Category: Maritime Law

Will Jones Act Waivers Be a Viable Option in the Future?

Dana S. Merkel, Jonathan K. Waldron, and Jeanne M. Grasso


Companies often ask if it is possible to obtain a Jones Act waiver in emergency circumstances or otherwise when they know that there may not be domestic Jones Act vessels available to perform the transportation or installation of cargo. Historically, waivers have been very difficult to obtain and recent Congressional developments will make them even more difficult to obtain.

Background

The Jones Act prohibits the “transportation of merchandise by water, or by land and water, between points in the United States . . . either directly or via a foreign port” unless the vessel is U.S. built, U.S.-flag, and 75 percent U.S. owned. Jones Act requirements can only be waived if “necessary in the interest of national defense.” 46 U.S.C. § 501 (the “Waiver Provision”).

It is extremely difficult and rare to obtain a waiver of the Jones Act. The Waiver Provision has always limited waivers to situations where such waiver is needed for national defense purposes.

Continue reading “Will Jones Act Waivers Be a Viable Option in the Future?”

A Practical Approach to Reduce MARPOL Enforcement Risks in the United States

Kierstan L. Carlson and Jeanne M. Grasso


Readers of Mainbrace know well that the United States has been aggressively enforcing compliance with MARPOL for decades. Often referred to as “magic pipe” cases, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has brought criminal MARPOL prosecutions against owners and operators of ships running the gamut from fishing vessels to bulkers, tankers, container ships, and cruise ships. These prosecutions have involved underlying violations of MARPOL Annex I (oil), but also Annex V (garbage) and more recently Annex VI (air emissions).

Criminal MARPOL cases are extraordinarily costly and disruptive to vessel owners/operators. Not only are significant fines levied against violators, but companies convicted of MARPOL violations suffer attendant reputational damage that can impact charter hire prospects and incur significant costs for paying wages, housing, and per diem to the crew members whom the government requires to remain in the United States for the duration of the criminal case. On top of that are the costs associated with a comprehensive Environmental Compliance Plan for the fleet, along with costs associated with a Third-Party Auditor and a Court-Appointed Monitor.

Unlike other areas of U.S. criminal enforcement, MARPOL prosecutions have continued at a steady pace, across administrations led by different political parties. This is due, in part, to the fact that the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (“APPS”), the U.S. statute that implemented MARPOL, is enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard (“USCG”), which is typically less affected by political change than other executive agencies responsible for criminal enforcement. Perhaps more importantly, APPS includes a whistleblower provision pursuant to which anyone who provides information to the USCG that leads to a conviction may be awarded up to 50 percent of the criminal penalty imposed under APPS. Potential awards incentivize seafarers to report misconduct to the USCG instead of to the company, even in cases where there is an open-reporting program. It also gives the USCG and DOJ a significant advantage, as they often receive photos and videos of the alleged improper conduct before their investigation even begins.

Continue reading “A Practical Approach to Reduce MARPOL Enforcement Risks in the United States”

U.S. Court Authorizes Service of Subpoena on U.S. Nationals through Social Media While Prohibiting the Issuance of a Subpoena on Foreign Nationals Abroad

Michael B. Schaedle and Evan Jason Zucker

Corrupt managerial behavior has been a driver in the collapse of the cryptocurrency market. Enforcing and defending claims against directors and officers, where the directors and officers are not living in the United States and may not be U.S. citizens, is a current judicial focus in the U.S. litigation system. In the Three Arrows Capital (“Three Arrows”) chapter 15 case, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “U.S. Bankruptcy Court”) addresses founder misconduct[1] and defines the limits of the United States’ broad discovery tools to aide a letterbox jurisdiction, like the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”), in corralling bad actors and subjecting them to forensic examination.

The Collapse of Three Arrows and the Obfuscations of its Founders’ Location

Three Arrows managed and invested digital assets. It was founded by Kyle Davies and Su Zhu. Davies was born in the United States, but he holds Italian and Singaporean passports. It is not known whether Davies renounced his U.S. citizenship but, as a matter of law, a person born in the United States is presumed to be a U.S. citizen.[2] Zhu was born in China and lived in San Francisco for some period of time in the last decade. Zhu, however, currently does not reside in the United States and his current residence is unknown. Zhu listed his nationality as Singaporean in company records.

On June 27, 2022, Three Arrows commenced an insolvency proceeding in the BVI. The BVI court appointed joint liquidators to investigate and recover assets for Three Arrows’ creditors. Prior to its liquidation, Three Arrows allegedly had over three billion dollars in assets under its management. At the direction of Davies and Zhu, these assets funded deals with cryptocurrency companies globally, including in the United States and Singapore. According to a Singaporean government agency, Three Arrows’ investment arm breached asset management protocols for a prolonged period, calling into question Three Arrows’ solvency and provided the agency with false and misleading information about its assets, liabilities, and value.

Continue reading “U.S. Court Authorizes Service of Subpoena on U.S. Nationals through Social Media While Prohibiting the Issuance of a Subpoena on Foreign Nationals Abroad”

Analyzing Maritime (or Non-Maritime) Contracts and Practical Considerations for Litigation Strategy

William R. Bennett, III, Charles S. Marion, and Anthony Yanez

In many civil disputes, the application of choice of law principles as well as the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is filed can have a significant impact on the outcome of a case. This is especially true where one of the parties conducts business in the maritime industry and the other does not. Some parties may prefer that state law be applied to the dispute because of a favorable state statute (such as a statute of limitations) or because the state’s courts have rendered decisions that support the parties’ position on a substantive issue. Others may prefer that federal law apply where it is more advantageous to a party given the facts of the case. Of course, some parties prefer to litigate in federal court rather than state court, or vice versa, for cost or other reasons.

There is a small subset of cases in which the question of whether maritime or admiralty law should be applied arises. One of the most significant decisions addressing that question is Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. James N. Kirby Pty, Ltd., 543 U.S. 14 (2004). In Kirby, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the liability of a rail carrier that transported over land cargo that was brought to the United States from Australia on board ships, through bills of lading calling for carriage from Australia to Huntsville, Alabama, via the Port of Savannah, Georgia, for damage to the cargo that occurred during that leg of the journey should be determined by applying maritime law, because the entire contract of carriage, and not just the ocean segment of it, constituted a maritime contract. More specifically, the court in Kirby determined that the default liability rule in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”) ($500 per package) applied to a train wreck that allegedly caused $1.5 million in damages. Continue reading “Analyzing Maritime (or Non-Maritime) Contracts and Practical Considerations for Litigation Strategy”

%d bloggers like this: