Presentation by: Bruce G. Paulsen, Esq.

1. Living In The Era Of Rule B: Guidance For Parties And Banks In Prosecuting, Defending And Avoiding Attachments Presentation by: Bruce G. Paulsen, Esq.

2. What is “Rule B”? • Rule B is part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for U.S. District Courts, Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. • Rule B allows a Plaintiff to “attach” or “garnish” the tangible or intangible property of a foreign Defendant where such property is located in the federal district in which the Rule B action has been brought. The property sought to be attached must be in the possession of the “garnishee” (the third-party in possession of the property) at the time of service of process. See Reibor International Limited v. Cargo Carriers (Y,4 CZ-CO.) Ltd., 759 F.2d 262 (2d. Cir. 1985) (prohibiting attachment of after-acquired property).

3. What is “Rule B”? (cont.) • A Rule B Plaintiff can attach a Defendant’s assets even when the Defendant does not operate any business in the United States and the underlying claim is governed by the law of a foreign jurisdiction. As such, Defendants are often blindsided by Rule B attachments. The underlying claim might be between two Korean parties, who are compelled to arbitrate in Karachi, Pakistan under their charter party, but a party may still be subject to a Rule B attachment in New York. • In order to attach and/or garnish the property of a Defendant, (i) the cause of action asserted by a Plaintiff must arise within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction and (ii) the Defendant must not be “found” within the district.

4. The History of Rule B • Because of the transient nature of the maritime industry and related shipping assets, admiralty law provides a number of unique remedies to Plaintiffs, one of which is attachment of assets pursuant to Rule B. • The remedy of attachment has long been a part of admiralty law and practice • Historically, there are two recognized purposes of a Rule B attachment: • To compel a Defendant’s appearance in the maritime action; and/or • To provide security for the Plaintiff’s underlying claim.

5. Additional Facts Regarding Rule B Actions:Related Arbitrations & Recovery of Attached Funds • The majority of Rule B cases currently being litigated in New York do not seek to compel the Defendant’s appearance in the action. Rather, they are brought in tandem with an arbitration (for example, one before the London Maritime Arbitrators Ass’n) or a litigation in another country (or even federal district) to provide security for that action. • *Practice note* - A Plaintiff is not required to file an arbitration contemporaneously with, before, or even immediately after it seeks an attachment in New York. Because of this non-stringent timeline, attachments are frequently used by Plaintiffs strategically to gain a litigation advantage, often to bring a Defendant “to the table” to expedite settlement discussions. • One caveat on bringing a Rule B claim prior to commencing arbitration: If a judge believes the Plaintiff has no intention to go to arbitration and Rule B was utilized merely as a means to harass a Defendant or induce settlement, he may dismiss the action entirely. See, e.g., Inter Ocean Ship Repairs, L.L.C. v. Aries Ship Mgmt., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11541 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2009) (process of maritime attachment and garnishment may not be ordered where the plaintiff lacks definite plans to initiate litigation or arbitration.) • Plaintiff must pursue its claims – and succeed – in the ancillary proceeding to recover any monies attached.

6. History of Rule B: Important PrecedentThe Winter Storm of 2002: Electronic Funds Transfers (“EFT”s) Are Attachable Property • In 2002, the Second Circuit held that an EFT in the hands of an intermediary money center bank (a substantial number of which are in the Southern District of New York) constituted attachable, intangible property of a Rule B Defendant. Winter Storm Shipping, Ltd. v. TPI, a/k/a/ Thai Petrochemical Ind. Pub. Co. Ltd., et al., 310 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2002). In other words, EFTs could be attached as they passed through the New York intermediary banks on their way to or from overseas financial institutions. This passing-through, without any other New York contacts, would be sufficient to attach a putative Defendant’s funds. • Attachment of EFTs has been heavily criticized by the banking industry; banks frequently prepare amicus briefs in connection with Rule B/EFT cases. Concerns include: that attachments disrupt the financial markets and that these attachments undermine the federal clearing system.

7. History of Rule B: Important PrecedentAqua Stoli – Limits On A Judge’s Ability To Vacate An Attachment • In 2006, the Second Circuit heard the Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd v. Gardner Smith, 460 F.3d 434 (2d Cir. 2006)case. This case was significant because the court held that the discretion of the district judge to vacate an attachment, otherwise validly issued under Rule B, was limited in scope. • The Aqua Stoli factors a judge must apply to ascertain whether an attachment is proper are: 1.) Whether the Plaintiff has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the Defendant 2.) Whether the Defendant cannot be found within the district 3.) Whether the Defendant’s property can be found within the district 4.) That there are no maritime or statutory bars to attachment

8. History of Rule B: Important PrecedentOriginator v. Beneficiary EFTs • In Aqua Stoli, although the issue was not before the Court, the Second Circuit stated that, “[u]nder the law of this circuit, EFTs to or from a party are attachable by a court as they pass through banks located in that court’s jurisdiction.” • Although this statement appears to definitively set forth the law, a footnote in the Second Circuit’s opinion seemed to place into question its earlier holding in Winter Storm as to whose property an EFT belongs to, stating, “The correctness of our decision in Winter Storm seems open to question, especially its reliance on Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 55, to hold that EFTs are property of the beneficiary or sender of an EFT. Because Daccarett was a forfeiture case, its holding that EFTs are attachable assets does not answer the more salient question of whose assets they are while in transit. In the absence of a federal rule, we would normally look to state law, which in this case would be the New York codification of the Uniform Commercial Code, N.Y. U.C.C. Law §§ 4-A-502 to 504. Under state law, the EFT could not be attached because EFTs are property of neither the sender nor the beneficiary while present in an intermediary bank.” • In light of this footnote, mixed authority on the issue as to the propriety of “originator” versus “beneficiary” EFTs arose at the district court level.

9. History of Rule B: Important PrecedentConsub Delaware: Originator EFTs • A case in which the major banks in New York submitted an amicus curiae brief that was argued before the Second Circuit in May, and decided in September of 2008, Consub Del. LLC v. Schahin Engenharia Limitada, 476 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), asked the Second Circuit to overturn its controversial Winter Storm Shipping v. TPI decision. The 2d Circuit refused to overturn Winter Storm and expressly held that “Originator” EFTs - wire transfers from a Defendant to a third party - were subject to attachment. Consub Del. LLC v. Schahin Engenharia Limitada, 543 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2008). • However, as in Aqua Stoli, the Second Circuit again expressed in a footnote of the decision, “[w]e do not reach today the question of whether funds involved in an EFT en route to a Defendant are subject to a Rule B attachment.” Id. at 109. • An EFT en route to a Defendant is referred to as a “beneficiary” EFT.

10. History of Rule B: Important PrecedentJaldhi Overseas: Beneficiary EFTs • A case currently on appeal to the 2d Circuit, Shipping Corp. of India, Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas PTE Ltd., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49209, 1-2 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2008), held that “an attachment pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims only applies to a Defendant's property, and EFTs directed by third parties to a Defendant do not become the Defendant's property until the transfer is completed.” The district court vacated the attachment as a result of its finding that a beneficiary EFT was not the property of the Defendant. • The Jaldhi case will likely require the Second Circuit to decide the issue it avoided in Consub Delaware – namely, whether or not attachment of beneficiary EFTs is permissible.

11. History of Rule B:Recent Precedent: Cala Rosa – Limits On A Plaintiff’s Ability To Attach EFTs? In a recent decision, Cala Rosa Marine Co. v. Sucres et Deneres Group, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7934 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2009), Judge Sheindlin refused to vacate an order of attachment challenged by a Defendant, but by refusing to include in her order two provisions which have become a mainstay in Rule B litigation – (1) that service be deemed continuous and (2) that employees of the applying law firm be appointed as special process servers (thus necessitating that a U.S. Marshal serve process) – she effectively destroyed the Plaintiff’s ability to attach an EFT.

12. History of Rule B:Recent Precedent: Cala Rosa – Limits On A Plaintiff’s Ability To Attach EFTs? Judge Sheindlin found that continuous service conflicted with the Reibor precedent and improperly allowed the attachment of after-acquired property. In relevant part, her opinion states: “Although this Court is clearly permitted to include a continuous service provision in the attachment order, it is not required to do so. Because (1) the Federal and Supplemental Rules make no provision for ‘continuous service,’ (2) the relatively recent innovation of authorizing continuous service circumvents the Reibor prohibition against attaching after-acquired property, and (3) the practice is disruptive to the New York banking industry and flouts the New York rule that Reibor adopted, this Court declines to exercise its discretion to mandate banks to treat the service as continuous. If banks elect to treat the service as continuous -- as the bank did in Winter Storm -- they may do so; and if funds are subsequently attached, the overwhelming authority provides that no vacatur will follow. But absent the bank's consent, this Court no longer believes it is wise to require New York banks to do what New York law does not require them to do.”

13. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:Requirement #1:MARITIME CLAIM F.R.C.P. 9(h)(1) states: “If a claim for relief is within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction and also within the court's subject-matter jurisdiction on some other ground, the pleading may designate the claim as an admiralty or maritime claim for purposes of Rules 14(c), 38(e), and 82 and the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. A claim cognizable only in the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction is an admiralty or maritime claim for those purposes, whether or not so designated.”

14. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:Requirement #1:MARITIME CLAIM (cont.) Recent case law has seen both an expansion of what constitutes a maritime claim and an increasing number of conflicts between various judges as to what constitutes a maritime claim.

15. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:MARITIME CLAIM - Torts • Maritime torts – a tort must have a significant connection to traditional maritime activity and, except in the case of certain seaman’s injuries, must either occur on navigable waters or be caused by a vessel on navigable water. Some examples of valid maritime torts/causes of action: • A seaman injured on a vessel • Slot machine attendant injured on riverboat casino had a maritime claim • Seaman’s suit against doctor held to be a maritime claim where seaman was terminated from his employment as a result of an erroneous medical examination – that took place on land. • Injuries to passengers on excursion boats or other vessels for hire arising out of the fault of vessel operator or owner Some examples of activities which do NOT constitute maritime torts: • Claims by shipyard workers for asbestos injuries • Claims by painters who fell from a bridge • A products liability suit by a passenger on a pleasure craft against a manufacturer of a gun that misfired while in the boat is non-maritime • A claim by a business invitee on board a naval vessel against a maintenance company that negligently stripped wax causing plaintiff to fall is non-maritime. • Workers on fixed offshore oil platforms covered by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act do not have admiralty causes of action unless their injuries are caused by a vessel because artificial islands are treated as being part of the land.

16. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:MARITIME CLAIM - Contracts • Maritime contracts -- “The threshold question . . . is whether the underlying transaction giving rise to the claim had maritime commerce as its principal objective.” Crossbow Cement SA v. Mohamed Ali Saleh Al-Hashedi & Bros., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98319 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2008). Is the contract “salty”? Examples of maritime contracts include: • charter party (but an undertaking to make a charter, or to procure a person to make one, is not within admiralty jurisdiction); • contract to repair a vessel; • contract to insure a ship (however, a contract to build a ship is not a maritime contract); • policy of marine insurance (however, an agreement to make or procure a particular policy is not); • a bill of lading • a stevedoring contract • A contract to supply marine fuel • A contract for lease of cargo shipping containers • For repairing a vessel • For the use of a dry dock • For removing ballast

17. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:More on Maritime Contracts Exxon v. Central Gulf Lines, 500 U.S. 603(1991) • Case raised issue as to whether admiralty jurisdiction extends to claims arising from agency contracts. Exxon served as Waterman Steamship Corp.’s agent, and agreed to supply Waterman’s vessels with fuel worldwide. Shortly after supplying fuel to a vessel called the Hooper, Waterman filed for bankruptcy, and did not pay Exxon. In connection with the bankruptcy proceedings, the charterer of the vessel, Central Gulf Lines, agreed that it would pay for any obligations adjudged against the Hooper in rem. This case arose from Exxon’s suit in the Southern District of New York against the Hooper in rem and Central Gulf Lines in personam. • Below, the court rejected the suit as not falling within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction based on its interpretation of a previous case, Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. 477 (1855), which wasinterpreted by the 2d Circuit as a per se exclusion of agency contracts from admiralty jurisdiction. • The Supreme Court held that such a per se exclusion was improper, and that Minturn‘s holding was inconsistent with the principle that the "nature and subject-matter" of the contract at issue should be the crucial consideration in assessing admiralty jurisdiction.

18. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:More on Maritime Contracts Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 13 (2004) • A “maritime case about a train wreck.” In relevant part, the Supreme Court examined the scope of admiralty jurisdiction in a contract case. • Disputed contract was for shipment of machinery from Australia to Alabama. The majority of the journey was by sea. The cargo arrived in the states unharmed from this first leg, but was damaged during the land leg in a train accident. • Supreme Court held that the contract had a “more genuinely salty flavor” (maritime), rather than a mere contract dispute in diversity. The “fundamental interest giving rise to maritime jurisdiction is the protection of maritime commerce.” Id. at 25. In Kirby, because the “primary objective” of the disputed bills of lading were to transport goods by sea from Australia to Alabama, the contracts were maritime. • Only if the contract’s sea components are insubstantial will the contract not qualify as a maritime contract.

19. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:Mixed Contracts “Mixed” contracts, which contain both maritime and non-maritime elements, are subject to the district court's admiralty jurisdiction in the Second Circuit; Folksmamerica Reinsurance Co. v. Clean Water of New York, Inc., 413 F.3d 307, 312 (2d Cir. 2005) sets forth a two-part inquiry to determine whether admiralty jurisdiction exists in such cases: Part 1: “Threshold inquiry” – court must “initially determine whether the subject matter of the dispute is so attenuated from the business of maritime commerce that it does not implicate the concerns underlying admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.” Part 2: If the threshold inquiry is satisfied, the court must shift its focus and determine whether the contract itself is “primarily maritime in nature.” If the contract appears to be “mixed”, it will normally “fall outside admiralty jurisdiction.”

20. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:More on Maritime Contracts A guarantee of performance on a maritime contract is considered a maritime claim. An agreement to act as a surety on a maritime contract, however, is not. See, e.g., Transport Panamax, Ltd. v. Kremikovtzi Trade E.E.O.D., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48688 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2008). Even a lone allegation that a defendant guaranteed another’s obligations under a maritime contract could result in an order of attachment. See, e.g., Cargill International S.A. v. JSW Panama Holdings Corp., et. al.

21. YES YES (Brave Bulk Transport Ltd. v. Spot On Shipping Ltd.), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81137 (Oct. 30, 2007)(disputes involving FFAs are maritime claims for which Rule B attachment procedures are available) NO (Bottiglieri di Navigazione SpA v. Tradeline LLC, No. 07 0850 cv, 293 Fed. Appx. 36, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20028, at *2 (2d Cir. Sept. 17. 2008) (affirming district court's finding "that plaintiff's claim for indemnity against defendant was unripe (and therefore not a valid prima facie claim) NO BREACH OF A CHARTER PARTY FORWARD FREIGHT AGREEMENT CONTINGENT INDEMNITY CLAIM FOR BREACH OF A CHARTER PARTY (ASSUMING ENGLISH LAW GOVERNS) A COMMODITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT RE: A COMMODITY BEING TRANSPORTED BY LAND Prosecuting a Rule B Action:Maritime Claim Trivia – Would the subject matter listed below be considered a “maritime claim” by a district court?

22. NO (Glencore AG v. Bharat Aluminum Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107063 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2008) (“we reach this conclusion bearing in mind that a contrary holding would be another step toward substantially expanding the reach of federal admiralty jurisdiction. In recent years -- and in recent months in particular -- Supplemental Rule B maritime attachments have been filed with increasing frequency.”) YES (Kalafrana Shipping, Ltd. v. Sea Gull Shipping Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78247 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“the MoA is a contract for the purchase of a launched ship that has been plying the seas for some time. As such, it has a distinctly "salty flavor," for the sole purpose of a ship is to sail.”) BREACH OF A COMMODITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT RE: A COMMODITY BEING TRANSPORTED BY SEA MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT (MOAs) FOR THE SALE OF VESSELS Prosecuting a Rule B Action:Maritime Claim Trivia – Would the subject matter listed below be considered a “maritime claim” by a district court?

23. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:Requirement #1:MARITIME CLAIM (cont.) – ALTER EGO ALLEGATIONS If a Plaintiff can plead that a Defendant is the “alter ego” of another named Defendant, the Plaintiff may attach the alter ego’s assets as well, even in the absence of contractual privity. The following factors are indicators of an alter ego (William Passalaqua Builders, et al. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., et. al. 933 F.2d 131, 139 (2d Cir. 1990): • whether corporate formalities are observed, • whether the capitalization is adequate, • whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, • whether there is overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, • whether the corporate entities share common office space, address and telephone numbers, • the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, • whether the alleged dominator deals with the dominated corporation at arms length, • whether the corporation is treated as an independent profit center, • whether others pay or guarantee debts of the dominated corporation, and • whether the corporation in question had property that was used by the alleged dominator as if it were the dominator's own.

24. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:Requirement #1:MARITIME CLAIM - ALTER EGO ALLEGATIONS (cont.) • In Tideline v. Eastrade Commodities, 2007 AMC 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), the district court noted that “[t]he Court of Appeals' holding and rationale in Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. [] strongly undermine the standard, stated in a number of cases, that [a] hearing pursuant to Supplemental Rule E(4)(f) is intended to ‘make a preliminary determination whether there were reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant.’” (emphasis added). The “reasonable grounds” standard would otherwise require a Plaintiff to present evidence to justify the maintenance of a Rule B attachment if said attachment is challenged by a Defendant. • Instead, the Tideline court held, “the holding and overall rationale of Aqua Stoli . . . imply that the ‘probable cause’ or ‘reasonable grounds’ standard is generally improper when considering whether a maritime attachment must be vacated. Under this logic, the Court should not engage in a broad inquiry into evidence presented as to” the alter ego relationship. In sum, a Plaintiff need not submit evidence as to these factors, but only demonstrate that it has a “prima facie” claim against the Defendant on the basis of alleged alter ego status.

25. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:Requirement #1:MARITIME CLAIM - ALTER EGO ALLEGATIONS (cont.) • Vacating a Rule B attachment based on alter ego allegations is difficult in practice because judges are reluctant to touch on the merits of alter ego allegations and will simply look at the face of the Complaint. However, there is also support for the opposing notion that a Court does not abuse its discretion if it does, in fact, consider facts raised outside of the Complaint in connection with a motion to vacate an attachment. See SPL Shipping Ltd. v. Gujarat Chiminex Ltd., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95674 (citing to the Second Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P'ship, 542 F.3d 43, (2d Cir. 2008), as support for the position that a “district court does not abuse its discretion when it considers evidence outside of the pleadings on motion to vacate an order.”)

26. Prosecuting a Rule B Action: Requirement #2:DEFENDANT CANNOT BE “FOUND” WITHIN THE DISTRICT AS OF THE FILING DATE OF THE COMPLAINT

27. DOES THE DEFENDANT HAVE AGENTS IN NEW YORK? Defendant may be found within the district based on the actions of its agents. See Metal Transport Corp. v. Canadian Transport Co., 526 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (Defendant was "found" within the district for purposes of Rule B because it conducted continuous and systematic activity in New York through the acts of its shipping agent, which "arrange[d] for the discharge and loading of cargo, including the hiring and paying of stevedores, handle[d] the port-to-port operation of chartered vessels and monitor[ed] and report[ed] to [Defendant] on the payment of freight monies," thus making clear that Defendant was jurisdictionally present within the district and amenable to service of process through its general agent) its bank account); but see SK Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd. v. Petroexport Ltd., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81752 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Defendant’s agent, located in Brooklyn, New York with an office in Manhattan, who bound Defendant to disputed charter party with Plaintiff, did not enable Defendant to be “found” within district because agent provided similar services to other entities in New York). Prosecuting a Rule B Action: Requirement #2: CAN THE DEFENDANT BE “FOUND” WITHIN THE DISTRICT? SOME EXAMPLES IN PRACTICE

28. HAS THE DEFENDANT REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK? Designation of a registered agent for service of process within the district means that the Defendant may be "found" within the district for Rule B purposes. See Pioneer Navigation Ltd. v. STX Pan Ocean (U.K.) Co., Ltd., No. 08 Civ. 10490, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103255, 2008 WL 5334550 (S.D.N.Y. Dec 18, 2008); but see Erne Shipping v. HBC Hamburg Bulk Carriers GMBH Prosecuting a Rule B Action: Requirement #2: CAN THE DEFENDANT BE “FOUND” WITHIN THE DISTRICT?

29. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT & SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT Rule B requires that the Plaintiff’s complaint be: (a) verified; and (b) accompanied by an affidavit – prepared by either the client or the client’s attorney – which states “that, to the affiant’s knowledge, or on information and belief, the defendant cannot be found within the district.” L. Adm. R. B.1. requires that the affidavit “list the efforts made by and behalf of the plaintiff to find and serve the defendant within the district.”

30. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:A Plaintiff’s “Extraordinary” Remedy Rule B permits pre-trial, ex parte attachment – meaning, the Defendant need not be aware of the complaint before his assets are seized. Also, Plaintiff’s are not required to post security to initiate a Rule B action.

31. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:ORDER OF ATTACHMENT Trial courts have limited discretion concerning the issuance of an order of attachment – the court will review the affidavit and complaint, and if the conditions of Rule B appear to exist, an order will be entered authorizing process of attachment and garnishment.

32. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:Order of Attachment Following are some typical qualities of an Order of Attachment: • It will direct the clerk of the court to issue process of maritime attachment against all “tangible and intangible” property of the Defendant; • It will appoint persons to serve the process (as well as any supplemental process) upon “any garnishees” named in the order. The manner in which this is to be done is entirely within the judge’s discretion; • It will confirm the scope of the service. • It will allow (where requested) the Plaintiff to file its papers under seal. This strategy might work to prevent a Defendant from diverting funds away from New York. However, Courts are unwilling to allow this to go on indefinitely. See Kola Shipping Ltd. v. Shakti Bhog Foods, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14392 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) (where “the action was maintained under seal from its inception until [approximately four months later], there is no basis to believe that Defendant attempted to divert its funds to avoid attachment. Plaintiff cannot maintain an order of attachment indefinitely in the sheer hope that defendant's property may one day be found within the district.”)

33. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:The Luck of the Draw Both recent case law (and recent experiences of S&K litigators) make clear that the Judge randomly assigned – out of 44 total judges in the Southern District – may have an effect on the scope of the order issued – or whether the order is even approved. For example: • Judge Sheindlin (Cala Rosa Marine Co. v. Sucres et Deneres Group, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7934 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2009)) has indicated that she may decline to allow continuous service, and may decline to allow law firm appointed servers, limiting service to the U.S. Marshal; • Judge Rakoff (Shipping Corp. of India, Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas PTE Ltd., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49209 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2008)) has indicated that EFT “property” is limited to property emanating from the Defendant’s accounts, and that there can be no attachment of third party funds on their way to a Defendant – as they are not Defendant’s property until the transfer is completed; and • Judge Sullivan (Chug Lin Marine Serv. Corp. v. China Chance Shipping Ltd., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106417 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2008)) has denied applications for maritime attachment, requiring more of a basis to attach property where Plaintiffs could plead only that a Defendant “is believed to have or will have property” that may be found in the district.

34. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:The Clerk’s Issuance of Process of Maritime Attachment and Service of Process After the clerk of the court issues process, it must be served upon the garnishees. Where the property sought to be attached is a vessel or tangible property aboard a vessel, only a marshal may serve initial process and any supplemental process. With respect to any “tangible or intangible” property other than a vessel (or property thereon), the Court may permit anyone “specially appointed by the court” to serve the “summons, process and any supplemental process.” RuleB(1)(d)(ii).

35. Prosecuting a Rule B Action:The Clerk’s Issuance of Process of Maritime Attachment and Service of Process Plaintiff must give “prompt notice to the defendant of the attachment” where the defendant’s property has been attached. That notice “shall be in writing, and may be given by telex, telegram, cable, fax, or other verifiable electronic means.” L. Adm. R. B.2

36. “[T]he attachment of EFTs or wire transfers in New York has gradually established itself as a basic practical step in shipping disputes throughout the world, to some extent supplanting the traditional practice of arresting ships to secure maritime claims.” The proliferation of the attachment of wire transfers in New York explains why: “Banks hate Rule B.” Id. Rule B From A Garnishee Bank’s Perspective:Quotes from a February 13, 2009 article in TradeWinds entitled “Judge Slams ‘Rule B’ rodeo.”

37. Rule B From A Garnishee Bank’s Perspective:Garnishee’s Obligations When Served With Process • A garnishee must attach all property in its possession at the time of service of process. See Reibor International Limited v. Cargo Carriers (Y,4 CZ-CO.) Limited. • A Plaintiff may serve interrogatories upon a garnishee if they are annexed to its Complaint. • A garnishee has 20 days to answer the Complaint and any interrogatories. • If the garnishee “admits any debts, credits, or effects” of the Defendant, it must hold these “in the garnishee’s hands” or “pa[y] into the registry of the court” such property.

38. Third Party Interests In Attached Property Often, circumstances arise in which a third party has an interest in property attached pursuant to Rule B. These third parties are frequently notified by the garnishee bank, and these parties may have to intervene. Some contemporary issues: Does a Rule B attachment trump a prior perfected security interest, i.e., does Rule B trump the N.Y. U.C.C.? Compare K/S A/A Sea Team et Co. v. Colocotronis (Greece) S.A., 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16786 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 5, 1978) (a “lien creditor under the UCC [is] subordinate to a prior perfected security interest in the attached property”) with Winter Storm (2d Cir. rejected a garnishee bank’s motion to vacate the Rule B attachment brought to enable the bank to exercise a right of set-off created by the New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Sec. 151; the Second Circuit held that the statute conflicted with and was preempted by the plaintiff’s Rule B right of attachment). This issue is currently being briefed in the Southern District.

39. Rule B From A Garnishee Bank’s Perspective:Analyzing the burden on a garnishee bank The transient nature of EFTs, and the manner in which Plaintiff’s and courts structure the orders of maritime process to account for the transient nature of EFTs, impose a significant burden on the banking sector. For example, it would be nearly impossible for a Plaintiff to properly time service of process on a bank in order to capture a wire transfer, as wire transfers occur instantaneously. In order to compensate for this difficulty, courts have crafted orders which in essence permit banks to deem the papers to be served repeatedly and continuously for 24 hours from the time they were initially presented. Further, these orders will also typically require that a Plaintiff serve garnishees on a daily basis to ensure that any transfers within 24 hours prior, or 24 hours subsequent, to service are captured. But see Cala Rosa (discussed previously). As is typical, a Plaintiff’s counsel will be appointed as a “special process server” who can effectuate service. The initial service is generally required to be by hand. However, a garnishee has the right to require the Plaintiff to serve in the manner it deems fit – by hand delivery, facsimile, or email, for example.

40. Defending a Rule B Action:MOVING TO VACATE THE ATTACHMENT: Entitlement to a Prompt Hearing Supplemental Rule E(4)(f) entitles “any person claiming an interest in [attached property] . . . to a prompt hearing at which the plaintiff shall be required to show why the . . . attachment should not be vacated or other relief granted.” This hearing “shall be conducted by a judicial officer within three court days, unless otherwise ordered.” L. Adm. R. E.1.

41. Defending a Rule B Action:MOVING TO VACATE THE ATTACHMENT (cont.)Aqua Stoli Factor #1 As noted above, a Defendant may move to vacate on any one of the four Aqua Stoli factors: 1.) Whether the Plaintiff has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the Defendant. The following cases are examples of successful motions by Defendants to vacate an attachment in light of this factor: Marubeni Int'l Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd. v. Prestige Marine Servs. Pte Ltd., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5174 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2009) (court granted Defendant’s motion to vacate attachment finding that a contract to supply fuel to “indeterminate vessels” do not fall within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction; if a claim is not a maritime claim, it cannot satisfy the first Aqua Stoli factor); Glencore AG v. Bharat Aluminum Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107063 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2008) (Defendant’s motion to vacate attachment granted where Plaintiff’s suit was for alleged breach of a commodity purchase agreement because a “commodity purchase agreement -- even one that involves maritime shipment of the commodity -- is not maritime in nature.”) In addition, challenges in light of an alter ego theory would fit into this category. See, e.g., Pink Goose (Cayman) LTD v. Sunway Traders LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82081 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008) (“alter-ego theories of liability are prima facie admiralty claims so long as the underlying claim arose in admiralty”).

42. Defending a Rule B Action:MOVING TO VACATE THE ATTACHMENT (cont.)Aqua Stoli Factors #2 - 4 2.) Whether the Defendant cannot be found within the district. A Defendant who is registered to do business in New York, or one which has an active, exclusive agent in New York, or even one who may be located in an “adjacent district,” might move to vacate an attachment based on this factor. See, e.g., Glory Wealth Shipping Servs. v. The Rice Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106468 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2008) (“Defendant's registration with the New York Secretary of State satisfies the jurisdictional prong of the Seawind test”); Petroexport v. SK Shipping (Defendant not found within district where its agent was non-exclusive); 3.) Whether the Defendant’s property can be found within the district. Challenges to the propriety of attachment of EFTs would fall within this category. See, e.g., Consub Delaware (Defendant (unsuccessfully) argued that funds in transit via an EFT are not “property” within the meaning of Rule B). 4.) There exist maritime or statutory bars to attachment.

43. Defending a Rule B Action:Practice Pointer:Amenability to Service in a “convenient, adjacent district” • A Defendant may challenge/avoid Rule B attachment if it is amenable to service in a “convenient, adjacent district.” Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd. • The scope of this phrase has not been clearly defined by the Courts: • Swiss Marine Servs. S.A. v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Servs. L.P., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93095 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Connecticut determined to be a convenient, adjacent forum. This case is currently on appeal to the 2d Circuit.) • Ivan Visin Shipping, Ltd. v. Onego Shipping & Chartering B.V., No. 08-CV-1238, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25028 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2008) (New Jersey determined to be a convenient, adjacent forum), motion for reconsideration denied, 543 F. Supp. 2d 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) • But cf. First Am. Bulk Carrier Corp. v. Van Ommeren Shipping (USA) LLC, 540 F. Supp. 2d 483, 485 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (an “adjacent district” “generally viewed as one of another federal court within the same state . . . Not one in a different state, even if the two states are adjacent.”)

44. Defending a Rule B Action:Practice Pointer:Posting Security Any transactions conducted in U.S. dollars are potentially subject to attachment. Therefore, a Rule B attachment may detrimentally impact a shipping client. To quickly avoid disruption, a Defendant may make a strategic decision to post security in exchange for Plaintiff’s agreement to stop serving the order of attachment.

45. Defending a Rule B Action:Practice Pointer:Asserting a counterclaim seeking countersecurity If a Defendant opts not to move to vacate an attachment, FRCP Supplemental Rule E(7)(a) provides for “Security on Counterclaim”, and enables a Defendant to obtain security in connection with a “counterclaim that arises from the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the original action.” In such cases, the Plaintiff “must give security for damages demanded in the counterclaim unless the court, for cause shown, directs otherwise. ” (emphasis added). HOWEVER…

46. Defending a Rule B Action:Practice Pointer:More on countersecurity Despite the fact that the language appears to mandate countersecurity, the language of Rule E(7) directing that security be granted “unless the court for cause shown, directs otherwise” makes it entirely clear that the trial court possesses broad discretion in deciding whether to order countersecurity. Result Shipping Co. v. Ferruzi Trading USA Inc., 56 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir. 1995). In exercising that discretion, two major principles govern: (1) parties should be placed on an equal footing with respect to security; and (2) Rule E(7) is not meant to be so burdensome so as to prevent the bringing of the suit.

47. Defending a Rule B Action:Practice Pointer:Registering to “Do Business” in New York • As indicated earlier, district courts have allowed some Defendants to avoid a Rule B attachment where those Defendants have (1) registered with the New York Secretary of State as a foreign corporation licensed to do business there and (2) appointed an agent for service of process in the S.D.N.Y. • The majority of district court judges in the S.D.N.Y. have held that these activities are sufficient to demonstrate that a Defendant may be “found” within the Southern District and therefore is not properly subject to a Rule B attachment. See Pioneer Navigation Ltd. v. STX Pan Ocean Co., No. 08 Civ. 10490, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103255 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008).

48. Defending a Rule B Action:Pitfalls of Registering to Do Business in New York • Registration does not guarantee immunity from a Rule B attachment – the Second Circuit held oral argument on this issue on February 13, 2009, but has yet to issue a written opinion. Compare the following: • STX Pan Ocean (UK) v. Glory Wealth(U.K.) Co., Ltd., No. 08 Civ. 10490, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103255, (S.D.N.Y. Dec 18, 2008) (Designation of a registered agent for service of process within the district means that the Defendant may be "found" within the district for Rule B purposes.) • Erne Shipping v. HBC Hamburg Bulk Carriers GMBH , 409 F. Supp. 2d 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)– registering to do business in and of itself is insufficient to avoid Rule B. Defendant must also conduct some actual business in the state to be subject to its jurisdiction. • Stolt Tankers v. Geonet Ethanol, No. 08 Civ. 4382, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92706 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2008) – failure to appoint a designated agent for service of process in the district (as opposed to Albany, New York), was insufficient to vacate a Rule B attachment • A Defendant risks subjecting itself to the general jurisdiction of New York State and Federal Courts by virtue of registering. • Though defendants fear tax consequences from registering to do business, registering should not in and of itself alter a company's tax posture.

49. Defending a Rule B Action: Application Form for Registration of a Foreign Corporation

50. Defending a Rule B Action: How to Register to Do Business in New York:Filing of the Application for Authority Form The corporation/LLC must file the signed “Application for Authority” (with backer) and supporting documents (LLC’s must also file a Certificate of Publication). The Application must be: (1) Executed by an Officer, Director, Member, Manager or other authorized person; whose (2) Name and title must be printed or typed beneath signature line The corporation must also register each entity for which it wishes to avoid the potential for a Rule B attachment.