Physical Supplier Denied Maritime Lien
A federal court in the United States recently held that a physical supplier of bunkers was not entitled to a maritime lien against a vessel. Valero Marketing and Supply Co. v. M/V ALMI SUN, No. 14 Civ. 2712 (NJB) (E.D. La. decided Dec. 28, 2015 and Feb. 8, 2016). The Order was the first to apply United States law and directly address the issue in the context of O.W. Bunker's bankruptcies.
The language of Bankruptcy Code § 501(a) is as broad as it is simple.
Metropolitan Insurance Company has joined ING Clarion Capital Loan Services, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and FRM Funding Company, Inc in requesting the Bankruptcy Court to dismiss as bad faith filings the bankruptcy cases of twenty-one property level CMBS borrower subsidiaries of General Growth Properties, Inc. ING filed the first motion on May 4th with respect to eight debtors, and a hearing was set for May 27th. That hearing was subsequently adjourned to June 17th. Creditors having similar motions to be heard on June 17th were required to file their motions to dismiss by May 29th .
The Bottom Line:
On June 28, 2011, in In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa,1 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Enron’s redemption of its commercial paper prior to maturity fell within the definition of a “settlement payment” and was protected from avoidance under § 546(e)’s safe harbor provision in Title 11 of the United States Code.2
Who to pay when the bunker supplier becomes insolvent
1. Introduction
On 13 November 2009, the Commission approved a restructuring plan for ING Groep NV under the EC State aid rules. ING is a Dutch financial institution, offering its services in over 40 countries. In October 2008, the Commission approved the liquidity guarantees of €12 billion offered by the Dutch government to support ING during the economic crisis.
On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.
The Bottom Line: