July 31, 2025 | Geneva/Singapore
Swiss banking giant UBS has emerged victorious in a high-profile legal dispute with Lebanese shipowner Ghassan Ghandour concerning the arrest of the crude oil tanker Chloe V. The ruling marks a significant development in a years-long battle involving maritime finance, vessel usage rights, and contractual obligations.
The case centered on the arrest of the Chloe V, a 320,000-deadweight-tonne Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC), which was detained off Singapore in 2021. Ghandour, through his firm Hermes Maritime Holding, accused UBS of obstructing the vessel’s deployment by refusing to issue a “letter of enjoyment”—a document typically required by charterers as proof that the lender consents to the vessel being commercially operated.
In a ruling issued this week, the court rejected Ghandour’s arguments and upheld UBS’s position, stating that the bank had no contractual obligation to issue such a letter under the terms of their loan agreement. The judge ruled that Ghandour had failed to demonstrate that UBS’s actions were responsible for the vessel’s prolonged detention.
The decision not only brings closure to the long-running dispute but also reinforces the boundaries of responsibility between lenders and shipowners in commercial shipping finance.
“This ruling clarifies that lenders are under no implicit duty to issue documentation unless explicitly agreed upon,” a legal analyst familiar with the case noted. “It’s a wake-up call for owners to ensure their financing terms allow for operational flexibility.”
The Chloe V remained under arrest for several months, incurring financial losses and sparking debate within maritime circles about the role of financial institutions in ship deployment decisions. Ghandour, a veteran figure in the shipping industry, has not yet commented on the outcome.
Legal experts say the verdict could influence how future ship financing deals are structured, especially for owners operating in high-value segments like crude transportation.
UBS declined to provide a statement but welcomed the court’s decision, calling it “a fair and justified conclusion to a complex legal matter.”
