DCW Monthly: April 2025

This month, DCW unpacks the legal and practical shifts reshaping trade finance interpretation. Why are ICC Opinions becoming increasingly scarce? Dave Meynell explores the forces behind their decline and asks whether the ICC needs a new role in a digitised world. In Singapore, a court weighs in on misdelivery and causation in The Maersk Katalin, with big implications for banks relying on OBLs. Pavel Andrle critiques ISDGP’s take on URDG 758 Article 15(c), warning that sloppy exclusions may do more harm than good.

From the courts: New York throws out a negligent misrepresentation claim in ERA Capital v. Soleil Chartered Bank, while Singapore’s appellate judges reinforce the high bar for injunctions in performance bond disputes in Ee Hup Construction Pte Ltd. v. China Jingye Engineering.

DCW updates include Singapore’s commodity finance inspections, India’s step toward bills of lading reform, the ongoing fallout from Germany’s €3 billion container fraud, and a closer look at problematic standby LC wording and the curious preference of some government beneficiaries for UCP over ISP98.

Articles

ICC Opinions: Why has Usage Reduced?

Why are fewer ICC Opinions being issued? In this sharp analysis, Dave Meynell explores the convergence of factors behind the downturn—from the waning dominance of documentary credits and tighter bank risk appetites to strategic avoidance and the rise of in-house expertise. As technology and informal channels step in, the article raises a critical question: how should the ICC evolve to remain relevant in a decentralised, digitised trade finance world?

-Dave Meynell

Causation in Misdelivery Cases: The “Maersk Katalin”

When is a shipowner off the hook for misdelivery? This detailed case analysis explores how the Singapore High Court approached causation in a claim brought by UOB. The decision makes clear that missing original bills of lading are not enough on their own. Shipowners may avoid liability if they can show the bank would have allowed discharge regardless. For both lenders and carriers, the takeaway is that evidence counts and security interests must be consistently upheld to stand up in court.

-Baldev Bhinder, Ramandeep Kaur

Views on ISDGP’s Explanation of URDG 758 Article 15(c)

Pavel Andrle takes a critical look at ISDGP Paragraph 109 and its attempt to clarify URDG 758 Article 15(c). The result, he argues, is confusion rather than clarity. This article breaks down why the supporting statement requirement should not be taken lightly, how to properly exclude it, and why poorly drafted exclusions could undermine the very structure of demand guarantees. A must-read for anyone drafting or reviewing URDG-based instruments.

-Pavel Andrle

🗓️ Reminder: Singapore Events Next Month

IIBLP conferences return to Singapore on 19-21 May, continuing the decades-long tradition of bringing together bankers, lawyers, lawmakers & corporates for unique training and networking experiences. DCW will be on the scene to be part of the active discussions at the forefront of our industry. Will you be there?

May 19: The Guarantee & Standby Forum
May 20: The Annual LC Survey
May 21: The Trade Finance Compliance Annual Meeting

Updates

• Singapore Paper Reveals Banks Pass Inspection, but have Room for Improvement
• Charter Party Bills of Lading: Know the Risk Mitigants
• Discussion Exposes Troubling Standby Wording and Choice of Rules
• Hong Kong Police Arrest Five Suspects on Charges of Using False LCs
• Coordinated Effort Needed to Confront Canada/US Fentanyl Flow
• Tech Providers Compete in Trade Transformation Challenge
• India Takes Important Step toward New Bills of Lading Law
• Mexican Customs: Another Good Reason to Avoid Use of Drafts
• DCSA+ Pulls Partners in, Leaves Banks Out
• Porch Group Settles with Vesttoo Creditors Liquidating Trust

Litigation Digest

ERA Capital L.P. v. Soleil Chartered Bank [2024]

In a cautionary tale involving fraud, standby credits, and cross-border lending, a New York court sided with the advising bank in ERA Capital v. Soleil Chartered Bank. The beneficiary’s negligent misrepresentation claim failed after the court found no special relationship, no credible reliance, and no link between the bank’s actions and the loss. The decision underscores how standard disclaimers and undisclosed red flags can make all the difference in LC litigation.

Ee Hup Construction Pte Ltd. v. China Jingye Engineering Corp. [2025]

Singapore’s appellate court rejected a subcontractor’s attempt to enjoin payment under an on-demand bond. The court found no strong prima facie case of unconscionability and emphasized that withdrawing claims in arbitration does not amount to bad faith. The ruling underscores the autonomy of performance bonds and the need for clear evidence before disrupting the beneficiary’s right to payment.

Readers Speak

P&R Containers Operated outside Regulatory Radar

Following DCW’s coverage on P&R Containers and its €3 billion shipping container fraud, a reader reflects on how regulatory gaps, investor complacency, and advisor incentives enabled one of Germany’s largest Ponzi schemes to thrive for years. The commentary underscores the risk of unregulated “direct investments” and why better vigilance from all parties is required.

LC Scam Survey

India’s CBI Seeks to Unravel Fraud Allegations in 2017 Case

India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is looking into alleged collusion in a case initiated in 2017 relating to an INR 6 crore (USD 700,000) export scam touching at least four jurisdictions involving forged documents, unpaid dues, and criminal misappropriation of goods.

That's all for now. We'll send trending content, DCW bonus content, and highlights each week. Stay tuned!