Insights

In response to President Trump’s announcement, on 6th October, 2019, of his intended withdrawal of the remaining US forces in northern Syria, the Turkish military began an incursion into northern Syria designed to establish a “safe zone” along the northern border and to remove the area from the control and influence of the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces. The US has reacted to demonstrate its objections to Turkey’s action by issuing an Executive Order (“EO”) imposing sanctions against certain Turkish entities, governmental bodies and individuals. 

In response to President Trump’s announcement on 6th October 2019 of his intended withdrawal of the remaining US forces in northern Syria, the Turkish military began an incursion into northern Syria designed to establish a “safe zone” along the northern border and to remove the area from the control and influence of the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces. The US has reacted to demonstrate its objections to Turkey’s action by issuing an Executive Order (“EO”) imposing sanctions against certain Turkish entities, governmental bodies and individuals. 

The impact on charterparties and issues for consideration. The past few decades have seen a trend of globalisation and integration across the world with the breakdown of conventional borders both via expanding international trade and increasing digital connectivity.

Sanctions clause bites in respect of US secondary sanctions: Lamesa v Cynergy. In Lamesa Investments Limited v Cynergy Bank Limited [2019] EWHC 1877 (Comm) the English Commercial Court was asked to consider whether a party could be excused from contractual performance which could expose it to US “secondary sanctions”. The case is a useful reminder to consider the reach of relevant foreign sanctions and ensure contractual provisions are drafted with these in mind.

The Court of Appeal has overturned an earlier, somewhat controversial, decision of the Commercial Court in relation to force majeure clauses. The case grapples with two key questions: whether it is necessary to show “but for” causation in order to invoke a force majeure clause and whether the innocent party is entitled to damages even if the contract would not have been performed in any event...