Dora Mace Kokota
Partner

Dora is a leading maritime finance expert, known for her commercial insights and pragmatic approach in guiding clients through complex transactions. She specialises in helping global financial institutions, ship owners, and energy companies solve their toughest challenges in maritime finance and restructuring.

Dora’s portfolio includes LNGs, cargo vessels, tankers, yachts, and offshore energy assets, and her reach covers Europe, Asia, and the U.S. Dora is regularly called on by some of the world’s largest financiers, shipowners, and infrastructure providers – not just because of her deep technical knowledge, but because she’s known for being direct, commercially savvy, and relentlessly pragmatic. Clients value that she doesn’t just identify problems – she solves them, fast.

Dora has also contributed to leading industry texts including Shipping Finance, Maritime Decarbonization and previous UK Chapters of The International Shipping Finance & Law Review.

Dora has been listed as a stand-out lawyer by Thomson Reuters’ 2026.

Ian Mace
Partner

Ian is a maritime finance expert specialised in ship, offshore and superyacht finance. Ian assists a diverse range of clients in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and North America, including financial institutions, shipowners, operators, investors and private equity groups. His expertise spans debt finance, lease finance, back leveraging, equity investments, Islamic finance, sale and purchase, restructuring and enforcement.

Ian’s practice includes advising on export credit-backed financings, sale and leaseback arrangements and seller’s credit transactions. He is adept at handling distressed financings and enforcement actions, such as vessel arrests and auctions across jurisdictions. His clients benefit from his broad experience and his sharp, quick-thinking approach with the ability to deliver clear, convincing arguments, ensuring their interests are protected and optimised.

Ian has been listed as a stand-out lawyer by Thomson Reuters’ 2026 and is recognised in Legal 500 UK and Chambers UK as a leading individual.

Key developments & the latest trends in the UK – from a legal perspective

This Chapter sets out the key developments and trends in the maritime finance market during the first half of 2026 from an English law perspective.

A melting pot of maritime financing types and financiers

During 2026, the majority of English law maritime finance arrangements that have been documented are far from a vanilla loan granted by a bank.

One illustration of this is the continued use of English law revolving credit facilities by larger shipowners with strong credit profiles. In the past, a loan agreement to a shipowner may have included a revolving tranche ancillary to a larger term loan facility. Recently however, strong shipping companies ask for standalone revolving facilities which provide them with the flexibility to draw down and repay funds according to various factors such as their business needs, the current cycle in the shipping market and new business opportunities. The maximum loan amount under these revolving facilities can be substantial, with facility periods of five to seven years. These types of facilities are often provided by a syndicate of traditional shipping banks. They are used by shipowners in parallel to other forms of debt, including JOLCOS and Norwegian and U.S. bond financing.

A second example of this is that many of the larger shipowners have been taking advantage of the cheap liquidity available from banks to enter into large fleet financings on extremely favourable terms, locking in competitive terms of the next five to seven years. Shipowners have had the upper hand in negotiations given the strength of the shipping markets and strong balance sheets, and the volume of prepayments of maritime financing during the past few years has resulted in a fiercely competitive environment amongst the banks. Coupled with many larger shipowners having significant new building programmes, these facilities have often included Export Credit Agency backed tranches, adding to the complexity of these transactions.

As a direct consequence of the above, the environment for private credit in the shipping sector, such as credit funds, alternative credit providers and institutional investors, has been challenging. Such lenders originally focused on higher risk transactions (either to smaller shipowners or higher leverage compared with the value of the asset), while charging higher margins. More recently however, their role has evolved and they have become direct competitors of banks (especially EU banks, who now apply stricter criteria when choosing the shipping companies they lend to as a result of ESG internal compliance requirements and Basel IV¹For more details on Basel IV, refer to International Shipping Finance & Law Review 2024/25 and Shipping Finance Review 2025/26: UK Trends & Decarbonisation.). Their advantage over traditional banks is that they can often offer more bespoke structures, more flexibility, higher leverage and are able to complete transactions in a shorter timeframe (as they are not subject to the same internal and regulatory constraints as banks). However, given the intense competition regarding pricing of shipping debt, and the fact that most shipowners have deleveraged, there has been less demand for private credit, even when such debt is combined with bank debt through back-leveraging structures to make the pricing more attractive. In any case, the importance of direct lenders in the shipping market is evidenced by the fact that since December 2025, private equity funds, hedge funds, capital markets underwriters and other alternative financiers are allowed to become associate members of the Poseidon Principles.²For more details on Poseidon principles, refer to https://www.poseidonprinciples.org/finance/#home.

One category of English law maritime finance arrangement that has seen a recovery is Asian-based sale and leaseback transactions. While different types of sale and leaseback structures are used around the globe, Chinese leasing continues to dominate in terms of market share, despite the USTR measures imposed by the Trump administration since 2025.³For more details on the impact of USTR on English law sale and leaseback transactions, refer to Shipping Finance Review 2025/26: UK Trends & Decarbonisation.

Finally, other examples of active financiers are family offices looking to diversify their assets and targeting assets which hold their value and have a revenue stream, pension funds investing in vessels funds and private equity vehicles.

Impact of Article 21(c) of CRD VI ⁴Directive (EU) 2024/1619 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 amending Directive 2013/36/EU as regards supervisory powers, sanctions, third-country branches, and environmental, social and governance risks. on UK banks lending to EU shipping groups

While CRD VI is not intended to become part of English law, it will have an effect on the ability of UK financing institutions to lend to EU-based shipping groups from the UK. One aim of CRD VI is to ensure that financial services to EU entities are provided by EU-financial entities or EU-authorised branches or subsidiaries of third-country banks. In particular, Article 21(c) prohibits non-EU banks (and certain large non-EU investment firms) from directly providing services to EU-based customers.

The services that are caught include lending, financial leasing, guarantees, commitments as well as deposit-taking. On the face of Article 21(c), to continue providing these services to its EU customers, a non-EU bank will need to do so through an EU branch or a fully licenced EU subsidiary.

The regime applies to all deposit-taking banks (regardless of size) headquartered outside the EU who lend to or take deposits from EU clients. For other core banking activities, only larger financial institutions (with portfolios above EUR 30 billion in assets) fall within scope. Article 21(c) does not currently apply to non-bank lenders (e.g. private credit funds, insurers and asset managers).

The prohibition is subject to four exemptions:

(a) intragroup lending (i.e. banking services within the same group as the non-EU bank);

(b) interbank lending (i.e. banking services between a non-EU bank and an EU-Bank);

(c) some investment services ancillary to MiFID II; and

(d) reverse solicitation (i.e. where the EU-based borrower has approached the non-EU Bank “at its own exclusive initiative”).

The regime comes into force on 1 January 2027 in EU Member States which have transposed the CRD IV Directive. Once in force, the regime will apply to all transactions involving EU customers completed after 11 July 2026. Transactions that have completed prior to 11 July 2026 will not be subject to the regime, even where further advances are contemplated under the loan agreement after that date (this is referred to as “grandfathering”). However, if such transactions are amended and restated at a later date and the amendments are substantive (e.g. increase of facility amount or extension of facility period), they may fall within scope.

EU Member States are at different stages of transposition, and not all EU Member States are transposing the entirety of the provisions, which means that the prohibition will be applied differently in each EU Member State. Therefore, at the time of writing, a lot of uncertainties remain as to the application of the new regime and, accordingly, bank lenders should consider obtaining local EU regulatory advice in each relevant jurisdiction.⁵For more details on the impact of Article 21(c) on UK banks lending to EU customers, refer to this article: Important regulatory changes for non-EU banks providing financial services to EU shipping companies | Stephenson Harwood

Decarbonisation

The key development in 2026 in the sphere of maritime decarbonisation was the maritime extension to the United Kingdom Emissions Trading Scheme (“UK ETS”), which was passed on 1 April 2026, with relevant shipping emissions falling within scope from 1 July 2026.⁶Refer to International Shipping Finance & Law Review 2024/25 and Shipping Finance Review 2025/26: UK Trends & Decarbonisation for more details on the topic of decarbonisation and EU ETS as most of the points discussed there are still topical. For more details on the common components and the divergences between EU ETS and UK EST, refer to this article: Convergence and Divergence: the UK and EU Emissions Trading Schemes for maritime transport | Stephenson Harwood

Under the UK ETS, the entity that bears the compliance obligation is referred to as the “maritime operator”, which is the registered shipowner unless responsibility is delegated to the ISM Company by written agreement. Maritime operators are required to monitor their greenhouse gas emissions, report them annually, subject those reports to independent verification, and surrender a corresponding number of emissions allowances. Failure to surrender sufficient allowances (a) triggers an “excess emissions penalty” for each allowance not surrendered, alongside a continuing obligation to surrender missing allowances, (b) will result in the publication of names, and therefore potential reputational damage and (c) can lead to the imposition of other financial penalties.

The UK ETS applies to vessels of 5,000 GT and above and captures emissions from voyages between UK ports (with a derogation to 50% of emissions on voyages between mainland UK ports and ports in Northern Ireland) and emissions from ships in UK ports, but does not extend to emissions from voyages between UK and non-UK ports.

Unlike the EU ETS, there is no phase-in period for the regime. Instead, the industry has been afforded additional time ahead of the first surrender deadline with a single surrender deadline for the first two compliance periods. This means that allowances for emissions reported in 2026 (half-year) and 2027 (full year) will not need to be surrendered until April 2028.

The regime requires that emissions for each year must be verified by the end of March in the following year, and allowances must be surrendered by the end of April. As compared to the EU ETS, this shorter compliance cycle compresses decision-making and may increase short-term financial and administrative pressure on operators.

Where operators fail to discharge their obligations, the UK ETS prescribes discretionary fixed and daily escalating penalties applicable to various procedural breaches. Excess emissions penalties also apply, and the names of defaulting operators may be published as above. Although, unlike the EU ETS, vessel expulsion and detention penalties do not apply and port state control is not a feature of the scheme.

From a documentation perspective, it is important that, where vessels fall within the UK ETS, maritime operators make provision for the delegation of responsibility and allocate responsibility throughout the contractual chain, in charterparties and management agreements, responsibility for compliance, data provision and obtaining or paying for allowances on an ongoing basis as liability accrues throughout the year.

The UK courts clarify the “Banking Days” concept

An interesting court case in 2026, which will be relevant to the interpretation of “Banking Days” or “Business Days” in English law finance documents, is the judgment in Songa Product and Chemical Tankers IV AS v Gardsea Shipping Inc [2026] EWHC 1559 (Comm).

An analysis of the judgment is beyond the scope of this chapter ⁷For more details on the judgment, refer to our article: https://www.stephensonharwood.com/insights/the-remains-of-the-banking-day-interpreting-payment-provisions-in-the-norwegian-saleform-2012/ however in summary the dispute arose under a memorandum of agreement based on the Norwegian Saleform 2012 over the buyer’s alleged failure to release the purchase funds from escrow. Payment had not reached the escrow account by midnight at the end of 8 September 2022, and the sellers served a purported notice of cancellation at 00:09 on 9 September (Norway time).

The sole question before the judge was whether the obligation to ensure the release of the funds from the escrow account was one that the buyers were obliged to perform before midnight at the end of 8 September, Norway time (where the funds had to be paid) or Hawaii time (the most western part of the United States, which was the last of the jurisdictions listed in the definition of Banking Days in the MOA).

The judge concluded that the answer was that it was Norway time. He held that the definition of “Banking Days” simply marked certain calendar days as relevant or irrelevant for calculating the interval but did not alter the ordinary meaning of “day” (a calendar day ending at midnight local time ⁸Afovos Shipping Co SA v R Pagnan and Filii (The Afovos) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 335). It was held that the usual and common-sense view is that the place is determined by considering where the act in question has been or is to be performed. This presumption can be rebutted by clear words, but that was not the case here.

Having established that the last day for the release of payment under the memorandum of agreement was 8 September 2022, and that the place for the release of that payment was Norway, the proper conclusion as a matter of law was that the obligation to release the payment fell to be performed before midnight in Norway. This approach provided more commercial certainty than the Buyers’ construction that the deadline was midnight Hawaii time, which would result in days overlapping.

Impact of ISO 20022 migration on completions of maritime transactions

While not a UK-specific topic, the ongoing overhaul of the SWIFT system (known as the ISO 20022 migration) is relevant to UK financiers and the completion of English law transactions. This migration involves changes to the way banks will process payments internally to ensure the messages are structured and machine readable so that the intrabank process is more efficient and automated.

Since 22 November 2025, MT103 (the authenticated payment instructions allowing money to move forward unconditionally) has been replaced with pacs.008 (Customer Credit Transfer). This is the message used to send an original payment from the debtor’s bank to the creditor’s bank. As a temporary fallback, SWIFT has been offering an MT to MX conversion service for institutions unable to migrate in time. This service will be discontinued on 22 November 2026, after which MT103 will be rejected by SWIFT and local RTGS systems.

Other “new” pacs messages that may be relevant in maritime finance transactions are:

(a) pacs.004 (Payment Return) – This is the message used to return the funds to the original sender after the payment has already been settled and credited to the beneficiary (this could be any surplus or the whole amount if the transaction does not complete); and

(b) pacs.002 (Payment Status Report) – This is the message used to report the status of an earlier payment (e.g. rejecting an attempted payment before settlement or confirming it is complete).

When it comes to MT199 (which is an authenticated message setting out any payment release conditions that are typically sent alongside the payment), this message will be discontinued in November 2027. Because MT199 is used for different purposes, there are different equivalents in the new system. The ISO 20022 message that is likely to be used in parallel to pacs.008 to include conditions to a payment is admin.024. This message was introduced on 22 November 2025 and is a Notification of Correspondence is a standardised, free-format message for financial institutions to exchange supplementary information, resolve investigations, or notify counterparties of events impacting a transaction.

From 22 November 2026, all financial institutions using SWIFT must be able to receive admin.024 (they will still be allowed to use MT199 to send a message, and SWIFT is expected to offer a temporary conversion service to read MT199 messages during the transition phase). Once MT199 is discontinued in 2027, all financial institutions using SWIFT will need to use admin.024 to send instructions.⁹Similar timelines apply to other types of messages that will replace MT199 for different purposes – e.g. case resolutions (these help banks handle payment investigations more quickly and easily when a payment cannot be processed) will now be done with camt.110 (for investigation requests) /camt.111 (for investigation responses) and stop and recall (these allow banks to stop and recall a transaction that is still in progress, where the funds have not yet been credited to the creditor’s account, or, to request the recall of funds already credited) will be done using camt.056 / camt.029

New UK regulations on sanctions

Sanctions are of key importance to financiers undertaking English law financing arrangements. As such, this year’s chapter would not be complete without mentioning the UK Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which came into force on 20 May 2026. These amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to (a) introduce new trade prohibitions on the import into the UK of refined oil products processed outside Russia from Russian-origin crude oil and uranium as well as other types of goods, (c) impose sanctions on construction services and maritime services relating to Russian Liquefied Natural Gas, as well as other types of sanctions and (c) expand existing controls across the Russia sanctions regime.

On 16 June 2026, the UK Government also announced a new sanctions package targeting among other things Russia’s shadow fleet. While these UK developments have minimal impact on the drafting of sanctions provisions in English law financing arrangements, they are at the forefront of financiers’ due diligence for new English law maritime transactions.

Our Maritime, Trade and Offshore Finance team is here to assist you with queries on any of the topics above.