Winning an arbitration is only part of the challenge. An English judgment illustrates why recovery can depend on proving who owns the assets available for enforcement, even when a bank account bears someone else’s name.
On 24 July 2026, the English Commercial Court granted a final charging order over approximately USD 41.6 million in London bank accounts held in the name of Doraleh Container Terminal SA (“DCT”). The award creditor, Soprim Construction SARL (“Soprim”), held awards against the Republic of Djibouti, not against DCT.[1]
The decisive finding concerned beneficial ownership: DCT held the funds on a bare trust for Djibouti. The accounts were in DCT’s name, but the money belonged beneficially to the State.[2]
Unpaid Awards and London Accounts
The dispute arose from the construction of the Doraleh Container Terminal in Djibouti. DCT was established in 2006 to develop and operate the terminal, with DP World holding approximately one-third of the economic interest and significant management rights.[3]
Soprim worked on the project as a subcontractor. After its relations with the Djiboutian authorities deteriorated, it began LCIA arbitration against Djibouti in 2012. In 2018, the sole arbitrator awarded Soprim USD 56 million in principal compensation for the destruction of its business, plus interest and costs. The awards remained unpaid.[4]
Seeking to enforce the awards in England, Soprim identified approximately USD 41.6 million in six accounts at Standard Chartered Bank in London. It faced a fundamental obstacle: the accounts were in DCT’s name, and Soprim had no judgment against that company.[5]
Why the Court Allowed Enforcement
The main question was whether DCT held the funds for itself or for Djibouti. The Court also addressed the applicable law, recognition of Djiboutian judicial decisions and procedural challenges to enforcement.[6]
The Court granted the charging order and rejected the application to set aside the enforcement proceedings.[7]
Its finding of a trust rested on evidence of how DCT’s assets were managed. The Court examined the administrators’ conduct, Djibouti’s influence over them and indications that the funds might be repatriated to Djibouti. Together, these circumstances supported the conclusion that DCT held the money for the State.[8]
The Court nevertheless upheld DCT’s separate legal personality. It rejected Soprim’s alternative argument that DCT lacked a genuinely separate existence from Djibouti. State control alone did not make the company’s assets available to the State’s creditors.[9]
That distinction explains the outcome. Soprim succeeded by establishing that DCT held these funds on trust for Djibouti; proving State control of the company would not, by itself, have been enough.
Why Acting First Mattered
Soprim was not Djibouti’s only unpaid creditor. DP World and DCT also held awards against the State, totalling approximately USD 650 million.[10]
Soprim was, however, the only party to have applied for a charging order over the London funds. The Court considered the “first past the post” principle: effective enforcement action may give a creditor priority, subject to the applicable law and judicial discretion. The existence of other creditors’ claims did not, on its own, justify refusing relief.[11]
For creditors, the point is that the size of an award does not necessarily determine priority over available assets.
Securing Funds and Recovering Payment
The charging order marked significant progress, but it did not establish that Soprim had received the USD 41.6 million. The Court rejected Soprim’s alternative applications for a third-party debt order and receivership.[12]
The judgment secured rights over the funds. Turning that security into payment remained a separate step.
Lessons for Businesses
For companies contracting with States or State-owned entities, enforcement planning should begin before a dispute arises. That means understanding where assets are located, how project revenues are held and whether those assets could realistically satisfy an award.
Once enforcement is needed, the name on a bank account is only the starting point. Creditors must establish ownership and identify a recognised legal basis for reaching the funds. State influence or commercial connections alone will not necessarily be enough.
Asset identification must also be followed by timely, effective enforcement action. Otherwise, a creditor may lose ground to others who act sooner.
Soprim illustrates both the potential and the limits of enforcement against State-linked assets. An effective arbitration strategy must connect the merits of the claim with the evidence, assets and procedural steps needed to obtain payment.
[1] Soprim Construction SARL v The Republic of Djibouti and Others, [2026] EWHC 1850 (Comm), ¶¶ 1-6, 19, 334.
[2] Id., ¶¶ 132-135, 160-167, 334.
[3] Id., ¶¶ 7-15, 21.
[4] Id., ¶¶ 21-25, 33-35.
[5] Id., ¶¶ 4-6, 18-20.
[6] Id., ¶¶ 100-135, 170-244, 266-334.
[7] Id., ¶¶ 160-167, 332-334.
[8] Id., ¶¶ 132-160, 167.
[9] Id., ¶¶ 255-267.
[10] Id., ¶ 3.
[11] Id., ¶¶ 269-285.
[12] Id., ¶¶ 286-299, 334.
