Shipowner Protection in the Wake
of the Collapse of O.W. Bunker: The Second
Circuit Approval of Interpleader Actions
in Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil
Trading LLC
Jingchen Xu
Abstract The collapse of O.W. Bunker has led to a frenzy of actual and threatened
vessel arrests and delays, and vessel owners have faced demands for double payment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the first time
have encountered the issue of whether jurisdictions lies interpleader involving in rem
actions. The Second Circuit held that the in person am claims against the vessel
owners and the in rem claims against the vessels were merely alternative procedural
devices to obtain the same relief and therefore the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the interpleader actions. For vessel owners, the decisions in all such cases
are notable because it means that vessel owners can utilize interpleader actions to
protect themselves from multiple payments and from the risk of ship arrest arising
from the O.W. Bunker collapse.
1 Introduction
1.1 O.W. Bunkers Case: Factual Backgroud
O.W. Bunker & Trading A/S was one of the world’s largest suppliers of bunker fuel
for ships fuel.
1 While owners and charterers (shipowners) would contract for bunker
Adapted with permission of Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 47 Issue 3, July 2016
where it was originally published as an article.
1 UPT Pool Ltd. v. Dynamic Oil Trading (Singapore) PTE. Ltd., 2015 AMC 2070, 2071
(S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2015) aff’d sub nom., Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil Trading
LLC, 814 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2016).
J. Xu (*)
Centre for Maritime Law, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, Singapore,
Singapore
e-mail: xu.jingchen@nus.edu.sg
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
P. K. Mukherjee et al. (eds.), Maritime Law in Motion, WMU Studies in Maritime
Affairs 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_32
677
of the Collapse of O.W. Bunker: The Second
Circuit Approval of Interpleader Actions
in Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil
Trading LLC
Jingchen Xu
Abstract The collapse of O.W. Bunker has led to a frenzy of actual and threatened
vessel arrests and delays, and vessel owners have faced demands for double payment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the first time
have encountered the issue of whether jurisdictions lies interpleader involving in rem
actions. The Second Circuit held that the in person am claims against the vessel
owners and the in rem claims against the vessels were merely alternative procedural
devices to obtain the same relief and therefore the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the interpleader actions. For vessel owners, the decisions in all such cases
are notable because it means that vessel owners can utilize interpleader actions to
protect themselves from multiple payments and from the risk of ship arrest arising
from the O.W. Bunker collapse.
1 Introduction
1.1 O.W. Bunkers Case: Factual Backgroud
O.W. Bunker & Trading A/S was one of the world’s largest suppliers of bunker fuel
for ships fuel.
1 While owners and charterers (shipowners) would contract for bunker
Adapted with permission of Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 47 Issue 3, July 2016
where it was originally published as an article.
1 UPT Pool Ltd. v. Dynamic Oil Trading (Singapore) PTE. Ltd., 2015 AMC 2070, 2071
(S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2015) aff’d sub nom., Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil Trading
LLC, 814 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2016).
J. Xu (*)
Centre for Maritime Law, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, Singapore,
Singapore
e-mail: xu.jingchen@nus.edu.sg
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
P. K. Mukherjee et al. (eds.), Maritime Law in Motion, WMU Studies in Maritime
Affairs 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_32
677