Mercuria challenges Baltic Exchange over Hormuz freight pricing

Commodity trader Mercuria is challenging the Baltic Exchange in the English High Court over its continued publication of an oil-shipping benchmark during wartime disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. The dispute tests how freight prices should be assessed when the voyages underlying a benchmark become severely disrupted.

The Financial Times reported that the case centres on the exchange’s decision to keep publishing estimates for shipping oil through the strait during the war. The Baltic confirmed in a May 2 statement that it had received a claim from Mercuria Energy Trading on April 30, 2026, alleging failures to meet statutory and contractual obligations.

At issue is TD3C, the Baltic’s benchmark for transporting 270,000 tonnes of crude oil from the Middle East Gulf to China. It forms part of a broader tanker-data service that provides physical and forward freight assessments based on submissions from shipbrokers.

Mercuria alleges that continuing to publish TD3C despite the effective closure of the strait produced a benchmark that no longer reliably represented its underlying market, according to Reuters’ reporting on the court filing. The trader says the assessments distorted shipping and freight-derivatives markets, rather than adequately capturing the disruption affecting voyages.

The financial consequences extend beyond the publication of indicative shipping prices. Reuters reported that Mercuria attributed losses on physical freight contracts and settled freight derivatives to the disputed benchmark, with the filing estimating those losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars while noting they had not yet been quantified.

The Baltic denies the allegations and says its benchmark production follows established governance, methodology and oversight procedures. In its May 2 statement, it said Mercuria was seeking declaratory relief from the High Court that would require it to depart from those processes, and pledged to defend the claim.

The exchange had outlined its approach to the disruption in a March 2 market circular. It said its indices assess the next fixture for forward delivery, meaning they reflect voyages loading up to several weeks ahead rather than shipping conditions solely at the moment an assessment is published.

That distinction is important to understanding the disagreement: a forward-looking freight assessment is not simply a record of ships passing through a waterway that day. The Baltic said it was consulting its assessment panellists and advisory councils, while seeking to preserve both a reliable reflection of the physical market and the integrity of its procedures.

For market participants, the stakes concern the contractual use of those assessments as well as their accuracy. The Baltic says its tanker information underpins physical shipping contracts and forward freight agreements, giving benchmark decisions consequences for businesses using the data to price transport or manage freight exposure.

The court challenge places the exchange’s obligations and its response to exceptional disruption under scrutiny. The Baltic has said any necessary methodology changes would follow its published procedures; the dispute will test Mercuria’s contention that continuing publication itself breached the duties owed by the benchmark provider.