United States: Ow Bunker - A Global Overview - USA

Additionally, physical suppliers of bunkers have commenced separate actions in U.S. courts to arrest vessels to secure their maritime lien claims instead of proceeding against the insolvent OW Bunker purchaser in a bankruptcy proceeding. Most of the interpleader and arrest cases involving OW Bunker entities have been pending in the U.S. courts for over a year.

The federal courts in the U.S. - the bankruptcy court, the district courts and the appellate courts - have applied a firm hand to control litigation of these cases. The courts have employed anti-suit injunctions, interpleader proceedings and arrest procedures across the country. At least two district courts in the U.S. have held that the physical suppliers are not entitled to summary judgment on their claims of maritime liens. See Valero Marketing and Supply Co. v. M/V ALMI SUN, Civil Action No. 14-2712, 2016 WL 475905 (E.D. La. Feb. 8, 2016), and O'Rourke Marine Services L.P., L.L.P. v. M/V COSCO Haifa, 15 Civ. 2992(SAS), 2016 WL 1544742 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2016). Appeals are pending and more loom on the horizon. For example, the decision by the federal district court in Louisiana in Valero is now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Additionally, the M/V COSCO Haifa case has since been transferred to the Hon. Judge Forrest of the S.D.N.Y., and the physical supplier has filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision.

At least one court of appeals, the Second Circuit in New York, has weighed in on preliminary issues raised by the complex interpleader and injunction issues. On February 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a key decision in Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil Trading LLC, 814 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2016), which affirmed the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction under the Federal Interpleader Act over the interpleader commenced by Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft ("Hapag").

On appeal, physical supplier U.S. Oil Trading LLC ("USOT") argued that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the interpleader since, unlike Hapag's contractual counter-party OW Bunker Germany GmbH ("OW Germany") and/or its alleged assignee ING Bank N.V. ("ING"), USOT had no contract with Hapag for the deliveries, and instead had asserted maritime lien claims against the vessels in rem pursuant to the U.S. Maritime Commercial Instruments and Liens Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 31301, et seq. (the "Lien Act"). The Lien Act authorizes maritime liens for necessaries supplied to any vessel on the order of the owner of the vessel or of a person authorized by the owner.

USOT argued that the obligations of Hapag in personam to OW Germany were separate and distinct from the obligations of Hapag's vessels in rem to USOT under the Lien Act. In affirming the District Court's subject-matter jurisdiction, the Second Circuit recognized that the case "presents, as the District Court aptly put it, 'interesting and apparently novel questions regarding the interplay among the United States bankruptcy law, maritime law and the federal interpleader statutes.'" The Second Circuit, however, concluded that the competing claims by USOT, OW Germany and ING all related to the same enrichment to Hapag, i.e., the value of the bunkers delivered to the vessels, and thus were "inextricably related." The Second Circuit further recognized that the Federal Interpleader Act contemplates competing claims with different legal origins, and thus found that the distinction between in personam and in rem liability was immaterial to the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction under the Federal Interpleader Act.

Yet the Second Circuit then recognized that it "may be true" that a payment by Hapag to OW Germany under its contracts would not discharge the maritime liens held by USOT. The Second Circuit thus acknowledged the prospect that the in personam contractual claims by OW Germany and the in rem maritime lien claims by USOT are not mutually exclusive, and leaves the following key questions unanswered: How do the in personam claims by OW Germany and in rem claims by USOT constitute "competing" claims if Hapag could arguably be liable to both OW Germany in personam under its contracts and USOT in rem under the Lien Act? If the claims are not competing claims, then how does the S.D.N.Y. have subject-matter jurisdiction under the Federal Interpleader Act?

The Second Circuit's decision in Hapag-Lloyd is also significant for its ruling that in rem jurisdiction exists. USOT had argued that the district court lacked authority to rule that the bond deposited by Hapag constituted the substitute res for the vessels since the vessels were never arrested or within the in rem jurisdiction of the S.D.N.Y. Rejecting this argument, the Second Circuit found that, by initiating the interpleader "concerning in rem claims and posting adequate security for those claims," Hapag consented to the jurisdiction of the S.D.N.Y. The court found such consent sufficient to confer the S.D.N.Y. with in rem jurisdiction over the vessels.

The Second Circuit in Hapag-Lloyd remanded the S.D.N.Y.'s worldwide anti-suit injunction, in part, for determination of the proper scope of the injunction. USOT had argued that 28 U.S.C. § 2361 did not grant the district court the authority to issue a worldwide injunction since that statute expressly limits the scope of the injunction to any "State or United States court." In determining that a limited remand was warranted, the Second Circuit agreed with USOT that an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 has no extraterritorial reach, and that "federal courts have long possessed the inherent power to restrain the parties before them from engaging in suits in foreign jurisdictions[,]" but that the district court had not considered this point. Accordingly, the Second Circuit instructed the district court on remand to consider the scope of the anti-suit injunction. On May 6, 2016, the district court issued an order finding that the worldwide scope of the anti-suit injunction is proper.

The practical effect of the decision in Hapag-Lloyd boils down to this: The Second Circuit has now endorsed the Federal Interpleader Act as the proper statute to resolve allegedly competing claims for payment by physical suppliers, the insolvent OW Bunker entities and their alleged assignee, ING. The Second Circuit's decision also: (1) highlights the importance of U.S. law governing the statutory lien rights of suppliers of fuel and other services to vessels; and (2) clarifies the applicability of in rem jurisdiction in interpleader actions where the plaintiff consents to the jurisdiction of the court.

Approximately one year after the collapse of OW Germany and its affiliated OW Bunker group of companies, OW Germany's bankruptcy Administrator commenced an action in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court") on November 11, 2015, seeking recognition of its German administration proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. See In re OW Bunker Germany GmbH, 15-13018 (SMB) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015). On January 13, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted recognition of OW Germany's foreign administration proceeding in accordance with Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

OW Germany then filed motions in five (5) of the related actions pending in the S.D.N.Y., requesting that the district court judge, Judge Caproni, confirm the automatic referral of the actions to the Bankruptcy Court according to the S.D.N.Y.'s Amended Standing Order of Reference (the "Referral Motions"). Hapag-Lloyd joined with physical suppliers USOT, NuStar Marine Services, N.V. ("NuStar") and O'Rourke Marine Services L.P., L.L.P. ("OMS") in opposing OW Germany's Referral Motions. Hapag-Lloyd, USOT and NuStar also filed cross-motions asking Judge Caproni to withdraw the automatic reference and to maintain jurisdiction over the related interpleader actions in their entirety.

On April 27, 2016, Judge Caproni: (1) granted OW Germany's Referral Motions for an order "confirming" the automatic reference of the related actions to the Bankruptcy Court; and (2) granted the cross-motions by Hapag-Lloyd, USOT and NuStar for an order withdrawing the automatic reference in its entirety. The court's order sought to resolve yet another putative clash between U.S. maritime law and the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. The court's order is significant since Judge Caproni has now ruled that the district judge, as the Article III judge with broad equitable powers, not the Bankruptcy Court, must adjudicate the parties' claims. As a result, the court's order blocks OW Germany from dragging Hapag-Lloyd and the physical suppliers into the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court, which would generally constitute a more favorable forum for debtors such as OW Germany and would have resulted in a duplicative, extended and more costly proceeding.

The physical suppliers in four of the interpleader cases before Judge Caproni in New York, including the Hapag-Lloyd case, are in the process of briefing as "test" cases for summary judgment the question whether the physical suppliers have a maritime lien on the specific facts of each case. Briefing is scheduled to close on the summary judgment motions in all test cases on July 22, 2016, and the district will likely hear oral argument shortly thereafter. As a result, the battle continues on behalf of the interests of the vessel owners and operators, the physical suppliers, and the OW Bunker entities and their lenders, ING, respectively, as they seek court rulings on the ultimate question of which party is entitled to receive payment from the interpleader funds as a matter of U.S. law.

(Interpleader proceedings are brought by a plaintiff so that a court may determine the ownership rights of rival claimants to the same money or property which is held by the plaintiff. This civil procedure allows the plaintiff to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. Under U.S. law, interpleader actions may be commenced pursuant to the Federal Interpleader Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1335 ("statutory interpleader"), or to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 ("rule interpleader"). Generally, statutory interpleader requires a plaintiff to deposit money or property into the registry of the court so the claimants may assert their claims against the res. Federal law authorizes the court to issue an anti-suit injunction in statutory interpleader cases restraining the competing claimants from prosecuting related claims in other jurisdictions. Both statutory and rule interpleader are designed to protect stakeholders facing multiple claims for a single obligation.)

OW Bunker - A Global Overview - USA

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions