World News
US OW Bunker Related Vessel Arrests Continue as UK Mulls Final Decision in Test Case
As the UK Supreme Court mulls its final decision over who bunker buyers should pay in the wake of the 2014 collapse of OW Bunker, arrests by the former bunker giant's assignee ING Bank (ING) are continuing in the U.S..
Court documents filed on March 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana New Orleans Division show ING took action against the 32,200 DWT handy bulk carrier Clipper Kasashio, claiming $309,532.06 is owed for an outstanding bunker bill, accrued interest since the time of the supply, administrative fees, and accrued and anticipated attorney fees.
The lawsuit states that OW Bunker was contracted to provide bunkers and barging services to Clipper Kasashio on October 27, 2014, and that an invoice for $176,002.84 was issued when the bunkers were physically supplied on November 5, 2014.
The vessel is reported to be owned by Moon Rise Shipping Co. and managed by South Korea's Dae Ah Shipping Co Ltd.
The complexity of such cases arises from the fact that bunker buyers are reluctant to pay OW Bunker / ING for what amounts to a contractual debt, as they would then potentially still have to pay the physical suppler for, essentially, the same bunkers.
Jonathan Crow QC, arguing for the appellants in the UK test case, has said that by pursuing such action, ING is claiming 100 percent of the monies from such disputed bunker bills, but had it not been for its bankruptcy OW Bunker would have only ever seen "perhaps 1 percent" of those monies.
While acknowledging this discrepancy, Lord Mance, one of the justices presiding over the case, has said "unfortunately that is the consequence of contractual entitlement."
However, ING's latest action in the U.S. follows a decision in the country earlier this month where a court for the first time held that a physical supplier did not establish a maritime lien as part of the vast array of OW Bunker proceedings.
As Ship & Bunker previously reported, the recent ruling could spell bad news for physical bunker suppliers, and conversely, good news for bunker buyers, as it prevents the shipowners from being subject to potential double payment for the bunkers.
Key Bunker Prices More
| VLSFO | MGO | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $/mt | +/- | $/mt | +/- | |
| Singapore | 624.50 | 1.00 | 732.00 | 8.50 |
| Rotterdam | 571.00 | 3.00 | 758.00 | 16.50 |
| Houston | 591.50 | 4.00 | 760.00 | 5.50 |
| Fujairah | 629.00 | 0.50 | 877.50 | 3.00 |
| Global 20 Ports Average | 637.00 | 0.00 | 819.00 | 3.00 |
| Global 4 Ports Average | 604.00 | 0.00 | 782.00 | 5.50 |
| Global Average Bunker Price | 688.00 | 2.50 | 879.00 | 1.00 |
Popular Now More
-
May 16The company is targeting 30-50% growth from this level of traded volumes in 2024, and in Q1 already saw 35% growth from the same period a year earlier, an Oilmar representative tells Ship & Bunker. -
May 16The ISO 8217 specifications last had a new full version published in 2017. -
May 16The first real data are starting to emerge on the cost paid by the container industry for shipping's inclusion in the European Union's emissions trading system.