766 F.Supp.3d 643
W.D. La.2025Background
- Ampelmann Operations B.V. (a Dutch company) supplied a gangway system (“the System”) to Atlantic Oceanic UK LTD (an English company), charterer of the vessel ATLANTIC TONJER (Panamanian-registered, Seychelles-owned) under a contract (“Charter Party”).
- The Charter Party was governed by Dutch law with arbitration in Rotterdam, per explicit contract terms.
- Ampelmann alleged non-payment (over $1M) and filed in U.S. federal court, seeking to arrest the vessel under U.S. maritime law, claiming a maritime lien for necessaries under CIMLA.
- Defendants moved to vacate the arrest, arguing Dutch law did not recognize a maritime lien for necessaries, and thus no valid lien existed to justify the warrant.
- The core procedural posture: Whether the vessel arrest (under U.S. law) was valid given the Charter Party’s Dutch law choice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs the existence of a maritime lien? | U.S. law (CIMLA) applies to in rem/lien actions even with foreign contract law. | Dutch law, per contract, applies to lien creation. | Dutch law governs. |
| Does Dutch law recognize maritime liens for necessaries? | Even if Dutch law applies, parties intended U.S.-style remedies or Dutch law is ambiguous. | Dutch law does not recognize such liens. | Dutch law does not recognize such a lien; motion granted. |
| Is the charter party lien provision sufficient to create a maritime lien? | The provision indicates intent to allow vessel arrest (U.S. style). | Contractual liens cannot override statutory framework; provision is general only. | Maritime lien cannot be created by contract if not recognized by governing law. |
| Was the System provided to this vessel specifically (to even meet the necessaries test)? | Yes, the parties intended the System for this vessel, per invoices/work orders. | The contract/record does not specify provision to this vessel. | Court did not reach this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belcher Co. of Alabama v. M/V Maratha Mariner, 724 F.2d 1161 (5th Cir. 1984) (Dutch law does not recognize concept of maritime lien for necessaries, so no enforceable lien under such law)
- Sembawang Shipyard, Ltd. v. Charger, Inc., 955 F.2d 983 (5th Cir. 1992) (broad choice-of-law clauses in maritime contracts generally govern both in personam and in rem claims, including maritime lien issues)
- Gulf Trading & Transp. Co. v. Vessel Hoegh Shield, 658 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1981) (where no contractually chosen law, U.S. law may create maritime lien for necessaries for U.S. supplier at U.S. port)
- Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 601 U.S. 65 (2024) (choice-of-law clauses in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable unless against public policy)