pls note my new blog address: http://blog.sina.com.cn/drybulk
will update nothing here anymore, because it is unalbe to log wordpress.com in china mainland.
pls note my new blog address: http://blog.sina.com.cn/drybulk
will update nothing here anymore, because it is unalbe to log wordpress.com in china mainland.
The motto of the Exchange – ‘Our Word Our Bond’ – symbolises the importance of ethics in trading. Members need to rely on each other and, in turn, on their principals for many contracts verbally expressed and only subsequently confirmed in writing. Ethical trading is regarded by The Baltic Exchange as essential. Over the years the following basic tenets have been developed:
1. All market participants are expected to honour their contractual obligations in a timely manner.
2. In the conduct of his profession a broker shall exercise great care to avoid misrepresentation and shall be guided by the principles of honesty and fair dealing.
3. No broker has authority to offer a vessel or a cargo unless duly authorised by a principal or by brokers acting on the instructions of principals. Under no circumstances may a broker avail himself of, or make use of an authority if he does not actually hold it. Neither can he alter the terms of an authority without the approval of the principal concerned. The practice of misrepresenting authorities or making up a “bid” or “offer” is clearly against the Code and will not be tolerated. This is sometimes known colloquially as “spoofing”.
4. An owner’s broker should offer his vessel ‘firm’ only for one cargo at a time. A charterer’s agent should similarly offer his cargo ‘firm’ to only one vessel at a time.
5. A broker can receive more than one firm offer for a vessel or cargo but must make it quite clear to others who wish to make him an offer that he has already received one or more firm offers for the particular vessel or order concerned.
6. An unsolicited offer or proposal does not necessarily establish the channel of negotiation. A broker should respect the channel or channels through which a vessel or cargo has been quoted to him but the principal may direct which of those channels to use should he enter into firm negotiations.
7. Before a broker quotes business from a source whose bona fides is unknown, it is expected that he makes reasonable investigations and communicates the result of those investigations to anyone considering entering into negotiations. If such checks have not been made or completed this fact should be conveyed clearly to the other principal or his broker.
The Directors have highlighted, from time to time, certain practices, which they consider unacceptable from brokers accredited to the Baltic Exchange.
1. Organisations operating as Freight Contractors/Freight Speculators offering named tonnage against tenders without the authority of owners/disponent owners.
2. Agents/brokers implying that they hold a ship/cargo firm or exclusively when they do not, in order to secure a response from another party.
3. Off-setting against hire or freight payment(s), amounts representing unspecified or vague claims.
4. Withholding payment of commissions in respect of hire/freight/deadfreight/ demurrage earned and paid.
5. Using information obtained from Exchange members for business transacted directly with or between non-Baltic members. This practice involves the use of marketsensitive information given by another member, but being used outside the Baltic market.
6. Passing market-sensitive information gained through the Exchange to non-Baltic brokers or agents so that they can deal directly with Baltic members’ principals or their brokers. This has the effect of diluting the value of the market and runs the risk of an agreement being concluded with someone who may not be fully familiar with the practices of the market and may not observe the same standards of business
7. Owners offering their vessel firm for business when they hold a firm offer from another charterer. The unwanted offer should be declined before the owner makes another offer
8. Charterers fixing two vessels for one cargo and then holding both vessels over a period of time on “subjects”.
9. The distribution of route or index rates, produced by the Exchange from its panel reporting companies, for the purpose of pricing charters or contracts without an appropriate commission to a Baltic broker.
If a member of the Exchange fails to comply with any of the above terms or practices he may be disciplined by the Directors under the Rules. The Directors have power to censure, suspend or expel a member from the Exchange in these circumstances.
The Exchange has arrangements for investigating disputes between members, and between members and non-members, which arise from the breach of these basic principles or the employment of unacceptable practices and market ethics generally. These are set out below. Members are encouraged to bring such instances to the attention of the Exchange in writing so that they can be investigated.
If you conduct any sort of negotiations, particularly in the context of litigation, you will have used the term “without prejudice” at some stage. But what do you hope to achieve by use of the phrase? You probably hope it will encourage resolution of an issue but prevent the communication being used against you should negotiations fail. But has regular use of “without prejudice” dulled our appreciation or understanding of the actual principles behind the privilege in aid of settlement and its application?
The nature and purpose of the privilege were described by the High Court in Field v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) as:
“To enable parties engaged in an attempt to compromise litigation to communicate with one another freely and without the embarrassment which the liability of their communications to be put in evidence subsequently might impose on them… It is concerned with the use of the negotiations or what is said in the course of them as evidence by way of admission”.
A party making a “without prejudice” offer does so in the sense that they reserve the right to assert their original position in the dispute if the offer is rejected and the litigation proceeds.
Use of the term “without prejudice” can also protect communications made before litigation has commenced.
The privilege in aid of settlement rule
The privilege in aid of settlement rule is a rule governing the admissibility of evidence. It is based on the public policy of encouraging litigants to settle their differences, rather than litigating them to conclusion. In Rush & Tomkins Ltd v Greater London Council Lord Griffiths  said:
“The rule applies to exclude all negotiations generally aimed at settlement whether oral or in writing from being given in evidence. A competent solicitor will always head any negotiating correspondence “without prejudice” to make clear beyond doubt that in the event of the negotiations being unsuccessful they are not to be referred to at the subsequent trial. However, the application of the rule is not dependent upon the use of the phrase “without prejudice” and if it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that one of the parties was seeking to compromise the action, evidence of the content of those negotiations will, as a general rule, not be admissible at trial and cannot be used to establish an admission or partial admission… authorities… illustrate… the underlying purpose of the rule which is to protect a litigant from being embarrassed by any admissions made purely in an attempt to achieve a settlement.”
Beware though, mere use of the words “without prejudice” will not prevent a court from examining whether the privilege in aid of settlement has been properly invoked.
As with legal advice privilege and litigation privilege, privilege in aid of settlement can be waived. For example, if a party includes “without prejudice” correspondence in discovery, then the privilege may be waived.
Communications made “without prejudice” between two parties to multi-party litigation are protected from disclosure in the continuing litigation involving the other parties.
Communications made in the course of the mediation of a dispute are protected from disclosure on the same basis that communications “without prejudice” are protected. However, it has been held that there could be disclosure of communications at a mediation on the question of costs .
Exceptions to the rule
There are other exceptions to the without prejudice rule which will enable such communications to be received in evidence. The exceptions are designed to prevent a beneficial rule of law from being distorted in its application.
The main exception to the rule is that “without prejudice” communications can be disclosed to determine whether a settlement was in fact reached .
Other possible exceptions are:
Two Chinese yards have bagged orders to build a total of 14 kamsarmaxes.
Hebei Ocean Shipping Corp (Hos¬co) is back in the newbuilding market after a two-year break. The Chinese owner is said to have splashed out close to $500m on kamsarmax bulkers.
Market sources say Hosco has commissioned Qingdao Beihai Shipbuilding Industry and Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Co Ltd to build up to 14 units of 82,000 dwt. The owner is said to have booked four firm vessels plus four options at Qingdao Beihai and four firm ships and two options at Wuchang.
Hosco chief Gao Yanming was unavailable for comment, while a company official at the company’s office in Qinghuangdao said he knew nothing about the contracts.
Market sources say the 14 units are set to cost Hosco around $490m or between $34m and $35m per ship. TradeWinds is told that Wuchang will deliver the first bulker at the end of 2011 and the remaining vessels in 2012. Qingdao Beihai is said to be handing over its lot in 2012 and 2013.
Market sources say they are not surprised that Hosco has started ordering ships as current newbuilding prices are low compared to two years ago.
They add that Hosco’s dry-order spree is also part of the company’s fleet-renewal programme.
Gao has been the most vocal supporter of taking the torch to ageing Chinese-flag bulkers. He called on China’s owners to scrap tonnage over the age of 23.
Hosco is said to have scrapped four capesize bulkers built in 1981 and 1983 and one panamax built in 1984. Its current fleet comprises six panamaxes built from 1983 to 1987.
Industry observers say Hosco chose Qingdao Beihai and Wuchang as the company has good relations with China Shipbuilding Industry Corp (CSIC), the northern shipbuilding conglomerate that controls the two yards.
“CSIC is a state-owned enterprise and it is in a good position to help Hosco arrange financing for the newbuildings as well,” said a shipbuilding source.
Between 2007 and 2008, Hosco placed a total of 22 ships costing over $1.5bn at three yards — Dalian Shipbuilding Industry, Qing¬dao Beihai and Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding — under the umbrella of CSIC. The order is for 16 capesizes, four 92,500-dwt post-panamax bulkers and two VLCCs.
Qingdao Beihai and Dalian have since delivered four and three capesizes, respectively, to the owner.
Hosco is one of the largest privately owned Chinese companies with more than 100 vessels in the water, totalling over 10 million dwt.
|1||JOHN FREDRIKSEN, FRONTLINE, LONDON/OSLO|
|2||WEI JAIFU, COSCO, BEIJING|
|3||SAMMY OFER&FAMILY, ZODIAC MARITIME AGENCIES, LONDON/ TEL AVIV|
|4||JOHN ANGELICOUSSIS, MARAN TANKERS, ATHENS/LONDON|
|5||NILS SMEDEGAARD ANDERSEN, AP MOLLER-MAERSK, COPENHAGEN|
|6||YASUMI KUDO, NYK, TOKYO|
|7||HELMUT SOHMEN&FAMILY, BW GROUP,SINGAPORE|
|8||GIANLUIGI APONTE, MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO, GENEVA|
|9||MICKY ARISON CARNIVAL, MIAMI|
|10||BJORN MOLLER TEEKAY, VANCOUVER|
|11||PETER GEORGIOPOULOS, GENERAL MARITIME CORP, NEW YORK|
|12||SERGEY FRANK SOVCOMFLOT, MOSCOW|
|13||MORTEN ARNTZEN, OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING GROUP, NEW YORK|
|14||CAPTAIN PANAGIOTIS TSAKOS&FAMILY, TSAKOS ENERGY, ATHENS|
|15||MARIUS KLOPPERS, BHP BILLITON, MELBOURNE|
|16||GEORGE ECONOMOU, DRYSHIPS, ATHENS|
|17||NOBU SU, TMT,TAIPEI|
|18||HYUN JEONG-EUN, HYUNDAI GROUP, SEOUL|
|19||CHANG YUNG-FA, EVERGREEN, TAIPEI|
|20||EFTHIMIOS MITROPOULOS, INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION, LONDON|
|21||ATHINA MARTINOU & FAMILY, THENAMARIS/EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN/ MINERVA, ATHENS|
|22||IVAN GLASENBERG GLENCORE, ZUG, SWITZERLAND|
|23||GEORGE PROCOPIOU, DYNACOM TANKERS, ATHENS|
|24||FRANK G JENSEN, CLIPPER GROUP, COPENHAGEN|
|25||CAPTAIN VASSILIS CONSTANTAKOPOULOS AND FAMILY COSTAMARE, ATHENS|
|26||FAISAL AL-SUWAIDI QATARGAS, DOHA|
|27||ANETTE OLSEN FRED OLSEN & CO, OSLO|
|28||RICHARD ELMAN NOBLE GROUP, HONG KONG|
|29||CARSTEN MORTENSEN NORDEN, HELLERUP, DENMARK|
|30||TAN ZUOJUN CHINA STATE SHIPBUILDING CORP,BEIJING|
|31||GREGORY PAGE CARGILL, MINNEAPOLIS|
|32||PETER G LIVANOS CERES SHIPPING, ATHENS|
|33||HENNING OLDENDORFF, EGON OLDENDORFF, LUBECK|
|34||JACQUES DE CHATEAUVIEUX BOURBON, PARIS|
|35||HO CHING, TEMASEK HOLDINGS, SINGAPORE|
|36||ROGER AGNELLI, VALE, RIO DE JANEIRO|
|37||MARK SAVERYS CMB/EURONAV,ANTWERP|
|38||MORITS SKAUGEN IM SKAUGEN, OSLO|
|39||PETER ANKER AND RICHARD FULFORD-SMITH RS PLATOU, OSLO AND LONDON|
|40||CLAES ISACSON GARD, ARENDAL, NORWAY|
|41||CHEN QIANG, JIANGSU RONGSHENG HEAVY INDUSTRIES, CHINA|
|42||DAN STEN OLSSON STENA, GOTHENBURG|
|43||SABYASACHI HAJARA SHIPPING CORP OF INDIA, NEW DELHI|
|44||HARALD KUZNIK HSH NORDBANK, HAMBURG|
|45||CHANG YUNG CHUNG&FAMILY, PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL LINES, SINGAPORE|
|46||KLAUS-MICHAEL KUHNE, HAPAG-LLOYD, HAMBURG|
|48||CARL STEEN, NORDEA, OSLO|
|49||ROBERT BUGBEE, SCORPIO TANKERS, NEW YORK|
|50||SHASHI AND RAVI RUIA,ESSAR GROUP,MUMBAI|
|51||WILMER RUPERTI,GLOBAL SHIP MANAGEMENT,CARACAS,VENEZUELA|
|52||ROBERT KUOK, KUOK GROUP, KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA|
|53||ANDI CASE, CLARKSONS, LONDON|
|54||GEORGE CHAO WAH KWONG MARITIME TRANSPORT, HONG KONG|
|55||VARDIS VARDINOYANNIS AND FAMILY AVIN INTERNATIONAL, ATHENS|
|56||HARALD SERCK-HANSSSON DNB NOR, OSLO|
|57||ANGELIKI FRANGOU NAVIOS, ATHENS|
|58||JACQUES SAADE,CMA CGM,MARSEILLES|
|59||BHARAT SHETH GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING, MUMBAI|
|60||MICHAEL TUSIANI, POTEN & PARTNERS, NEW YORK|
|61||VLADIMIR LISIN, NORTH-WESTERN SHIPPING, MOSCOW|
|62||NIELS STOLT-NIELSEN, STOLT-NIELSEN, OSLO|
|63||MICHAEL PARKER CITIGROUP, LONDON|
|64||KANG DUK SOO, STX PAN OCEAN/STX OFFSHORE & SHIPBUILDING CORP, JINHAE-SI, SOUTH KOREA|
|65||SERGIO MACHADO TRANSPETRO, RIO DE JANEIRO|
|66||KRISTIAN SIEM, SIEM OFFSHORE, KRISTIANSAND|
|67||LAMBROS VARNAVIDES, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND, LONDON|
|68||TOM ALBANESE, RIO TINTO, LONDON|
|69||ANDY FARSTAD, FARSTAD SHIPPING, AALESUND|
|70||SIMON SHRIMPTON, CATLIN, LONDON|
|71||MIN KEH-SIK HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, ULSAN|
|72||RICHARD FAIN ROYAL CARIBBEAN, MIAMI|
|73||SULTAN AHMED BIN SULAYEM DP WORLD, DUBAI|
|74||CHRISTEN SVEAAS KISTEFOS, OSLO|
|75||EVANGELOS MARINAKIS CAPITAL MARITIME/ CRUDE CARRIERS, ATHENS|
|76||TAKESHI MATSUI SANKO STEAMSHIP, TOKYO|
|77||LI CHANGYIN,CSIC CROP,BEIJING|
|78||PER SAEVIK HAVILA SHIPPING, FOSNAVAAG, NORWAY|
|79||ROBERT LORENZ-MEYER ERNST RUSS, HAMBURG|
|80||YUDHISTHIR KHATAU VARUN SHIPPING, MUMBAI|
|81||EIKE BATISTA OSX BRASIL, RIO DE JANEIRO|
|82||HELGE MOGSTER DOF GROUP, BERGEN|
|83||YALCIN SABANCI YASA HOLDING, ISTANBUL|
|84||PHILIPPE LOUIS-DREYFUS LOUIS-DREYFUS ARMATEURS, PARIS|
|85||SOPHOCLES ZOULLAS EAGLE BULK, NEW YORK|
|87||MARK JACKSON AM NOMIKOS, LONDON|
|88||GAUTAM ADANI ADANI GROUP, AHMEDABAD, INDIA|
|89||DAVID COCKROFT INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT WORKERS’ FEDERATION, LONDON|
|90||JOCHEN DOHLE PETER DOHLE SCHIFFAHRTS, HAMBURG|
|91||HERBJORN HANSSON,NORTH AMERICAN TANKER SHIPPING,SANDEFJORD,NORWAY|
|92||NOBORU UEDA, CLASS-NK, TOKYO|
|93||GARY CHOUEST, EDISON CHOUEST OFFSHORE, GALLIANO, LOUISIANA|
|94||IMANTS SARMULIS,LATVIAN SHIPPING,RIGA|
|95||BASIL MAVROLEON CHARLES R WEBER, GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT|
|96||MARTIN HOUSTON BG GROUP, HOUSTON, TEXAS|
|97||DEAN TAYLOR,TIDEWATER HOUSTON,TEXAS|
|98||HARISH KUMAR MITTAL MERCATOR LINES, MUMBAI|
|99||ALAN BAKHOR, BRITISH MARINE, LONDON|
|100||SOMALI PIRATES, GULF OF ADEN|