A Protective Method for Vessel Owners Following the Collapse of O. W. Bunker: The Second Circuit Approval of Interpleader Actions in Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil Trading

摘要

O.W. Bunker & Trading A/S was one of the world's largest suppliers of shipping fuel. While owners and charterers (Vessel Owners) would contract for bunker fuel from O.W. Bunker & Trading (O.W. Bunker) or its subsidiaries, O.W. Bunker rarely supplied the fuel directly to the vessels. Instead, O.W. Bunker acted only as an intermediary by sub-contracting with third-party fuel suppliers (Physical Suppliers) to deliver the bunkers to the vessels. In addition, certain O.W. entities assigned their rights, pursuant to an Omnibus Security Agreement, in the fuel supply contracts as security to ING Bank N.V. (ING). When O.W. Bunker suddenly collapsed and filed for bankruptcy in Denmark on November 7, 2014, amidst internal fraud and risk management losses, many of its subsidiaries and affiliates sought bankruptcy protection by filing petitions all over the world. Given the bankruptcy filings, some Physical Suppliers feared that any payment collected by the upstream O.W. entities would become part of a bankrupt estate from which Physical Suppliers might never recover. Thus, Physical Suppliers sought another way to recover payment for their fuel, i.e., through enforcement of Physical Suppliers' maritime liens against the vessels, regardless of whether Vessel Owners had already paid the amounts owed to O.W. Bunker. Also, ING alleged that it had an interest in the payment as an assignee against Vessel Owners, who were then faced with potential multiple claims for payment from O.W. Bunker, Physical Suppliers, and ING.