Americas Bulk Transport Ltd. v. IMT

Americas Bulk Transport Ltd. v. IMT

Plaintiff:	Americas Bulk Transport Ltd.
Defendant:	IMT
Case Number:	1:2008cv06970
Filed:	August 5, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Contract: Marine Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Alvin K. Hellerstein
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	28:1333 Admiralty

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 19, 2010	Filing 41 ORDER AND OPINION DENYING AND GRANTING MOTIONS TO VACATE ATTACHMENTS: #98721 In Americas Bulk Transport Ltd. v. IMT Shipping & Chartering GmbH, Defendant IMT instituted arbitration in London soon after the attachment in this district was effected. Th ey continue to engage in the arbitration and, from their reports, are engaged in discovery proceedings ordered by the abritrators. There is no reason to believe that the London proceedings are dependent on the attachment, and there has been no showin g that an arbitral award in favor of Americas Bulk would not be paid by IMT. No reason of equity has been shown to depart from the rule prevailing generally in American courts that plaintiffs must await the outcome of a litigation or arbitration befo re they can require a defendant to give security for unproved claims. Eitzen Bulk A/S v. Ashapura Minechem Ltd. presents a different story. Eitzen Bulk is a judgment creditor, having obtained an arbitration award pursuant to its contract, and judgmen ts of the English High Court and of this Court. It seeks to impress its liens as a judgment creditor over the funds that Ashapura demands. All contingencies of Eitzen Bulks claim have been removed, except for payment, and there is an interpleader in this Court to determine the priority of competing claims to the attachment. Indeed, the bank has been discharged of all further obligation. Furthermore, the case presents a history of Ashapuras active resistance and evasion of payment, played over a world-wide canvas. The merits, and the equities, strongly favor Eitzen Bulk. Ashapura's motion to vacate is denied. In Americas Bulk Transport Ltd. v. IMT, 08 Civ. 6970 (AKH), the order of attachment, issued on August 6, 2008, is hereby vacated. In Eitzen Bulk A/S v. Ashapura Minechem Ltd., 08 Civ. 8319 (AKH), the motion to vacate the attachment is denied. The Clerk shall mark the motion (Doc. No. 37) as terminated. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 3/18/2010) (tro) Modified on 3/25/2010 (jab).

Date Filed

Document Text

March 19, 2010

Filing 41 ORDER AND OPINION DENYING AND GRANTING MOTIONS TO VACATE ATTACHMENTS: #98721 In Americas Bulk Transport Ltd. v. IMT Shipping & Chartering GmbH, Defendant IMT instituted arbitration in London soon after the attachment in this district was effected. Th ey continue to engage in the arbitration and, from their reports, are engaged in discovery proceedings ordered by the abritrators. There is no reason to believe that the London proceedings are dependent on the attachment, and there has been no showin g that an arbitral award in favor of Americas Bulk would not be paid by IMT. No reason of equity has been shown to depart from the rule prevailing generally in American courts that plaintiffs must await the outcome of a litigation or arbitration befo re they can require a defendant to give security for unproved claims. Eitzen Bulk A/S v. Ashapura Minechem Ltd. presents a different story. Eitzen Bulk is a judgment creditor, having obtained an arbitration award pursuant to its contract, and judgmen ts of the English High Court and of this Court. It seeks to impress its liens as a judgment creditor over the funds that Ashapura demands. All contingencies of Eitzen Bulks claim have been removed, except for payment, and there is an interpleader in this Court to determine the priority of competing claims to the attachment. Indeed, the bank has been discharged of all further obligation. Furthermore, the case presents a history of Ashapuras active resistance and evasion of payment, played over a world-wide canvas. The merits, and the equities, strongly favor Eitzen Bulk. Ashapura's motion to vacate is denied. In Americas Bulk Transport Ltd. v. IMT, 08 Civ. 6970 (AKH), the order of attachment, issued on August 6, 2008, is hereby vacated. In Eitzen Bulk A/S v. Ashapura Minechem Ltd., 08 Civ. 8319 (AKH), the motion to vacate the attachment is denied. The Clerk shall mark the motion (Doc. No. 37) as terminated. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 3/18/2010) (tro) Modified on 3/25/2010 (jab).

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Americas Bulk Transport Ltd. v. IMT
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Americas Bulk Transport Ltd.
Represented By:	Garth S. Wolfson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: IMT
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?