Stolt-Nielsen Limited

Product tankers seem to be coming along.

Stolt Nielsen said this morning that chemical tankers haven't seen as much of that, but there are some indications that perhaps you know they will um see that as well so it's it's kind of uh if when vlccs do well it kind of does tend to pull up the rest of the market in some ways yeah so

yeah yeah and i just uh finally it's just uh i mentioned a minute ago that um clarkson's were saying that these uh particularly the larger tankers are going to have see the uh the good times roll into 2027 but from your perspective how long do you think this could really hold up

well i'm not not not not an analyst thank god that's not my job um but you know i talked to capital tankers earlier this week um you know they pointed to you know the three-year hundred thousand dollar a day fixture that dht holdings uh inked in september um You know, they say that there's liquidity for those sort of big dollar multi-year time charters, which suggests that, you know, the customers, the big oil companies, you know, the big oil exporters, they feel the need to lock up tonnage for a long period of time and are willing to pay up for it.

Then we got the first parcel tanker in 1959.

That was Stolt.

I mean, the owners were very, you know, Jacob Stolt Nielsen turned up at a shipyard in in Houston with a load of deep well pumps to get fitted into a tanker that he chartered.

I mean, it was very hands on.

The first Roro in 1964 has a stern door.

The Seventh Circuit has been joined by numerous district courts in holding that an agreement promising immunity to a third party may be enforced by that party if that party is later prosecuted in breach of the agreement.

See U.S. v. Stolt Nielsen, 525, F.S.U.P.P.2D.609, 613 and 614, 620 through 623, 628, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, 2007. dismissing indictment against Stolt Nielsen, directors, and or officers, as they were intended third-party beneficiaries, of the conditional leniency agreement between the DOJ, Antitrust Division, and Stolt Nielsen.

U.S. v. Florida West International Airways, Inc., 853 F.S.U.P.P. 2D, 1209, 1228-32, S.D. Florida, 2012. dismissing indictment against employees of air cargo provider as he had a third-party beneficiary standing necessary to establish his immunity under the plea agreement between the government and his employer.

Even if the non-prosecution agreement was never fully communicated to defendant El-Siddiq, he can enforce the non-prosecution agreement as a third-party beneficiary, U.S. v. CFW Constitutional College, IMC 583F.SUPP 197 DSC 1984.

Defendant as a third party beneficiary could enforce a plea agreement between the government.

and an air cargo company which immunized unnamed employees of the company's subsidiaries.

See also Stolt Nielsen 524, F.SUPP 2D at 613, 620.

Defendants as third-party beneficiaries could enforce an agreement between the government and Stolt Nielsen which promised leniency to unnamed directors, officers, and employees.