Americas News
Buyer Fights Back Against OW Bunker $1.8M Unpaid Bunker Bill Claim on Grounds Physical Supplier Was Left Unpaid
With its vessels at risk of possible arrest by unpaid physical suppliers, Hudson Shipping Lines Inc. is asking the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut to dismiss a claim by an OW Bunker affiliate for unpaid bunker bills.
As with many of the dozens of disputes involving OW Bunker to be decided in court, this latest case took place in or about October of 2014, shortly before the Danish bunker giant filed for bankruptcy.
According to a court document filed on April 15, the bunkers in question were delivered to seven vessels under charter to Hudson and had been sourced from several OW affiliates, including OW Bunker Far East, OWB Dubai-Korea, and OW Bunker Middle East DMCC-Brazil ME.
Cohen and Wolf, the lawyers for Hudson, point out that the Illinois-based bunker buyer had been worried about exposure to maritime lien claims from third party suppliers as far back as September of 2014; but discussions with the OW Bunker group of companies led to the understanding that if Hudson used the services of the companies as intermediaries, they would be paid only if Hudson received written confirmation from the suppliers that they had been paid in full.
However, "conspicuously absent from the complaint are any allegations that the Plaintiff actually paid for, owned or delivered to the vessels the bunker for which the Plaintiff is now seeking payment," according to the document.
"Indeed, upon information and belief, the actual suppliers of the bunkers to the vessels . . . have not been paid."
As a result, Hudson Shipping "remains at risk of the assertion of maritime liens by the suppliers of the bunkers and the Hudson Shipping vessels remain at risk of possible arrest by the suppliers."
OW Bunker USA in December filed to recover property of the estate in the Bankruptcy Court for compensation of what it claims is a $1.85 million unpaid bunker bill.
So far in the entire bankruptcy saga, even though OW has not and does not (through assignee ING Bank) plan on paying the physical suppliers, court opinion is generally that they should still be paid, with notably three UK decisions having so far deemed OW's outstandings to be a contractual debt - rather than a debt for the actual bunkers.
Hudson's plea for dismissal also comes at a particularly bumpy time for physical supplier in the U.S. caught up in the OW Bunker fallout.
Two recent U.S. court decisions saw physical bunker suppliers failing to have their maritime lien upheld meaning they could be left unpaid - a situation that could eventually have significant implications on both financing and credit decisions within the bunker industry.
