Gregory F. Linsin and Dana S. Merkel
Achieving sustained compliance with the requirements of Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”) has been a challenge for the commercial maritime industry. In far too many situations, the detection of noncompliant activity by the U.S. Coast Guard has resulted in criminal prosecutions with devastating consequences for the vessel operator, owner, and crew, and the risks for the maritime industry are only increasing as the deadlines for Annex V compliance loom. This article explains a proven system for commercial vessel owners to minimize or even eliminate these substantial enforcement risks.
APPS Violations and Angelex
The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (“APPS”), which implements MARPOL in the United States, authorizes the Coast Guard to detain any vessel if there is reasonable cause to believe the “ship, its owner, operator, or person in charge” may be liable for APPS violations. There have been many legal challenges over the years to the U.S. Coast Guard’s enforcement authority, including its jurisdiction over the vessels, bond amounts demanded, and non-monetary bond requirements, but all have failed. In December 2018, in the case of Angelex Ltd. v. United States, the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected the last untested avenue for potential relief for a vessel owner under APPS. Continue reading “MARPOL Compliance Alert: D.C. Court of Appeals Shuts the Door on APPS Relief”
Blank Rome Partner 
The book features chapters written by a wide range of experienced arbitrators and attorneys who are widely recognized as being among the leading experts in maritime arbitration. In addition to John’s chapter, “Arbitrators’ Dilemma: Stick Your Head in The Sand?,” Blank Rome Partner 
Blank Rome Partner 
An increasingly global economy and the ease with which money and other property is transferred across national borders has led to more cross-border litigation and a call for greater cooperation and communication between foreign courts. But the ability for courts to communicate across borders has its limits. Recently, in In re Zetta Jet USA, Inc.,1 a chapter 7 trustee asked a U.S. bankruptcy court to authorize sending a letter from the U.S. court to an Australian court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1781, asking the Australian court to continue an injunction against moving a vessel located in Australia pending the resolution of an avoidance action in the United States against the vessel’s purported owner. The U.S. court refused to issue such a letter after concluding that a letter from a U.S. court requesting the Australian court to continue an injunction would be an unwarranted interference by the U.S. court in the Australian proceeding, and would offend principles of international comity by suggesting how the Australian court should rule on the injunction as well as preempting the Australian court’s consideration of whether to vacate the injunction.2