Porti & ambiente — le notizie raccolte

In logistics, cargo claims are more than an afterthought – they’re a financial inflection point. Goods can be lost, stolen, or damaged in transit before receipt, and navigating liability under the Carmack Amendment or Montreal Convention demands both precision and speed. Mishandling just a few high-value claims can cost insurers and carriers millions, year after year [1]. A 2023 analysis found that delayed or incomplete documentation reduces successful cargo recoveries by nearly 20 percent, turning what should be standard recoveries into net losses [2]. Cargo claims aren’t simple. Each file must satisfy stringent federal requirements: time limits for filing, documentation standards, and negotiated liability limits. State regulations often complicate matters further. Carriers are subject to strict timelines, like Cargo Inventory being reported within nine months and lawsuits needing to be filed within two years, as mandated by federal law [3]. Moreover, each mishap, from LTL transfers to multimodal freight, adds layers of touchpoints, increasing risk. LTL shipments, for instance, see more frequent damage due to multiple handling stages [4]. Veritas Cargo Servicesis tailored to tackle these challenges head-on. Every cargo specialist understands: A key differentiator is the ability to identify problems clients may not know exist. The team’s depth of expertise enables a broader search for recovery opportunities -including potential fraud claims, subrogation opportunities, appraisal, and salvage – with clients retaining final decision-making authority throughout. The approach includes: Reporting is structured with the client in mind, from deep-dive dashboards to portfolio-level views. Every claim is reviewed proactively to surface additional subrogation, salvage, or recovery paths. Over time, cargo claims can become profit generators. Frequent clients see recovery dollars fund other services, like appraisal or subrogation, making cargo a true high-impact contribution rather than a cost centre. These aren’t hypothetical gains. They’re reflected in client outcomes. A sizable load of oversize components damaged in transit was initially assessed for sub-limit coverage. After the damage chain was reconstructed, full recovery was secured, covering not just the loss, but salvage and handling fees. Another claim tied to a small but critical parts loss sat without motion due to documentation gaps. Once the paper trail was restored and the claim refiled, the recovery came in at twice what estimate tools had deemed recoverable. Clients have responded accordingly:“That’s above and beyond. It felt like you rewrote the playbook for that file.” “We thought we’d gotten what we could. You proved there was more to capture.” “Cargo is not usually the hero of the claim. You made it one.” These reactions demonstrate how specialization turns routine claims into recovery wins. The landscape is increasingly demanding. Greater volume of high-value freight, evolving transportation modes, and tighter regulatory scrutiny are raising stakes across the board. Insurance premiums are rising, with cargo insurance viewed as a growing cost centre, especially when policies must adapt to cover high-risk freight like heavy machinery or hazmat [5]. To keep pace, insurers need proactive, expert handling – not check-the-box processing. Cargo claims are more than paperwork, they’re a strategic opportunity. With complexity baked into regulation, liability, and logistics, only specialists win. Veritas Cargo Services blends regulatory expertise, exposure-specific experience, and data-driven reporting to turn claims into cash flow. This isn’t advocacy. It’s leadership built on recoveries, process excellence, and forward momentum. References [1] Setliff Law, May 2025 [2] PropertyCasualty360, 2023 [3] Setliff Law, May 2025 [4] ATS Logistics LTL article [5] FreightWaves, Nov 2024 This article is sponsored byVeritas Cargo Services.

A largely unreported US federal lawsuit against Uber Freight, Amazon Logistics, CH Robinson and several other major freight intermediaries is evolving into a broader dispute over brokerage transparency, platform power and alleged “blacklisting” in the trucking industry. The case goes to the heart of a growing complaint among US owner-operators: that large freight brokers and digital freight platforms control access to loads, while carriers have little visibility into what shippers are actually paying. Originally filed by Georgia owner-operator David Worrell, operating as Daviexpress Inc., the lawsuit accuses some of the biggest names in freight brokerage of systematically concealing freight economics from carriers while retaining undisclosed margins for themselves. The defendants include Uber Freight, JB Hunt, RXO, TQL, CH Robinson, Convoy/Flexport and Amazon Logistics. At the centre of the complaint is 49 CFR §371.3, a little-known US brokerage regulation requiring brokers to maintain records of freight transactions and make them available to carriers on request. Mr Worrell alleges brokers and digital freight platforms: retained hidden portions of freight payments; failed to disclose shipper rates to carriers; engaged in rebrokering and “freight topping”; and used opaque digital marketplace systems that suppressed what truckers were paid. While the allegations remain unproven, the issues raised are familiar across US trucking: collapsing spot-market rates, widening broker margins, double brokering, algorithmic pricing and growing concentration among large freight intermediaries. The lawsuit effectively attempts to turn years of owner-operator frustration into a class-action challenge against the structure of modern freight brokerage itself. However, the case quickly ran into procedural trouble. The lawsuit was filed without a lawyer even though Daviexpress Inc. was a corporation. Under US federal law, corporations cannot litigate in court without legal representation. The defendants also moved aggressively to dismiss the complaint, arguing that: arbitration clauses governed the disputes; federal law preempted many of the claims; no private right of action existed under the brokerage regulations cited; and the complaint failed to state a valid legal claim. In December 2025, Judge Michael Brown ordered the plaintiff to obtain counsel or face dismissal. When no lawyer appeared, the court dismissed the case without prejudice in January 2026. But since then the dispute has become more contentious. In subsequent filings, Mr Worrell alleged that after the lawsuit was filed he was effectively frozen out of freight work by major intermediaries. The most detailed allegations concern CH Robinson. Mr Worrell claims a recorded phone call with a CH Robinson representative revealed that his new company, TDEXPRESS INC., had been manually “blocked” and placed on “Pending” status by the company’s legal department because of the litigation. He further alleges that CH Robinson cancelled two confirmed freight contracts, causing more than $9,000 in losses. In later sworn affidavits, Mr Worrell broadened those accusations, alleging an “industry-wide blacklist” involving CH Robinson, Uber Freight and Amazon Logistics, along with “legal blocks” and “90-day waiting periods” that reduced his income to zero. The defendants strongly dispute the relevance of those allegations and oppose reopening the case. However, they did not specifically deny the later claims. Mr Worrell’s plea to reopen the case has now been formally submitted to Judge Brown for decision. Even if the lawsuit ultimately fails, it reflects growing tensions in US trucking over how much visibility carriers have into freight pricing, and how much power large digital freight intermediaries now exert over access to work.

MSC has tightened its grip on the North Europe-Mediterranean trade, controlling almost half the deployed container capacity on the route, according to new analysis from Alphaliner. The Geneva-headquartered carrier now accounts for 45.5% of all cellular capacity operating between North Europe and the Mediterranean, equivalent to 360,517 teu, as of 1 May. The figure is more than double MSC’s 21.6% share of the global container fleet, underlining the carrier’s growing regional trade dominance. According to recent data from Container Trades Statistics, total intra Europe liftings in Q1 2026 totalled 2,097,754 teu, down lishgtly from Q4 2025, which saw 2,106,775 teu lifted, and roughly level year on year, with Q1 2025 intra Europe volumes totalling 2,092,171 teu. Alphaliner identified just ten carriers operating regular liner services between North Europe and the Mediterranean, seven of which are major deepsea operators. MSC, CMA CGM, Maersk, Cosco, ONE, Zim, and Hapag-Lloyd together control 97.3% of the market’s capacity, leaving only a marginal 2.7% share for regional operators Tailwind, Borchard, and Akkon Lines. Source: Alphaliner MSC itself deploys just over 164,000 teu on the trade, with a third of that on a single service – the North Europe-East Med Levante Express –operated with six vessels in the 8,500-9,420 teu range, the largest being the 9,411 teuMSC Giselle. However, the largest vessel on the trade is Maersk’s 9,600 teuColumbine Maersk, recently introduced on the North Europe-Turkey Aegean Sea service. Maersk is also preparing to strengthen its position further with the launch of its Baltic Sea service, which will deploy five vessels of 2,800-4,950 teu. Once fully phased in, during June, the Danish carrier’s market share is expected to rise from 14% to 19%, allowing it to overtake CMA CGM in the regional rankings. The Loadstarhas reported that Maersk had seen “disproportionately high growth”on intra-Europe trades in both capacity and market share following a boost of some 30,000 teu from the ‘hub and spoke’ system implemented last February via its Gemini alliance with Hapag-Lloyd. At the time, Maersk had climbed five positions in the league of North Europe’s largest operators in just one year, to second place after MSC. Alphaliner data from July showed the Danish carrier had increased its intra-Europe market share to 13.5%, compared with 3.7% the previous year, and was the only mainline operator to increase “both market share and capacity by a notable margin”.

Shippers will be watching with bated breath following OOCL’s decision to challenge the record $45m fine it was handed by the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). The carrier is appealing not only against the amount of the reparation, but the FMC’s jurisdiction to hear the case. Last month,the regulator hit the carrier with the fineafter finding in favour of bankrupt US shipper Bed, Bath and Beyond’s administrator’ Butterfly-1, which claimed OOCL’s service during the pandemic was not in accord “with service contracts or refusal to deal”. The Chinese box line has responded with a filing to the US District Court, seeking to overturn the FMC’s decision on the basis its in-house adjudication was unconstitutional, because such cases should be determined by juries in federal court. The filing contends that the FMC’s administrative law judge – who effected the ruling – has no jurisdiction over claims like Butterfly-1’s, rendering the verdict unconstitutional. Meanwhile, some saw the largest single award of damages in FMC history as an indication of the way the regulator may look at Butterfly-1’s other claims against carriers, including BAL Container Lines for $9.5m, Evergreen ($1.25m), HMM (said to be $16m), MSC and Yang Ming. All those complaints allege similar practices to those of OOCL, that the carriers were looking to take advantage of the pandemic-induced chaos, acts also reflected in allegations by other shippers. Showing a willingness to punish carriers punitively for such practices, the FMC ruling against OOCL may also offer an incentive to smaller shippers to submit filings with the maritime regulator that may have a degree of success. However, the news that OOCL plans to appeal will highlight the cost vs benefit ratio of a legal battle. Sources argue that it has always been the case that clients face “prohibitively expensive” costs to bring a legal claim. “You’re not going to spend $20,000 on legal fees to get $5,000 back for Covid-era bullshit,” one source said, adding that carriers were being very open that they were “just waiting out the two-year statute of limitations to reduce what they have to pay out”. Part of the problem, sources toldThe Loadstar,is that policymakers do not realise just how important small businesses are to the sector, one noting: “SMEs are the majority of the industry.” Nor will it just be smaller shippers watching the OOCL developments, so too willCornerstone Brands and QVC, seeking $18.1m from ONE, anddiscount retailer Dollar General, which has a $14.7m claim in against Yang Ming. In both cases, the carriers have been accused of similar Covid-era practices to those of OOCL.

DP World has expanded its ambitions in Bangladesh’s port sector, seeking to operate Chittagong Container Terminal (CCT) alongside its long-standing interest in the New Mooring Container Terminal (NCT), according to government officials and industry sources. The UAE-based global port operator submitted the proposal last month during a meeting of the Bangladesh-UAE Public Private Partnership Platform in Dubai. Bangladesh is opening-up its ports and logistics sector to foreign operators and investors, with several international terminal operators already entering the market. DP World has expressed interest for years – in 2019, it proposed investing $1bn in the country’s ports and logistics infrastructure. However, NCT, Chittagong Port’s largest container terminal, has long been at the centre of political and labour opposition over plans to hand operations to a foreign operator. Port workers and political activists have protested against the proposal over the past two years. Industry sources said DP World wants to secure long-term leases for both NCT and CCT, which are side by side in Chittagong Port. The operator is also understood to be interested in investing in an inland container depot in Gazipur and the planned Bay Container Terminal in Chittagong, as well as digitising Chittagong Port operations. Chowdhury Ashik Mahmud Bin Harun, executive chairman of the Bangladesh Investment Development Authority (BIDA), confirmed DP World had submitted a proposal covering CCT operations, adding: “We have received proposals on CCT from other global operators as well. But we are yet to take a decision.” Md Zakaria, newly appointed secretary at the Ministry of Shipping, said the proposal remained under discussion, with the Public-Private Partnership Office examining the matter. Bangladesh has increasingly attracted foreign port investors and operators in recent years amid the government push to modernise maritime infrastructure and improve supply chain efficiency. Saudi Arabia-based Red Sea Gateway Terminal (RSGT) has been operating the Patenga Container Terminal (PCT) since June 2024. Meanwhile, the government is progressing plans for the Bay Container Terminal project in partnership with PSA Singapore, DP World and Chittagong Port Authority. Construction is also under way on the $2bn Matarbari deepsea port project, financed by the Japan International Cooperation Agency. Two Japanese companies are building the facility, which authorities hope will establish Bangladesh as a regional container hub and reduce dependence on small feeder vessels for cargo transhipment. Elsewhere, APM Terminals, part of AP Moller-Maersk, has been awarded the contract to build and operate the Laldia Container Terminal in Chittagong. Inland logistics investment is also increasing. Medlog Bangladesh Private, part of Switzerland-based MSC Group, began operations at Dhaka’s Pangaon Inland Container Terminal (PICT) in January. Meanwhile, exporters have welcomed the prospect of another global operator taking on terminal operations in Chittagong. Abul Kalam Azad, a Dhaka-based exporter, said appointing DP World to operate the CCT could improve efficiency. “We hope to receive better services if the DP World is awarded the task,” he added. DP World was approached for comment, but had not responded before publication.

Cargolux chief executive Richard Forson has warned that prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could trigger fuel shortages, inflation, and a wider global economic downturn, as the air cargo carrier continues to reroute flights from much of the Middle East. He toldThe Loadstarthe consequences of the Iran conflict could extend far beyond aviation, and warned that jet fuel shortages would be “the least of our worries” if the crisis continued for several months. “It all depends how long the conflict actually lasts,” he explained. “As long as there is continued uncertainty as to when the war or impasse is going to end, prices will remain elevated.” His warning comes amid mounting concern across the aviation and energy sectors over the impact of the continuing disruption around Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global oil supplies normally transit. Mr Forson said Cargolux had already removed all Middle East stops from its network, except Muscat in Oman, and otherwise“we continue to fly the network we had previously”. The carrier suspended services to Amman, Riyadh, Dammam, Bahrain, and the UAE, and rerouted flights “almost overnight” after the conflict escalated. Cargolux also evacuated staff and pilots from Dubai as the security situation there deteriorated. While the airline has not yet experienced fuel shortages, Mr Forson said the risk would increase significantly if the crisis persisted medium-term. “For me, if the situation in the Middle East continues… I think at some point, there will be a shortage,” he said.“Governments around the world do have emergency stocks on hand, but those are not meant to cover month after month after month of shortages.” But he added: “The shortage of jet fuel will be the least of our worries, because the global economy is going to go through an extremely difficult time.” Rising energy costs would feed directly into inflation through higher logistics costs and reduced consumer spending, he said. “One thing that is built into every single product that we consume is logistics,” he added. “With the price of the energy needed for logistics increasing significantly, this is obviously going to be passed on to the consumer.” And he warned the impact would spread well beyond aviation fuel, potentially affecting diesel, petrol, fertiliser production, and industrial gases such as helium, which is used in cooling data centres – now a major vertical for air cargo. The disruption is already having a knock-on effect across wider air cargo markets. At a Coface event in Australia, ICAL International Customs and Logistics director Mark Coleman said cargo capacity had tightened significantly as passengers avoided Middle Eastern transit hubs and airlines reduced frequencies because of fuel costs. “People who would normally go via the Middle East started looking for flights via the US and Asia,” he said. “But from a cargo point of view, that caused huge restrictions. Passenger luggage will always get priority and, as a result, getting space on these flights became a bit of an issue; they were leaving cargo behind,” he continued, noting that 90% of Australian air cargo moves in bellies. Airlines are also beginning to move into defensive financial positions. Cebu Pacific, for example, has suspended dividend payments and shifted into ‘cash-preservation mode’ because of the fuel volatility linked to the Middle East conflict.Chair Lance Gokongwei said the carrier’s priority was now “to maintain a strong and resilient cash position”. And Air India is reportedly considering staff furloughs, executive pay cuts, and capacity reductions as longer routings, fuel costs, and weaker demand put pressure on profitability. Cargolux currently relies primarily on fuel surcharges rather than large-scale hedging to offset rising fuel costs. “We do hedge… but not high volumes,” Mr Forson explained. “Our first line would be our fuel surcharge mechanism, followed by hedging.” Hong Kong fuel surcharge disclosures show Cargolux has levied a long-haul surcharge of US$1.10/kg since late March, although the carrier’s detailed surcharge tables are not now publicly accessible. Despite sharply higher fuel prices, Mr Forson said cargo demand and yields had so far remained resilient. “Demand remains fairly healthy,” he said. “Rates and yields remain fairly robust, which has helped us offset the additional costs.” However, he acknowledged the fuel crisis would likely weigh on Cargolux’s profitability next year. The carrier announced revenues of $3.4bn for 2025, resulting in profit after tax of $465m at the end of April, marking 13 consecutive years in profit. “Based on what I’m seeing now, and what we’re having to pay for jet fuel, I think it is not going to be at the same level [next year]. It will be lower.” The executive also questioned whether the current global environment of repeated geopolitical shocks had become the ‘new normal’ for the cargo sector. “I hope within the next three to five years things start normalising,” he said. “If we can’t get to that stage, then we’re going to be in a perpetual state of having to react to crises as they develop.”

Singapore-based ship management company Synergy Marine claims it has been cleared of any wrongdoing when the containershipDalihit Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge in 2024. And it says it will defend itself “strenuously” against a US Justice Department (DoJ) accusation of negligence. The DOJ yesterday indicted Synergy Marine and the ship’s technical superintendent, Radhakrishnan Karthik Nair, for negligence that caused the accident, resulting in the bridge collapsing, killing six construction workers. Synergy Marine toldThe Loadstarthe US National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) last November found loose wiring, caused by a misapplied label, was the likely cause of blackouts on theDalishortly after it set out from Baltimore for Sri Lanka. The electrical failure led to a loss of steering and propulsion on the Maersk-chartered 10,000 teu ship, which then slammed into the bridge. Synergy Marine said: “Both the NTSB and well-respected maritime experts have conclusively determined that the accident was inevitable, due to the loose wire, and in no way attributable to Synergy’s operation of the vessel.” In deciding the indictment, acting US attorney general Todd Blanche called the incident a “preventable tragedy of enormous consequence”. The DoJ claimed that had Dali’s crew used proper fuel pumps to restore power, the ship would have sailed safely under the bridge. Synergy Marine says the department has criminalised the accident. “The NTSB’s factual reports do not indicate that the probable cause of the allision was because theDaliwas out of compliance with any code, law, regulation, or rule governing its operation, or with the builder’s recommendations, at the time of the allision. TheDali, and other vessels managed by Synergy, also had a near-flawless Port State Control record in the US. “Synergy will vigorously defend itself against these inaccurate allegations. Synergy and its employees have fully cooperated and have been transparent at all times during the NTSB’s investigation, and any allegations to the contrary are woefully inaccurate. We’re confident that the DoJ cannot and will not meet its burden of proof, and that we will prevail at trial.” Meanwhile, theDali’s Singapore-based owner, Grace Ocean, is suing vessel builder HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, alleging that defective construction had resulted in the loose wire.

Our last piece of insight concerning the Ceva Logistics exodus in key managerial spots was in early April – ever since, Premium sources say, Rodolphe Saadé has done his very best to contain it by trying “various tricks”. Because CMA CGM’s “logistics appendix Ceva” is in flux, with ex-Bolloreans still leaving the French family in droves. That has been the narrative since late 2025. It still holds. And last month’s news from Europe (Bermond, Peigné out!), we understand, was a wake-up call for ...

Terminal operators across major Indian ports have opportunistically increased their container handling charges (THCs), sparking another layer of pain for cargo owners facing the brunt of Middle East-related surcharges. THCs are normally collected by carriers on behalf of their shippers, so revisions ultimately also become a profit bonanza for container lines with mark-up attempts. For example, the fees levied by DP World-operated Mundra International Container Terminal (MICT) have already been raised substantially, effective on Friday, by 15% to 20%, according to industry sources. A customer advisory from Emirates Shipping Line (ESL) said THCs on a 20ft dry container would be up to INR15,500 (approximately $163) from INR13,700, and for a 40ft dry box INR23,450 from INR20,750. And to almost $600 for a 40ft reefer. There are indications that other terminals in Mundra will follow suit soon and sources have also reported THC increases at some of the terminals in Nhava Sheva (JNPA). Singapore-based container line ONE recently published a revised scale of THC rates for exports/imports handled across JNPA terminals “applicable across all tradelanes and services and be valid till further notice”, the carrier told customers. Carriers normally act in unison when it comes to announcing THC revisions. Hapag-Lloyd reportedly raised the THCs it collects from Indian customers on 1 April, with another round of changes likely soon, industry sources said. Additionally, there is no uniformity among terminals, even within a port, on the level of charges applied. Pro-shipper groups and policymakers have tried in vain to regulate THCs, meeting stiff resistance from carriers, across markets. JNPA and Mundra account for the lion’s share of Indian containerised volumes. Both ports have seen a wave of ad-hoc vessel calls resulting from Middle East trade diversions, choking yards with transhipment containers. Meanwhile, Indian exports in fiscal year 2025-26 were relatively flat year on year, due to the impact of geopolitical shocks. Total export trade by value edged up to around $442bn from $438bn, data shows. Officials at the Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO) claimed accelerated market diversification efforts were helpful in keeping export trade in a positive trajectory. “With continued policy support and trade facilitation, India is well poised to enhance its share in global trade and move towards becoming a leading export powerhouse,” it said.