never has to be taken into custody. When the judgment is for the plaintiff in a proceeding in rem, there will be a recovery on the bond or other security if the owner of the property does not pay; or, if security has not been posted, the court will order the property sold, or the freight released, in order to satisfy the judgment. The sale of a ship by an admiralty court following a judgment in rem divests the ship of all pre-existing liens—and not merely those liens sought to be enforced in the proceeding in rem. By way of contrast, the holder of an in personam judgment against a shipowner can, like any judgment creditor, have the ship sold in execution of the judgment; but such a sale, unlike the sale under an admiralty judgment in rem, does not divest existing liens; the purchaser at the execution sale takes the ship subject to all such liens. Thus, an in rem proceeding has decided advantages over a proceeding in personam in a case in which the shipowner is insolvent.

Efforts have been made from time to time to increase the security value of ship mortgages, to encourage lending institutions to finance vessel construction, but these efforts have not been very successful, largely because of differences in national laws respecting the relative priorities of mortgages and maritime liens. (Under general maritime law there is a complex hierarchy of maritime liens; that is to say, in a proceeding that involves distribution of an inadequate fund to a number of lien claimants, liens of a higher rank will be paid in full in priority over liens of a lower rank, and in most countries a ship mortgage ranks lower than a number of maritime liens.) Attempts were made to harmonize some of these conflicts by international conventions signed in 1926 and 1976, but the first failed to win widespread support and, as of the end of 1983, the second had been ratified by only half of the signatories required for the convention to enter into force.

Shipping charters

The function of ships, other than warships, pleasure craft, and service vessels of various types is of course transportation of cargoes and passengers. In the “jet age,” the passenger-carrying segment of the shipping industry has lost much of its former importance, but the quantity of goods transported by water continues to grow as the world economy expands.

The great majority of the contracts governing the carriage of goods by water are evidenced either by charter parties or by bills of lading. The term charter paship2-AlexanderChristodoulakisrty (a corruption of the Latin Carta Partita, or “divided charter”) is employed to describe three widely differing types of contracts relating to the use of vessels owned or controlled by others. Under a “demise” or “bareboat” charter, the shipowner delivers possession of the vessel to the charterer, which engages the master and crew, arranges for repairs and supplies, and, in general, functions in much the same way as an owner during the term of the charter. A much more common arrangement is the “time” charter, where the shipowner employs the master and crew, and the charterer simply acquires the right, within specified limits, to direct the movements of the vessel and determine what cargoes are to be carried during the charter period. Under both demise and time charters, the charterer pays charter hire for the use of the vessel at a specified daily or monthly rate.

The third type is the “voyage” charter, which is essentially a contract of affreightment, or carriage. Most voyage charters provide for the carriage of full cargoes on one voyage or a series of voyages, but occasionally a charterer contracts for the use of only a portion of the carrying capacity of the vessel, in which case the governing contract is described as a “space” charter. Under a voyage charter, it is customary for the master or his agent to issue a bill of lading to the shipper, who is usually the charterer, although as between shipowner and charterer the voyage charter remains the governing contract of carriage; the bill of lading serves only as a receipt and as a document of title to the goods. Ocean bills of lading are usually in the order form; that is, they call for delivery to the order of the shipper or of some other designated party. Such a bill of lading may be negotiated in much the same way as a check, draft, or another negotiable instrument, which means that a bona fide purchaser of the bill of lading takes it free and clear of any defects not appearing on its face. Thus, if cargo is externally damaged on shipment, but the damage is not noted on the bill of lading, the carrier will be barred from establishing that the cargo was in fact damaged before it came into the carrier’s custody. Once a bill of lading issued under a voyage charter is negotiated to a bona fide purchaser, it becomes the governing contract between the carrier and the holder of the bill.

When a ship strands or collides with another vessel, substantial cargo loss or damage may result. If the casualty is found to have been caused by a sea peril or an error in navigation, there will be no liability if the goods are being carried under a statutory or contractual provision based upon the Brussels Convention on Limitation of Liability (1923), which incorporated the so-called “Hague Rules.” If, however, the casualty was the result of the carrier’s failure to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy and to see that it was properly manned, equipped, and supplied, the carrier will be held responsible.

Ship3-AlexanderChristodoulakis

Limitation of Liability

A distinctive feature of the maritime law is the privilege accorded to a shipowner and certain other persons (such as charterers in some instances) to limit the amount of their liability, under certain circumstances, in respect of tort and some contract claims. In some countries, including the United States, the limit, except as to claims for personal injury and wrongful death, is the value of the ship and the earnings of the voyage on which it was engaged at the time of the casualty. On the other hand, in the United Kingdom and the other countries that have ratified the Brussels limitation of liability convention of 1957 or enacted domestic legislation embracing its terms, the limit is £28, or its equivalent, multiplied by the adjusted net tonnage of the vessel, regardless of its actual value. The basic condition of the privilege is that the party asserting it must be free from “privity or knowledge,” in the words of the United States statute, or “actual fault or privity,” in the words of the convention. This formula means, generally speaking, that the shipowner is entitled to limit his liability for the negligence of the master or crew, but not for his negligence or that of his managerial personnel. In a sense, the limited liability of shipowners may be compared to the limited liability that any investor may now achieve by incorporating his enterprise. The limited-liability idea in maritime law, however, long antedates the emergence or invention of the modern corporation or limited company; its early appearance in maritime law may be taken as a recognition of the extraordinary hazards of seaborne commerce and the need to protect the adventurous shipowner from the crushing burden of liability—that is, in the days before even the most primitive forms of insurance had become available. Some modern commentators have suggested that the peculiar features of maritime limitation of liability have outlived their usefulness and that the development of insurance and the modern limited-liability company has radically altered the conditions out of which the shipowners’ privilege originally grew. Although no maritime country has yet gone to the length of abolishing limitation of liability, ship owning interests, appear to have become concerned about the possibility of such a development.

shippingalexander

Alternative Ship Financing

As CEO of PBS SA Capital Group, Alexander’s Christodoulakis’ passion is to assist companies to grow, expand and reposition themselves in the market.

Using a vertically integrated management system for his global portfolio at PBS SA Capital Group, this has helped to provide companies under management with a degree of stability, sustainability, and growth in volatile global market times. Alexander’s management system enables asset and ship equity growth via alternative ship financing solutions. The ship financing solutions include fleet optimization and ship refinancing.

The global shipping industry is a capital-intensive business. The industry’s players need CapEx financing, credit lines, and ship operational liquidity to handle the large scale opex of the intense daily cash flows. Over the past decades, international shipping enterprises relied on traditional ship finance, which was heavily dependent on bank financing, while alternative ship financing was limited or unattractive, up until the recent years.

However, the introduction of a number of alternative financing options in the wake of the global economic crisis created new means of alternative funding which in turn came in handy to those who needed it and had nowhere else to go. Significant changes to the market conditions in many parts of the shipping industry with newly created successful partnerships between financiers and experienced shipping groups.The shipping industry gained added advantages from capital markets in the recent years since they are able to issue debt easier as well as attract more equity participations. Initial public offers (IPOs) became popular among investors and shipping companies.

Today, there is a relevant disconnect between freight rates which remain low and are expected to increase and gain more traction during the winter months and the attractiveness of last year’s IPOs which were relatively low. But, is expected to grow, starting from the winter season as well. While Private equity (PE) funds have been focusing on opportunistic investment options and have been doing well until presently, a number of capital management companies invested heavily with a specific focus on the shipping industry and real estate market.  Private Equity funds provide flexibility in extending credit and also extend loans to riskier projects where banks would be more restricted from providing such funding.

The capital markets remain critical for the enhancement as well as the promotion of shipping business growth and the creation of corporate value since capital markets perform the following fundamental functions. As capital markets act as qualified intermediaries in providing funds required to finance new investment projects and sustain business growth.

This has created the important shift that has been seen in the recent years until today in the shipping industry. The international capital markets played a protagonist role of key importance, predominantly equity and bond markets, which provided a large share in fund-raising for shipping enterprises.

As shipping is a cyclical industry with idiosyncratic characteristics, strategic market timing remains of key importance to any shipping investment. The behavioral pattern of shipping business is related predominantly to the nature of shipping demand and supply, being sensitive to economic growth and trade, cyclicality in freight rates and vessel prices, demand and supply imbalances and fragmented business structures.

The issue of optimal capital structure blending with the appropriate funding method is critical for an industry that is capital intensive and its operation employs real assets (Ships) of high commercial value. Strategic decisions in shipping enterprises today, shift from simple profit maximization to corporate value enhancement. The capital intensity and magnitude of shipping investments always requires capital availability, but also careful vessel selection and reliable fleet diversification, based on solid capital frameworks is a must. In a highly dynamic and volatile business environment, modern shipping finance becomes highly sophisticated, innovative as well as complex in today’s market environment.

 

alexanderchristodoulakisship

The Global Shipping Industry of Today

Inside the last century, the global merchant shipping industry has seen the increasing trade volumes along with the expansion of free trade and the increased demand for consumer and industrial goods. However, it is inside the last 50 years that shipping has become the predominant means of merchant transportation globally, making it responsible for the transportation of approximately 90% of global trade.  Main reasons for this leading position of shipping are of course globalization of trade and important technological advances that have taken place in the industry. Although the industry is growing, shipping is cyclical as well as capital intensive. By this, we mean that it is highly affected by the aggregate global demand for industrial or consumer goods whereas the global macroeconomic and financial events can affect the values of the shipping assets and their financing levels. Despite this, shipping industry as a whole is already diversified at some level.

Screen Shot 2017-07-05 at 11.30.53 AM

Different types of vessels are employed concurrently at every phase of the business cycle but with different performances depending on the phase of the cycle and the global demand levels.  So in the main categories of shipping, we meet tankers which transport crude oil, petroleum and chemical products, bulk carriers which transport unpackaged bulk cargo, such as grains, coal, iron ore, and cement, container ships which carry most of the world’s manufactured products, specialist ships like offshore supply vessels, anchor handling tug supply, platform supply vessels and construction support vessels among others. Finally, we meet Ferries which are passenger and vehicle ships (roll-on – roll-off, RoPax etc.). All these different types of vessels support today’s global transportation industry by offering a good diversification for those considering an investment in the shipping sector.

Shipping faced a serious economic downturn in the 2008 global financial crisis. From then on, it has faced and continues to face constant challenges and interesting changes. From recent collapses of shipping giants to good M&A activity that has taken place in the last 12 months and with the bigger deals taking place inside the last 3 years, the industry adjusts itself to the new policies and environmental regulatory standards that are about to be established soon and to those already implied. All these are expected to increase the financial burdens of shipping companies which are already facing increased pressures on their margins. Proactive anticipation has become the new norm in the industry, and it is definitely a realistic way for shipping managers and ship-owners to face the regulatory stakeholders.

Despite all the challenges, the existing functions of shipping like the proper management of security standards, the operational and technical management of ships, the management of the chartering function, the ship selection and acquisition process and the management of human resources and multicultural diversity are being kept at a very good quality level worldwide and this good level is expected to increase further also due to increased competition in the market. For the coming years and according to a consensus by many analysts’, we expect on average for the industry’s benchmark players the Earnings per share and Return on Equity ratios to be higher than the last 5-year average. It will take a long way, however, before seeing again pre-crises rates. Under these new circumstances, shipping companies will still have to optimize their fleet, acquire new vessels, hedge against macroeconomic, geopolitical and environmental risks while confronting at the same time the extra costs of the new policies. Therefore it is crucial for the shipping companies to manage cautiously the financing activity as an on-time and well-structured financing will determine the quality and types of fleets that will dominate the seas the coming years. The longer-term view for an industry moving in parallel with the increase of the global population, and new infrastructure developments that are expected to take place in major economic hubs of both east and west, suggest that the industry can proliferate enough from the estimated increase in demand.

Screen Shot 2017-07-05 at 11.31.09 AM

World seaborne trade has increased in a steady manner the last years and this is also reflected on major shipping stock benchmarks. Shipping transportation remains efficient, safe and economical and is set to remain competitive as an industry. Even if the current year is not an easy one, global maritime trade is expected to increase.

Air Freight vs. Ocean Freight

International shipping connects the global trade market. Exporters have major business choices to make in terms of how they transport their shipping. In the logistics industry, transporting goods requires a lot of consideration. Air freight and ocean freight are the two choices of transportation when shipping overseas. So how do businesses decide how they ship? Take a look at the factoral differences between air freight and ocean freight.

freightalexanderchristodoulakis

Cost  

Many people assume that ocean freight is cheaper than air freight, however, that is not always the case. Depending upon the chargeable weight, which is how carriers charge for international shipping, size will determine whether air or ocean freight is cheaper. When calculating which option is cheaper, a company has to compare the transportation fees with the value of the goods. Whichever way the company ships, they still have to consider the customs and destination fees. Warehousing fees at seaports are typically more expensive than airports. As a general rule, when we have to deal with heavier and larger shipments, it is often more economical to choose sea freight transportation. However, as a shipment becomes significantly smaller, margins between the prices of the different transportation means get smaller and sometimes air freight could even turn out to be less expensive.

 

Speed 

It’s no question that time is money. Speed is a priority for many companies, including cargo shippers and their clients. Air freight is much faster than ocean freight, only taking about a day or two for arriving at the destined airport. The faster a business can provide goods to their customers, the greater customer satisfaction is.

As technology expands, so does the ability to track shipping because it’s a component of a positive experience. There’s a level of comfort that consumers have when they know where an item that they paid for is at all times, even if it’s in transit. Consumers expect a speedy delivery. Airfreight provides tracking and shows how quickly a package arrives from location to location until it’s delivered to a consumer’s door.

 

Reliability

 In the world of international shipping, businesses and consumers want reliability with their shipments. Ocean carriers are nowhere near as reliable as air freight. Not only does air freight transport goods in a matter of days, but trackability is much more efficient as well. Ocean freight can take multiple days, or even weeks to arrive at the destination. Although air freight has a shorter history than ocean freight, it’s quickly progressed in terms of reliability and matching up to the expectations exporters have in the logistics industry.

 

Following an ocean carrier arriving at a seaport, there’s still land travel time that must be accounted for. Air freight has the ability to arrive closer to the final destination because of the numerous airports inland vs. the seaports on the coasts.

 

Shipping (Maritime) and Offshore Drilling (Oil & Gas) Industries and Uses of Offshore Companies

AlexShippingA Glance at the Offshore Industries

The global increasing demand for energy has led the growth of the two major offshore industries. The global offshore oil and gas and the offshore wind energy. Key role in the Oil and Gas industry’s’ Exploration and Production (E&P) phases, plays a specialized category of the shipping industry which is broadly recognized as the offshore shipping industry. These Offshore ships are the vessels which are particularly set to support the offshore industry (oil drilling or wind). They are the main means of transportation for carrying supplies and personnel to the huge oil stations deep inside the ocean or for example, drill ships which are used as offshore platforms in the oil and gas E&P cycle.  Offshore ships can generally be categorized into PSVs (Platform Supply Vessels), AHTS vessels (Anchor Handling Tug Supply vessels), CSV’s (construction support vessels), offshore barges, with all the other types and sub-types of these specialized sea vessels. The offshore shipping industry, despite the challenges, has kept up well with many technological developments that have taken place through the years. It is a well-known fact that these capital intensive businesses are called to operate in a very tough environment. Offshore operations are inherently difficult to execute and the smallest error could be proven disastrous, whereas at the same time the investment at stake is significant. In the case of a failure in the operations, the environmental, human and economic cost is huge. Another important fact is that as the offshore shipping industry players grew in number, so did the competition.  Therefore, it is crucial for the offshore shipping companies to attain the highest level of effectiveness and efficiency without compromising their success and at the same time by keeping the standards of environmental and economic sustainability high.

The Impact of the Regulatory Framework

There are many factors that contribute to the prosperity of this industry and one of the most substantial of them has to do with the regulatory framework and the tonnage tax regime under which the offshore shipping companies operate. In the conventional, standardized shipping industry (bulkers, tankers, and passenger vessels) major changes took place in the past 25 years and basically this happened in parallel with the introduction of the commercial friendly regimes in the shipping industry. However, there is no uniformity in these regimes, especially when it comes to a specialized category of shipping like that of the offshore shipping. As it is understood, the jurisdiction of the company plays an important role here and the research that has been conducted on the matter shows that the regulatory framework in many countries is outdated or not focused enough on the offshore shipping industry.

The difference on the jurisdiction’s friendliness is primarily due to the particular tariff regime followed like for instance, if it is a tonnage tax regime, a tax efficient regime but without any incentives for shipping companies, or a regime that is based on specific shipping benefits and incentives. However, the overall tariff and legislation framework is also affected by the specific type of offshore business. The business types of Oil and Gas Drilling, Ocean Wind Farms and the Offshore construction industries, also define the tax environment in a great extent. From an onshore perspective (i.e. the jurisdictions that cannot be purely characterized as offshore despite their beneficial taxation structures), there is a positive correlation, between most of the countries and their respective offshore business types that offer an advantageous and constructive environment for offshore shipping operations. Thus for international shipping companies the process to select the proper location from where they will conduct their business operations, is a demanding one. Tonnage tax regimes – are based on the tonnage of the vessels should be carefully observed as they can differentiate between different vessel types or they are phased out in certain regions. Taking into consideration several variables, starting from the qualitative capabilities of the company’s ship management and the accurate matching of the company’s specialized operations with the respective tariffs framework, to cost efficiency and financing decisions along with the whole capital and operational structure.

Going Offshore and Public at the Same Time

Due to the fact that both financing and tax-regime selection decisions are crucial for a company’s growth, there are companies that combine a going public strategy with headquartering in their Stock Exchange listed entities or their subsidiaries in offshore jurisdictions of good and long-established reputation. There are numerous companies headquartered in offshore jurisdictions like Bermuda, Marshall Islands, and the British Virgin Islands, in various sectors and industries, represented in major and non-major stock exchanges worldwide like London Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, NYSE, OSLO, Singapore, Hong Kong and others. From the Energy, Minerals and Industrial Services sectors, there are companies in the Oil and Gas production, Contract Drilling, Engineering and Construction, Oil and Gas Pipelines, Oilfield Equipment and Services and Mining. From the Transportation sector the Marine Shipping industry (mainly Deep Sea Freight Transportation, Marine Cargo Handling, categories of shipping) which are largely represented in the international stock exchanges. In the Financial sector with the industries of Banking, Investment Management and the Insurance sector with Property and Casualty Insurance at its core, these also are represented in the stock exchanges. In conclusion, despite the complexity level of decision-making in the offshore shipping industry, there are alternatives in relocating or repositioning offshore and being publicly listed on a stock exchange as well. These alternatives are friendlier towards some businesses in this industry. Companies operating in this industry face frequent risks and challenges as they operate in difficult and demanding environments thus every factor should be carefully weighted.

Legitimate Uses For Offshore Companies: Past and Present

Offshore financial facilities have evolved remarkably due to economic globalization, political and economic instability, technology advances and evolution in telecommunications. These dimensions have led to a significant increase in the demand for offshore operations. The offshore company industry has developed into a major international business, linking all regions, comprising, in one way or another, roughly half of the world’s international lending and deposits by value. However, despite the fact that we live in a globalized and open economy that offers numerous options for investments and capital mobility, still offshore companies and offshore financial structures are often in the middle of worldwide controversies, attracting considerable attention which eventually harms the reputation of these financial and trade facilities. The undisputable fact is that these low- tax overseas jurisdictions are an important and indispensable part of the global financial system and the reason, of course, is not their illegal use by some entities. Nevertheless, before seeing the real reasons that offshore companies have legitimate and important uses in the global trade and economy we will first take a look on the origins of these tax-efficient economic zones.

Old Map Light Blue

Historically, in order to boost trade, increase capital movement, and secure trade gains, free-tax economic zones were developed, since the 2nd century B.C. in the Mediterranean region and especially in the area of Greece with the Delos island playing the role of the special economic zone. The type of trade that was taking place there, was free of customs duties and it faced no taxes. Important role to this economic regime of that time, played of course the geographical positioning of the island. Throughout the history, the generation of low-tax states always serviced the needs of traders and seamen.  From the medieval period to the industrial revolution, the need for friendlier towards the commerce regimes never stopped. The important fact here is that most of the times these beneficial economic zones existed in islands and ports, the places where the real risk takers, the seamen traders were living and working when they weren’t in the sea. By reaching the 19th century and the 2nd industrial revolution with the respective expansion of capitalism, these tax-friendly jurisdictions also grew. It was after the First World War that European and United States tax rates started rising. This, combined with the increased global uncertainty of that period and the easy methods of incorporation in the offshore jurisdictions, led to the growth of these jurisdictions like for instance the ones in the British overseas. In a post-colonization era, and as the economy was becoming more interconnected and the foreign direct and indirect investments grew, the demand for international financial services increased. The Demand for global offshore financial facilities also grew in the 1970s, partially because of the substantial amount of money that petrostates needed to reutilize after OPEC effectively raised oil prices. Moreover, the downfall of the Bretton-Woods system also increased the risks from the exchange rate fluctuation. The international nature of cross-border businesses led to the increase of cross-currency transactions in all the quarters of the world and the need for international management of cash and tax planning by the companies, made the need for offshore companies and offshore structures and financial services to flourish. Of course, in the course of history, there were entities that misused these business friendly offshore facilities in order to promote illegitimate practices and this is something that can only be regulated with global efforts and cooperation between countries. However, there is a global legitimate use and need for these jurisdictions that make the global trade easier and more efficient, especially in a period where the global economic, political and geopolitical risk is elevated.

There is a variety of reasons for the utilization of offshore companies and structures both for legal and physical entities. The focus of this article is on the corporate users of the offshore companies and facilities.  

From Holding companies to royalty and intellectual property companies, major financial institutions, shipping companies, middle market companies that seek international expansion, multinational corporations, and conglomerates, they may need at some point of their corporate structuring to conduct their operations through offshore entities that will facilitate the specific characteristics of a particular business need. For instance, it is common practice in the shipping industry to use constantly offshore companies in order to facilitate its global trade and banking needs in the most efficient way particularly when there is the need for a ship registration or for a Flag of Convenience. Another example has to do with treasury management operations. The ultimate goal of treasury management is managing the firm’s liquidity and mitigating its operational, financial and status risk by concurrently taking care of the investment and funding activities. The treasurers of corporations often allocate their money market instruments and cash resources between their subsidiaries which as a process, is regularly carried out through offshore facilities and structures. It is also common for International joint ventures to be often structured as offshore companies when the parent entities want to keep the venture as jurisdiction neutral. Other important legitimate uses for offshore companies is that they can be used as asset holding companies where risky assets are held isolated from the main entity, thus reducing any unnecessary risk transition to the rest of the group. In the case of a company having non-risky assets that it wants to protect from a politically unstable environment where the rest of the firm operates, then with the use of an offshore company can accomplish that goal also. Investment companies also use offshore companies at a great extend in order to invest in derivatives and securities trading without facing regulatory limitations for their investment and trading undertaken risk. Finally, companies expedite their capital raising needs both in equity and debt capital markets, by forming offshore companies. This usually happens as in many occasions, a more efficient and simple structure may be needed or the existing legal framework of the main country of operation, may not support or help the company raise capital in a non-conventional way.

Energy Efficiency Initiatives in the Shipping Industry

CargoShipThere’s no denying the importance of the shipping industry. According to the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), the shipping industry carries food and different goods all over the globe and contributes to around 90% of the world’s trade. Without shipping, people wouldn’t be able to get what they need to survive at an affordable price, and technology and business would come to a screeching halt.

There are over 50,000 cargo ships in the world, transporting a vast array of goods from point A to point B. With all of these ships moving to and fro across the oceans, the time has come to put effective energy efficiency initiatives into action.

The International Maritime Organization is committed to the safety, security, and carbon emissions of the shipping industry. During the IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee’s, it was decided that a strategy to reduce carbon emissions would be put into action in 2018. Across the entire shipping industry, energy efficiency tactics must be adopted in order to reduce greenhouse gases.

What can be done?

It seems like a monumental overtaking, but there are smaller steps that each shipping company can take in order to be more energy efficient. One such step is to regularly polish propellor blades. When propeller blades are properly polished, it helps the ship run smoother and can reduce emissions by about 8%. Shipping companies are at tight deadlines most of the the time, but slowing the ship down can also reduce emissions by as much as 30%. Additionally, investing in autopilot, more efficient pumps, and cleaning the hull all increase energy efficiency by varying percentages.

Rolls-Royce starting to design unmanned ships as an answer to the energy efficient problem. These autonomous ships offer greater energy efficiency than the ships of today, and would be safer than having a crew of people on board. There would be no need to include the sections normally reserved for housing the crew, meaning the ship would only store cargo. This additional room for goods actually makes the ship about 5% lighter and would use less fuel than today’s ships.

Newer ships will also be equipped with more energy efficient features that include improving the design and shape of the hull to increase hydrodynamics and technologies onboard to improve engine efficiency.

It is now mandatory for crews of ships 5000 tonnes and over to keep track of each type of fuel oil their ships. This data will then be used to decide future policies regarding energy efficiency requirements. Since many initiatives have already been started, the future is sure to hold a more energy efficient shipping industry.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén