Americas News
OW Bunker Maritime Liens: Tide Continues to Turn Against Physical Suppliers
Another Appeals Court decision in the US has dismissed a claim by a bunker supplier looking to recover monies following the 2014 collapse of OW Bunker, finding that it is not entitled to a Maritime Lien.
The original 2016 case, covered in-depth by Ship & Bunker at the time, involved physical supplier Valero Marketing & Supply Co. (Valero) and bunkers delivered to the M/V Almi Sun.
The original 2016 ruling found Valero was not entitled to a Maritime Lien as it received instruction from intermediary OW Bunker as part of the transaction chain, and not directly from the vessel.
One of the three requirements for a Maritime Lien as as defined by the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA) is that the necessaries (in this case, bunkers) are provided on the order of the owner or a person authorised by the owner.
Valero appealed, but the Appeals Court this week upheld the original decision.
The decision follows in the footsteps of last week's M/V Temara case that also reinforces the position that ING Bank, as OW Bunker's assignee, is entitled to a lien as part of its efforts to recover some $700 million it had provided the now defunct bunker company.
With OW Bunker litigation in the US now well into its forth year, Bruce Paulsen of Seward & Kissel LLP, who represents ING in several of the cases, told Ship & Bunker recently that the beginning of the end was now in sight.
