cases where such a view is unequivocally deemed to be appropriate.
72 But the courts
should also note that the extension of application of the equitable personification
doctrine cannot be too broad. Otherwise, it may damage the interests of other
maritime suppliers and ultimately weaken the personification doctrine.
5 Conclusion
The collapse of O.W. Bunker has led to a frenzy of actual and threatened ship arrests
and delays, and shipowners have faced demands for double payment. The inconsistent decisions made by courts around the world illustrate the difficulties arising from
a bankruptcy in which contractual claims and maritime lien claims interact. In
addition, the different bankruptcy procedures and regimes adopted by different
jurisdictions have made this kind of cross-border problem less clear. Nevertheless,
the Second Circuit addressed only the first step of this case by stating that the court
has jurisdiction over interpleader actions, giving affected shipowners a novel means
of preventing the arrest of their ships. Next, the courts will need to resolve the
substantive issues, such as whether the actual suppliers have valid maritime lien
claims against the ships and which entities are entitled to payment for supplies of
bunkers.
References
Davies M (2000) In defense of unpopular virtues: personification and ratification. Tulane Law Rev
75:337
Force R (2013) In: Markarian K (ed) Admiralty and maritime law, vol 173, 2nd edn
Pincus A et al (2015) Courts in New York and Singapore reach opposite conclusions on the validity
of interpleader applications arising out of the O.W. Bunker bankruptcy, July 13, 2015, 2015
WLNR 20699185
Schwab BJ (2012) Equitable personification: a review of Res Judicata’s historical application to
successive in Personam and in Rem admiralty actions in the United States. Tulane Marit Law J
37:253
28 U.S.C. § 1335(a) (2012)
28 U.S.C. § 2361 (2012)
2 Am. Jur. 2d Admiralty § 26
Cases
Ashton v. Josephine Bay Paul & C. Michael Paul Found., Inc., 918 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1990)
Burns Bros. v. Central R.R., 202 F.2d 910, 1953 AMC 718 (2d Cir. 1953)
Cactus Pipe & Supply Co. v. M/V Montmartre, 756 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1985)
72 Schwab (2012), p. 282.
688
J. Xu
72 But the courts
should also note that the extension of application of the equitable personification
doctrine cannot be too broad. Otherwise, it may damage the interests of other
maritime suppliers and ultimately weaken the personification doctrine.
5 Conclusion
The collapse of O.W. Bunker has led to a frenzy of actual and threatened ship arrests
and delays, and shipowners have faced demands for double payment. The inconsistent decisions made by courts around the world illustrate the difficulties arising from
a bankruptcy in which contractual claims and maritime lien claims interact. In
addition, the different bankruptcy procedures and regimes adopted by different
jurisdictions have made this kind of cross-border problem less clear. Nevertheless,
the Second Circuit addressed only the first step of this case by stating that the court
has jurisdiction over interpleader actions, giving affected shipowners a novel means
of preventing the arrest of their ships. Next, the courts will need to resolve the
substantive issues, such as whether the actual suppliers have valid maritime lien
claims against the ships and which entities are entitled to payment for supplies of
bunkers.
References
Davies M (2000) In defense of unpopular virtues: personification and ratification. Tulane Law Rev
75:337
Force R (2013) In: Markarian K (ed) Admiralty and maritime law, vol 173, 2nd edn
Pincus A et al (2015) Courts in New York and Singapore reach opposite conclusions on the validity
of interpleader applications arising out of the O.W. Bunker bankruptcy, July 13, 2015, 2015
WLNR 20699185
Schwab BJ (2012) Equitable personification: a review of Res Judicata’s historical application to
successive in Personam and in Rem admiralty actions in the United States. Tulane Marit Law J
37:253
28 U.S.C. § 1335(a) (2012)
28 U.S.C. § 2361 (2012)
2 Am. Jur. 2d Admiralty § 26
Cases
Ashton v. Josephine Bay Paul & C. Michael Paul Found., Inc., 918 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1990)
Burns Bros. v. Central R.R., 202 F.2d 910, 1953 AMC 718 (2d Cir. 1953)
Cactus Pipe & Supply Co. v. M/V Montmartre, 756 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1985)
72 Schwab (2012), p. 282.
688
J. Xu