Rule B Attachment

Last updated

Rule B attachments are issued under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . [1] Under that provision, the court is allowed to attach a defendant's property up to the value of the suit. Although these claims are filed during in personam actions, they are in rem in nature, as the Court is attaching property to the suit. This has been described as a "remedy quasi in rem ." [2]

Contents

The Rule B procedure is in addition to the in rem procedure for arresting vessels that is available under Rule C. [3]

History

Attachment under Rule B is similar to the procedure of saisie conservatoire available under French law. [4] It has its origins in the former British procedure of admiralty attachment, [5] which was still in existence at the time of the American Revolution but fell into disuse in the United Kingdom at the end of the 18th Century. [6] Maritime attachments were formally recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1825 in Manro v. Almeida, [7] in which Justice Johnson stated:

Upon the whole, we are of opinion, that for a maritime trespass, even though it savours of piracy, the person injured may have his action in personam, and compel appearance by the process of attachment on the goods of the trespasser, according to the forms of the civil law, as ingrafted upon the admiralty practice. And we think it indispensable to the purposes of justice, and the due exercise of the admiralty jurisdiction, that the remedy should be applied, even in cases where the same goods may have been attachable under the process of foreign attachment issuing from the common law Courts. For it will necessarily follow, in all such cases, that a question peculiarly of admiralty cognisance, will be brought to be examined before a tribunal not competent to exercise original admiralty jurisdiction; and that, as a primary, not an incidental question; since the whole proceeding will have for its object to determine whether a maritime trespass has been committed, and then to apply the remedy.

The Supreme Court issued the Rules of Practice in Causes of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction in 1844 [8] to govern such proceedings, [9] which substantially remained in force until 1966 when the current Supplemental Rules were adopted. [9]

Nature of the procedure

Attachment is not dependent, as is arrest in rem, on the existence of a maritime lien or preferred mortgage lien, but necessitates merely an in personam claim against the defendant which falls within U.S. admiralty jurisdiction. [4] It does not require the applicant to show that the attachment is necessary to satisfy a potential judgment. [10] Unlike in rem proceedings, the property that can be attached is not restricted to maritime property, [4] and it may be either tangible or intangible. [11]

The US courts have taken an expansive view as to what constitutes a claim that may fall under maritime jurisdiction, which can include: [12]

To secure a writ of maritime attachment pursuant to Rule B, the plaintiff must show that: [13] [14]

  1. he has an in personam claim against the defendant which is cognizable in admiralty;
  2. the defendant "cannot be found within the district" in which the action is commenced;
  3. property belonging to the defendant is present or will soon be present in the district; and
  4. there is no statutory or general maritime law proscription to the attachment.

The procedure's advantages can be described through the following scenario: [15]

  1. A shipyard provides repair services in the Caribbean under a contract which calls for the application of English law. The shipyard allows the vessel to sail prior to full payment, and the debt goes unpaid.
  2. The ship sails into a US port where the shipowner has no presence.
  3. Under English law, no maritime lien, as defined by the US courts, exists on the vessel, so the ship is not subject to a Rule C arrest.
  4. Under Rule B, however, the shipyard may attach the debtor vessel, a sister vessel, or any other assets of the debtor found in the jurisdiction even if they are in the hands of a third party.

Attachment may extend to a co-defendant or a third party, and can include guarantors and alter egos of the original vessel owner. [16] [17] Where the underlying claim is subject to foreign law and will be litigated or arbitrated in a foreign proceeding, federal maritime law governs whether Rule B attachment will be applicable. [18]

In the event of a counterclaim, counter-security may be posted under FRCP Rule E. [19] The courts have been prepared to enforce this through staying foreign arbitration in London pending such posting, [20] as well as issuing gag orders in special circumstances in order to assist in attaining such security. [19]

The procedure may not prove to be effective in several circumstances: [21]

  • the attachment could be "futile" where a superior claim exists in the property [22] [23]
  • there is a risk that the shipowner may become bankrupt [23]
  • the vessel may prove to be a white elephant (ie, it has no market, even if it is in good condition)

Parties that have entered into foreign insolvency proceedings may be able to obtain protection from Rule B attachments by applying for a stay of proceedings under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. [24] [25]

Controversy over electronic fund transfers

In the 2002 case Winter Storm Shipping v. TPI, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an electronic fund transfer (EFT) which passes through intermediary banks in the Southern District of New York was subject to Rule B. [26] Specifically the Court found that due process was served even though the defendant was unaware of which bank would be targeted, these transfers constituted intangible property under the meaning of Rule B, and that federal law preempted New York state law prohibiting attachment of EFTs.

The effect of this ruling was far reaching. Considering that the Southern District contains New York City, and more importantly the numerous large financial institutions therein, this allowed the federal courts to attach billions of dollars in EFTs because pieces of electronic information representing those dollars had passed fleetingly through the Southern District.

Narrowing Winter Storm

As the number of Rule B attachment claims increased, the Second Circuit narrowed the rule in several ways, such as holding that the Court has discretion to vacate the order of attachment if there is another convenient, available forum where the plaintiff may find the defendant [22] or that a foreign corporation may be "found" within the Southern District simply by registering with the State of New York. [27]

Overruled by Jaldhi

In October 2009 the Second Circuit overruled the Winter Storm decision in the case of Shipping Corporation of India v. Jaldhi. [2] In the Jaldhi case, the Court held that EFTs were not in fact property as contemplated by Rule B and furthermore, that the practical effect of the decision on banks was unforeseen and far too detrimental. The Court took notice of a recent decision where the presiding judge noted:

This Court was recently informed that, currently, leading New York banks receive numerous new attachment orders and over 700 supplemental services of existing orders each day. This is confirmed by the striking surge in maritime attachment requests in this district, which now comprise approximately one third of all cases filed in the Southern District of New York. As a consequence, New York banks have hired additional staff, and suffer considerable expenses, to process the attachments. The sheer volume ... leads to many false "hits" of funds subject to attachment, which has allegedly introduced significant uncertainty into the international funds transfer process. [28]

Overruling a case as recent as Winter Storm is generally not seen, and furthermore overruling of a Circuit decision requires a panel of the entire Circuit, but the Court's recognition of their error prompted them to circulate the opinion in a mini-en banc filing. None of the Second Circuit justices protested the result and Winter Storm was overruled. The Supreme Court declined to hear the Jaldhi appeal. [29] [30]

While the Southern District may no longer be such an attractive venue for pursuing pre-judgment attachments in maritime cases (as it was estimated that the volume of civil cases filed there declined by 30% as a result of Jaldhi), [31] other developments in New York State law may compensate by making it desirable for pursuing the rights of maritime and non-maritime judgment creditors [32] (but that jurisprudence is still evolving). [33]

Related Research Articles

Personal jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over the parties, as determined by the facts in evidence, which bind the parties to a lawsuit, as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law involved in the suit. Without personal jurisdiction over a party, a court’s rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity; i.e., to the extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them upon that party. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit. In some cases, territorial jurisdiction may also constrain a court's reach, such as preventing hearing of a case concerning events occurring on foreign territory between two citizens of the home jurisdiction. A similar principle is that of standing or locus standi, which is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

Admiralty law or maritime law is a body of law that governs nautical issues and private maritime disputes. Admiralty law consists of both domestic law on maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private parties operating or using ocean-going ships. While each legal jurisdiction usually has its own legislation governing maritime matters, the international nature of the topic and the need for uniformity has, since 1900, led to considerable international maritime law developments, including numerous multilateral treaties.

Admiralty courts, also known as maritime courts, are courts exercising jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts, injuries, and offences.

Interpleader is a civil procedure device that allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act</span> United States law

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602–1611 of the United States Code, that established criteria as to whether a foreign sovereign nation is immune from suit in U.S. courts—federal or state. The Act also establishes specific procedures for service of process, attachment of property and execution of judgment in proceedings against a foreign state. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a civil suit against a foreign sovereign in the United States. It was signed into law by United States President Gerald Ford on October 21, 1976.

<i>In rem</i> jurisdiction Type of jurisdiction

In rem jurisdiction is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diversity jurisdiction</span> U.S. court jurisdiction over persons of different states or nationalities

In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives U.S. federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a U.S. federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, U.S. federal courts will normally lack the power to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead.

Forum non conveniens (FNC) is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to such a forum. A change of venue might be ordered, for example, to transfer a case to a jurisdiction within which an accident or incident underlying the litigation occurred and where all the witnesses reside.

In a court of law, a party's claim is a counterclaim if one party asserts claims in response to the claims of another. In other words, if a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit and a defendant responds to the lawsuit with claims of their own against the plaintiff, the defendant’s claims are “counterclaims.”

<i>Quasi in rem</i> jurisdiction

A quasi in rem legal action is a legal action based on property rights of a person absent from the jurisdiction. In the American legal system the state can assert power over an individual simply based on the fact that this individual has property in the state. Quasi in rem jurisdiction does not have much function in the United States any longer. However, in very specific cases, quasi in rem jurisdiction can still be effective.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Removal jurisdiction</span>

In the United States, removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a civil action filed in a state court to the United States district court in the federal judicial district in which the state court is located. A federal statute governs removal.

Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County, 547 U.S. 189 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether state counties enjoyed sovereign immunity from private lawsuits authorized by federal law. The case involved an admiralty claim by an insurer against Chatham County, Georgia for its negligent operation of a drawbridge. The Court ruled unanimously that the county had no basis for claiming immunity because it was not acting as an "arm of the state."

Dennis G. Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He previously served as Chief Judge of the Second Circuit from October 1, 2006 to August 31, 2013.

The maritime lien is one of three in rem claims capable of being brought under UK Admiralty Law. Whilst being a common law instrument, it has been codified under s.21(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 along with s.21(2) and s.21(4), its statutory counterparts. Maritime lien and ship mortgage have a single corresponding term in the civil law, namely the ship hypothec.

Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.

The Florida Constitution, in Article V, Section 2(a), vests the power to adopt rules for the "practice and procedure in all courts" in the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court adopted the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in March 1954. The proper abbreviation for the rules is Fla.R.Civ.P. The rules may be amended, or new rules added, from time to time and upon the approval of the Florida Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian maritime law</span>

Canadian maritime law is based on the field of "Navigation and Shipping" vested in the Parliament of Canada by virtue of s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Maritime Court of Ontario was an admiralty court in Ontario. It was created in 1877 by a federal statute. The Exchequer Court of Canada succeeded the Maritime Court by a statute passed in 1891. The Exchequer Court continued in 1971 as the Federal Court of Canada.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a vessel in admiralty law is something that a reasonable observer would consider designed for water transportation. The case arose from an in rem suit brought under admiralty jurisdiction by the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, against a floating home owned by resident Fane Lozman. Lozman argued that the floating home, which had no means by which to propel itself, was not a vessel under the Rules of Construction Act and thus not subject to admiralty jurisdiction. The Court resolved a circuit split as to what it means for a vessel to be "capable" of transportation by creating the reasonable observer standard, ruling in Lozman's favor.

References

  1. ↑ FRCP Rule B. In Personam Actions: Attachment and Garnishment
  2. 1 2 Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585F.3d58 (2nd Cir.October 16, 2009).
  3. ↑ FRCP Rule C. In Rem Actions: Special Provisions
  4. 1 2 3 Tetley 1999, p. 1934.
  5. ↑ Tetley 1999, p. 1928.
  6. ↑ Tetley 1999, pp. 1904–1905.
  7. ↑ Manro v. Almeida, 23 U.S. 473 (1825)
  8. ↑ Benedict, Erastus Cornelius (1850). The American Admiralty, Its Jurisdiction and Practice: With Practical Forms and Directions. New York: Banks, Gould & Co. pp. 339–348. OCLC   04554270.
  9. 1 2 Force, Yiannopoulos & Davies 2008, p. 183.
  10. ↑ Mandaraka-Sheppard & Van Praag 2013, p. 81.
  11. ↑ Tetley 1999, p. 1935.
  12. ↑ Mandaraka-Sheppard & Van Praag 2013, p. 82.
  13. ↑ White 2007, p. 6.
  14. ↑ Western Bulk Carriers (Australia) v. P.S. Intl., Ltd., 762F.Supp.1302 (S.D. Ohio1991).
  15. ↑ "Rule B maritime attachment and garnishment under US law". The Maritime Advocate.
  16. ↑ "New York 'Rule B' attachments: Testing the limits of 'maritime claims'" (PDF). Reed Smith LLP. August 2008.
  17. ↑ Aura Gantz; Charles Moure (July 26, 2013). "Alter Ego Liability In Supplemental Rule B Admiralty Actions: The Winds are Favorable". Jurist (University of Pittsburgh Law School).
  18. ↑ Thomas H. Belknap, Jr. (March 2014). "Pre-Judgment Attachments in New York, Maritime and Otherwise" (PDF). Mainbrace. Blank Rome LLP: 4–6., discussing Blue Whale Corporation v. Grand China Shipping Development Company, Ltd., 722F.3d488 (2d Cir.2013).
  19. 1 2 "U.S. - Developments in Rule B Attachment". Steamship Mutual P&I. January 2006.
  20. ↑ Daeshin Shipping Co Ltd v Meridian Bulk Carriers Ltd (The "Wisdom C"), 2005U.S. Dist. LEXIS22409 (S.D.N.Y.2005).
  21. ↑ William R. Bennett III (June 2013). "When Rule B Attachment Will Not Help" (PDF). Mainbrace. Blank Rome: 1–3. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  22. 1 2 Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd., 460F.3d434 (2nd Cir.July 31, 2006).
  23. 1 2 Text of Evridiki Navigation, Inc. v. Sanko Steamship Company, JKB-12-1382 (D.C. MD 2012) is available from:  leagle.com    Government Printing Office  
  24. ↑ "Shipping Industry Problems". Sheppard Mullin. February 9, 2009.
  25. ↑ "Armada (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Seeks Chapter 15 Recognition". South Bay Law Firm. January 16, 2009.
  26. ↑ Winter Storm Shipping, Limited v. TPI, 310F.3d263 (2nd Cir.November 6, 2002).
  27. ↑ STX Panocean (UK) Co. v. Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd., 560F.3d127 (2nd Cir.March 19, 2009).
  28. ↑ Cala Rosa Marine Co. Ltd. v. Sucres et Deneres Group,613F.Supp.2d426, 431-32 n. 7(S.D.N.Y.February 4, 2009).
  29. ↑ Order list of 2010-03-22, case 09-849
  30. ↑ "White paper on US Maritime Attachments" (PDF). April 2010. Retrieved 2012-02-06.[ permanent dead link ]
  31. ↑ Lawrence W. Newman; David Zaslowsky (February 2010). "The Rise and Fall of Rule B Attachments". Baker & McKenzie. Archived from the original on August 19, 2013. Retrieved February 6, 2013.
  32. ↑ Lizabeth L. Burrell (Fourth Quarter 2009). "Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas PTE Ltd.: The Second Circuit Cuts Down on Salt" (PDF). Benedict's Maritime Bulletin. Retrieved 2012-02-06., discussing Jaldhi and Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Limited, 12N.Y.3d533 (N.Y.2009).
  33. ↑ Lee A. Armstrong; William J. Hine; Sevan Ogulluk (June 2013). "New York taps the brakes on foreign judgment collection" (PDF). Jones Day.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.