“大宗商品贸易融资”从业人员的好消息

Pre-export finance

Executive summary

Bank A’s client ordered four seagoing multi-purpose vessels from the shipbuilding company Shipbuilding & Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. (the ‘Yard’) for a price of about €6 m/m each, originally agreed to be delivered in two years’ time. The respective shipbuilding contracts are governed by English law.  As usual for such deals, the deal is put under the pre-export finance framework. The contracts called for advance payments from the buyer related to the building progress at the Yard with a final payment upon delivery. All advance payments are secured by refund guarantees with an on-demand character (the ‘Refund Guarantees’) from a local bank’s (Bank B) branch, which is the house bank of the shipbuilding company and which understands the shipbuilding company very well. Bank B is one of the top banks in the shipbuilder’s country. It is chosen to take this role as guarantor for refund. The evaluation of the financial strength of Bank B seems that Bank B is unlikely to have a financial/liquidity problem that will prevent the bank from honoring the payment of the amount, when and if the refund request is presented. Bank B is a good correspondent bank to Bank A, which can well accept the credit risk of Bank B and has credit facility established. Bank A has full confidence of payment with such an amount. Hence Bank A decided to offer a credit facility to its client, so that the client can advance the funds to the shipbuilder, as a transaction normally goes. For Bank A’s credit security requirement purposes, both the contracts and the refund guarantees of Bank B were assigned to Bank A from the buyer (the ‘assignments’) as security for the pre-delivery financings made available by the bank to the buyer. Notices of the assignments were given by the Bank A to the Yard and Bank B. So far, everything is in good order for both buyer and the seller. However, over time it became very clear that due to all sorts of building delays, the Yard would not make the contractual delivery date and would exceed the same grossly. 

As a result, the buyer chose to cancel each of the contracts when such became contractually possible. Subsequently, the Yard was summoned to refund the advance payments and – since the Yard did not perform – the payment was claimed to Bank B under the respective refund guarantees. The building of hull numbers 14 and 15 was in fact never finished. Advance payments for these vessels were refunded swiftly by Bank B to the Bank A as assignees without any argument. Meanwhile the contracts for hull numbers 16 and 17 were also cancelled (as a matter of fact, the construction of these vessels was stopped at an early stage) and a refund of the advance payments (totalling approx. €7 million plus interest) was demanded from the Yard and claimed to Bank B under the respective refund guarantees. Surprisingly the Yard, in order to prevent Bank B from honoring the claims under the respective refund guarantees, went to the local court and obtained a ‘stop-payment order’, a so-called court injunction, providing Bank B with an argument that it was not entitled under the local law to honor the claims under the respective refund guarantees. Between the buyer and the seller, dispute went on. Meanwhile the Yard, the seller, started parallel arbitration proceedings in Singapore, claiming wrongful termination of the respective contracts and damages resulting therefore, arguing that the delivery delays of hull numbers 14 and 15 were caused by the buyer changing specifications, disapproving work practices and craftsmanship, etc. The buyer believes that the seller cannot win the arbitration case, but just tries to delay a refund of the advance payments. In the meantime, the seller is trying to find a new buyer for the partially-built hull numbers 14 and 15. Whereas the dispute between the buyer and seller is not unusual when the market trend changes and the action of the Yard is somewhat to be expected, what is surprising is Bank B’s failure to honor the claim under the respective refund guarantees given their clear on-demand character. Further, how the local court can have jurisdiction over the matter and issue a ‘stoppayment order’ given the fact that the contracts, the refund guarantees and the assignments are governed by English law. The relevant manager of Bank A in charge of the relationship with Bank B has been informed shortly after the ‘stop-payment order’ was issued. He was asked to coordinate the dispute. 

Questions 

1. What is the fundamental driving force for such a dispute? 

2. What is the position of Bank B in this deal? 

3. What role can arbitration play in this case?

4. Can the legal injunction be justified? What are the possible scenarios to resolve this legal injunction? 

出口前融资

案例提要

A银行的客户从造船公司Shipbuilding＆Heavy Industry Co.，Ltd。（“Yard”）订购了四艘远洋多用途船，每艘价格约为600万欧元，最初双方同意在两年内交付，并签署了合同。

合同写明，所签署的造船合同受英国法律管辖。与类似交易一样，该交易属于出口前融资框架。合同要求买方预付款，付款数额与造船公司造船进度有关。在船的最后交付完成时支付最终款项。

所有预付给造船公司款项，都有退款担保银行担保，所谓“refund guarantee”。该担保具有“一经要求就退返款项”的特征，这种“退款担保”由当地银行（B银行）分行开具。该分行是造船公司的开户银行，非常了解造船公司。 

B银行本身是造船公司所在国家的顶级银行之一。A 银行的客户选择B银行担任此角色，作为退款担保人，是基于对B银行的财务实力的评估。B银行以其实力地位，似乎不太可能出现财务/流动性问题。之所以关心这些问题，是因为当退款请求出现时，这些问题将使银行难以兑现金额。 

另一方面，B银行又是A银行的友好代理行。A银行可以完全可以接受B银行的信用风险，因为A银行行内对B银行有已经建立信用额度。 这样， A银行在万一情况下对这笔垫付款项的收回充满信心。

因此，A银行决定向其客户提供信贷额度，以便客户可以将资金预付给造船厂，这类交易通常都是这样。

依照A银行风险控制的信用担保要求，造船合同和B银行的退款担保的法律权利，均由买方转给A银行（“转让”），以此作为A银行向买方提供船舶交付前融资的担保。 

A银行向造船公司和它的B银行发出了款项权利转让的书面通知，从而厘清了这个项目的法律框架。 到目前为止，买方和卖方的一切都处于良好状态。

然而，随着时间的推移，很明显由于各种建船技术延误，造船商不能按签订合同的交付日期交船，交船会超期相当长的时间。

结果，买方选择在合同允许的情况下取消每个(子)合同。随后，造船商被传唤退还预付款，并且，由于造船商没有执行合同，退款要求是根据相应的退款保证向B银行索赔的。

在这里，船体编号14和15的建造实际上从未完成。这些船只的预付款由B银行迅速退还给A银行作为权利受让人，没有任何争议。与此同时，船体编号16和17的合同也被取消（事实上，这些船只的建造在早期停止），并要求退还相应的预付款（总计约700万欧元加利息）。 买方根据相应的退款担保向B银行索赔。

令人惊讶的是，为了防止B银行根据相应的退款保证履行索赔，造船商“Yard”去了当地法院并设法从法院获得了一项“停止付款令”，即所谓的法院禁令，为B银行可以不付款提供了一个根据。

根据当地法律，B银行无权履行本应该偿付的相应退款保证下的索赔。在买方和卖方之间，纠纷继续存在。与此同时，卖方造船商Yard开始在新加坡进行平行仲裁程序，声称错误地终止了各自的合同并因此造成了损害，并认为船体编号14和15的交付延迟是由于买方改变规格，不赞成工作惯例和工艺造成的。

买方认为卖方无法赢得仲裁案件，只是试图推迟退还预付款。与此同时，卖方正试图为部分建造的船体编号14和15寻找新的买主。

每当市场趋势发生变化并且造船商的行动有些不同时，买方和卖方之间的争议并不罕见。但令人惊讶的是，鉴于其 “一经要求就退返款项”的特征，B银行未能履行相应退款保证下的索赔。

此外，根据合同，退款保证和转让受英国法律管辖，当地法院无法对该事项拥有管辖权并发出“停止支付令”。

负责与B银行关系的A银行相关经理，在“止付令”发布后不久得到通知， B银行不可以付款， A银行于是要求他作为两行关系的经理去协调纠纷，找出解决办法。

问题

1.这种争议背后的根本动机是什么？

2.B银行在这笔交易中的立场是什么？

3.仲裁在这种情况下可以发挥什么作用？

4.法律禁令是否合理？解决此法律禁令的可能方案有哪些？