K Investments v. B-Gas Limited, 21-40642

Plaintiffs (K Investments, Sikousis Legacy, Bahla Beauty) owned LPG carrier vessels and had bareboat charters with B-Gas (Bepalo); disputes over charter-hire led Plaintiffs to commence arbitration against Bepalo.
Plaintiffs filed Rule B actions in federal district court seeking attachment of the M/T BERGITTA, a vessel owned by Bergshav Shipping, alleging Bergshav Shipping was Bepalo’s alter ego.
The district court issued maritime attachment process; the US Marshal seized the BERGITTA.
Bergshav Shipping made a restrictive appearance and moved under Supplemental Rule E(8) to vacate, arguing (1) the complaints were not properly verified under Rule B and (2) Plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie alter-ego showing.
Plaintiffs had attached a verification signed by Christian Krohn‑Hansen stating he read the complaints and, under penalty of perjury, that "the foregoing is true and correct;" at the vacatur hearing Krohn‑Hansen testified he did not verify the truth of the complaints’ allegations.
The district court concluded the verifications were deficient, lacked a proper verified complaint as required by Rule B, vacated the attachment, dismissed the complaints, and Plaintiffs appealed; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaints were properly verified under Rule B	Krohn‑Hansen’s verification sufficed and authenticated the complaints	Verification only stated Krohn‑Hansen read the complaints and did not verify their factual allegations	Verification was deficient; Krohn‑Hansen did not verify truth of allegations, so Rule B not satisfied
Whether failure to file a proper verified complaint deprives court of jurisdiction	Verification is a claim‑processing requirement, not jurisdictional; dismissal was improper	Verified‑complaint requirement is mandatory and, when properly raised, must be enforced	Regardless of label, defendant timely raised the issue; district court did not err to vacate/dismiss
Whether Plaintiffs could cure the defective verification by amendment	Plaintiffs requested leave to amend under Rule 15 to cure verification	Defendant argued amendment is futile and barred by time‑of‑filing rule; issue timely raised for defendant	Plaintiffs waived the amendment argument by raising it for first time in objections; court declined to consider it
Burden on motion to vacate	Plaintiff must show why attachment should not be vacated	Defendant need only show defects in Rule B compliance	Plaintiff bears burden to justify attachment; failure to verify supports vacatur

Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd., 460 F.3d 434 (2d Cir. 2006) (Rule B requires a verified complaint making a prima facie showing for attachment)
Pizani v. M/V Cotton Blossom, 669 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1982) (verified complaint is a prerequisite to in rem jurisdiction under the Supplemental Admiralty Rules)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chic., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (distinguishing claim‑processing rules from jurisdictional rules; mandatory rules must be enforced if properly invoked)
Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 1998) (facts in a verified complaint must be within the affiant’s personal knowledge and the affiant must be competent to testify)
Chan v. Society Expeditions, Inc., 123 F.3d 1287 (9th Cir. 1997) (signator must ensure averments are true based on personal knowledge or information and belief)
Malin Int’l Ship Repair & Drydock, Inc. v. Oceanografia, S.A. de C.V., 817 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 2016) (maritime attachment both confers jurisdiction over defendant’s property and secures satisfaction of the claim)