# Hanjin Shipping group in administration



## Peter Eccleson (Jan 16, 2006)

Amazing - overcapacity in the container market leading to a major casualty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37227560

http://www.wsj.com/articles/troubled-hanjin-shipping-to-sell-healthy-assets-to-rival-1472611190


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

I wonder how much customers' capital is tied up in cargo already in Hanjin's 'stewardship'. A disreputable owner might well use such to leverage a cash injection from the cargo interests. With the value of the cargo often being many times the value of the ship it would not exactly be illogical. Unlike a vessel carrying one cargo (or a small number of parcels) where a failing owner may plot additional funding in this way I suppose the multiple ownership of a container cargo would make a common approach to applying the lever much more difficult.


----------



## D1566 (Sep 7, 2009)

Varley said:


> I wonder how much customers' capital is tied up in cargo already in Hanjin's 'stewardship'. A disreputable owner might well use such to leverage a cash injection from the cargo interests.


Sounds as if that would constitute extortion, at the very least.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

It is certainly not unknown in the singular environment. Your cargo arrives at a port of refuge and the owner/Master seeks assistance from the cargo interests to bale them out of whatever the problem is. It is part of General Average (q.Google) that each cargo interest involved is a party to the venture as a whole. I don't pretend any expertise and am sure it is more complicated than I am making it sound.


----------



## Lurch (Jul 29, 2011)

Hanjin in rehabilitation: what next?


----------



## Dartskipper (Jan 16, 2015)

There seems to be something of a disconnect between the bulletin about the South Korean economy, loss of jobs in the shipping and shipbuilding trades and general lack of demand in an economic downturn, and another headline about the South Korean Government seeking to boost its flagging birth rate. (EEK)


----------



## Peter Eccleson (Jan 16, 2006)

BBC shipping expert reported potential disaster for Christmas retail in Europe and US since Hanjin vessels already stacked with Christmas goods from Far East. Ships being arrested or refused entry to ports. Complicated issue of cross ownership of cargo/containers......
The situation is getting more complex. Apparently Hanjin carries 7% of all containerised cargo!


----------



## Fergie (Mar 3, 2007)

Stand by Gadani Beach


----------



## Dartskipper (Jan 16, 2015)

Oh well, that's walnuts and crystallised ginger off the shopping list this Christmas.


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

Varley said:


> I wonder how much customers' capital is tied up in cargo already in Hanjin's 'stewardship'. A disreputable owner might well use such to leverage a cash injection from the cargo interests. With the value of the cargo often being many times the value of the ship it would not exactly be illogical. Unlike a vessel carrying one cargo (or a small number of parcels) where a failing owner may plot additional funding in this way I suppose the multiple ownership of a container cargo would make a common approach to applying the lever much more difficult.


From the news today it appears that creditors (& potential creditors) are now aimining at the cargo onboard the 98 Hanjin vessels. Various reports have started to quantify the situation but it is estimated there are 540000 TEU onboard the vessels. Anybody's guess what that is worth, say $ 20 billion + so makes a much more interesting target than the Hanjin insolvency of abt $ 3 billion.? 
Guess the Lawyers, as usual are going to get fatter!


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

Peter Eccleson said:


> BBC shipping expert reported potential disaster for Christmas retail in Europe and US since Hanjin vessels already stacked with Christmas goods from Far East. Ships being arrested or refused entry to ports. Complicated issue of cross ownership of cargo/containers......
> The situation is getting more complex. Apparently Hanjin carries 7% of all containerised cargo!


Good for the other operators though as freight rates have soared by 40%!


----------



## Lurch (Jul 29, 2011)

What will be interesting is how the individual assets of Hanjin are split up.

They have several ships under the UK flag for the tonnage tax, so will be UK holding companies as part of the corporate empire.

Replicate that over a few more flags, 540,000 boxes = 540,000 waybills, plus cross carried cargo from the alliance, the members of which will probably circle the wagons and bury Hanjin.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

callpor said:


> From the news today it appears that creditors (& potential creditors) are now aimining at the cargo onboard the 98 Hanjin vessels. Various reports have started to quantify the situation but it is estimated there are 540000 TEU onboard the vessels. Anybody's guess what that is worth, say $ 20 billion + so makes a much more interesting target than the Hanjin insolvency of abt $ 3 billion.?
> Guess the Lawyers, as usual are going to get fatter!


Yes, not a matter for the amateur and Google.


----------



## Engine Serang (Oct 15, 2012)

Headline: No British Seafarers to Loose Jobs.
Buy the children a Hornby train set or Meccano for Christmas rather than all that cheap tat from the Far East.


----------



## Dartskipper (Jan 16, 2015)

Engine Serang said:


> Headline: No British Seafarers to Loose Jobs.
> Buy the children a Hornby train set or Meccano for Christmas rather than all that cheap tat from the Far East.


One little problem with that idea E. S. All of Hornby's stuff comes from China now.

Buy them an Airfix kit, instead. They're made in India.

Better still, but them a good penknife and some whittling sticks!


----------



## John Dryden (Sep 26, 2009)

*540000*



Lurch said:


> What will be interesting is how the individual assets of Hanjin are split up.
> 
> They have several ships under the UK flag for the tonnage tax, so will be UK holding companies as part of the corporate empire.
> 
> Replicate that over a few more flags, 540,000 boxes = 540,000 waybills, plus cross carried cargo from the alliance, the members of which will probably circle the wagons and bury Hanjin.


Surely the lot is tucked away on various computer hard drives around the world and the price to get the cargo back will already have been e mailed to the consignees...if that dosn,t work who knows?


----------



## Engine Serang (Oct 15, 2012)

"Better still, buy them a good penknife and some whittling sticks!"

Children would use the whittling sticks to poke the eyes out of the wee girls next door and the penknife, Sheffield rather than Swiss, to stab someone in the school playground.
Poohsticks my ****.


----------



## RHP (Nov 1, 2007)

Maersk and MSC are partners with Hanjin in their route share so I guess they'll quickly take up the slack.

That said, Hanjin only has 2.9% market share so its not technically such a big deal.

Bet the ship builders are more upset than anyone... glut of vessels on the second hand market, cancelled orders, moth balled ships remaining so for many more years etc..


----------



## Dickyboy (May 18, 2009)

I don't think I've ever seen a Hanjin vessel going in or out of Southampton. Plenty of others though. Perhaps Brunei Bay & Falmouth will be full of laid up container ships soon.


----------



## D1566 (Sep 7, 2009)

It would seem that the Korean government is now offering some finance ... as is one of the principal owners of the company ... dashed decent of him!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37283338


----------



## Samsette (Sep 3, 2005)

There was a Hanjin boxboat anchored on Constance Bank, waiting for a berth, a few days ago. Probably loaded with Halloween trappings.


----------



## Erimus (Feb 20, 2012)

Right...you may find the following article from my lunchtime Lloyds bulletin..

South Korea has devised a list of ports where Hanjin Shipping's container vessels can discharge without risk of arrest by creditors seeking outstanding payments.

Hamburg in Germany, Los Angeles in the US and Singapore are to be the shipping line's so-called base ports, a Ministry of Strategy and Finance official told Lloyd's List.

The ports have all issued stay orders or have guaranteed legal protection from vessel seizures, which allows Hanjin's ships to unload, the ministry official said.

Hanjin ships can also find safe harbour at Busan and Gwangyang in South Korea.

But the authorities drew the line at cargo unloading fees, saying that Hanjin would have to settle those outstanding payments itself.

Late last week, Busan Port Authority guaranteed that it would pay fees owed for lashing services provided in August to Hanjin vessels, a port official told Lloyd's List.

The guarantee means Hanjin vessels can again be processed at Busan after lashing service providers refused to work on Hanjin containers for fear of non-payment after the company filed for receivership.

"Busan port does not have any problem with handling Hanjin's containers for now. And the lashing payments for September will be discussed as well," the port official said.

First published on www.lloydslist.com

geoff


----------



## Lurch (Jul 29, 2011)

Welcome to the Hanjin California

September 20th, 2016 Splash 24/7 Splash 24/7 Asia, Containers, 

Frazer Hunt, a partner at Australian law firm Mills Oakley, taps The Eagles in charting the chaos sparked by the bankruptcy of South Korea’s largest shipping line.

As we enter the third week following Hanjin Shipping filing for receivership, let’s review how the various stakeholders handled the fallout following arrest of Hanjin California in Sydney and whether there are any lessons to be learned before further containers are discharged from Hanjin Milano which remains anchored off Melbourne awaiting advice from Korea.

“So I called up the Captain…”

Hanjin California was arrested by unpaid bunker suppliers earlier this month after it berthed at SICT. The terminal discharged some of the containers and since Hanjin would not be paying any of the charges, exercised a lien over the containers for the stevedoring costs and administration charges. Consignees who had already paid freight were also required to pay these charges to obtain release of their containers. Still, if you wanted your container…

Then it got a lot more complicated: to secure return of container to the depot, Hanjin also required a deposit, bond or a solicitors letter of undertaking that the deposit would be paid on demand.

For a short period, the terminal also required security for the return of the container. Consignees were then faced with the dilemma that if they returned the container to Hanjin’s depot, they would lose their security to the terminal but if they returned the container to the terminal, then they would lose the security provided to Hanjin. Fortunately, common sense quickly prevailed and the terminal withdrew their parallel demand.

“What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise)… bring your alibis…”

Then the port authority got in on the act and asked the consignees to pay the wharfage costs that would have otherwise been paid by the vessel.

“There were voices down the corridor, I thought I heard them say… Welcome to the Hanjin California…”

Oh, your container holds dangerous goods? While grappling with the delays associated with the procedures referred to above and getting Hanjin to answer the phone, you are then served with a notice from the port authority to remove the container and threatened with penalties if it is not removed immediately. The notice then continued “You are invited to present information on any difficulties encountered in complying with the permitted time periods on the terminal which may be taken into account by the port authority when making a determination for the above alleged offence”.

“Mirrors on the ceiling, the pink champagne on ice…”

OK, so you have finally paid the stevedoring charges, wharfage costs and provided security for the return of the container and then picked up the container having also paid multiple fees for missed slots. Great, you now have your goods but: Hanjin’s container depots refused to accept re-delivery of Hanjin containers, presumably fearing that they would never be collected. You are asked to hold onto the container until further notice, presumably without further container demurrage accruing… hopefully…

“…Plenty of room at the Hanjin California”

In one sense, the consignees who got their containers out of the terminal were lucky – you have to feel sorry for the owners of goods in the Hanjin containers which were bundled up at the terminal and loaded on Hanjin California which remains under arrest at Glebe Island terminal that does not have facilities to load and unload containers with no appearance from the owners of the vessel in the arrest proceedings at this stage. Consignees who wish to have their containers discharged from Hanjin California will have to wait or apply to court to have their containers unloaded. Whether the costs associated with moving the vessel again for that purpose will be economically viable is another matter.

“Relax,” said the night man, “we are programmed to receive.
you can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave!”

Meanwhile, the residents near Glebe Island Terminal are not happy – it is most inconvenient for them to have to pull the shades down on their windows.

Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light….

Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up!

Hopefully, the service providers at other ports will learn from our experience and that procedures for the release of the remaining Hanjin containers will be more streamlined and with less angst.

And I was thinking to myself, “This could be Heaven or this could be Hell”


----------



## Alistair Macnab (May 13, 2008)

*Hanjin Problems....*

Has no one heard of General Average Insurance? Perhaps in this modern age, and the usual reliability of container shipping, merchants have given up the concern for G/A situations and are no longer insuring against such risk?

I read about all the expenses coming out of the woodwork for merchants but SURELY they had insurance?

Tell me I am too old fashioned to protect my interests. Perhaps bankruptcy is not a similar condition to ship distress. But it should be!


----------



## Pete D Pirate (Jan 8, 2014)

One of the best posts on here for a while, Lurch. (Applause)


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Alistair Macnab said:


> Has no one heard of General Average Insurance? Perhaps in this modern age, and the usual reliability of container shipping, merchants have given up the concern for G/A situations and are no longer insuring against such risk?
> 
> I read about all the expenses coming out of the woodwork for merchants but SURELY they had insurance?
> 
> Tell me I am too old fashioned to protect my interests. Perhaps bankruptcy is not a similar condition to ship distress. But it should be!


I spoke to an eminent broker two Fridays ago. He told me that whilst the mechanics is similar to general average think of the number of different 'charterers' who must each provide a bond for their own cargo and the carrying container. Perhaps more interestingly the answer to insurance is "no". Cargo interests cannot insure against financial failure of the shipowner.


----------



## jeraylin (Feb 2, 2008)

Now us immigration has banned shore leave for any crew on board Hanjin owned or chartered vessels. Typical yank attitude.


----------



## Samsette (Sep 3, 2005)

We have two Hanjin box boats, on our West Coast; the Hanjin Vienna anchored on Constance Bank, off the Victoria waterfront. She is German-owned, German-managed and, under the German flag so, no problem encountered by the crew, who still receive their pay, their vittles and are rotated periodically.

The other, Hanjin Scarlet, was detained in Prince Rupert but has now moved down to Vancouver.


https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/hanjin-shipping-vessel-set-dock-vancouver-185426513--finance.html


----------

