Psara Energy, Limited v. Space Shipping, Limited, 946 F.3d 803

In 2010 Psara chartered the vessel CV STEALTH from Space Shipping; Geden Holdings became Space Shipping’s performance guarantor.
CV STEALTH was detained in Venezuela (2014), returned out-of-class and extensively damaged; Psara recovered possession in March 2018 and sold the ship as scrap.
Psara initiated London arbitration against Space Shipping and Geden for roughly $18M (market value) plus ~ $1.86M in additional damages/costs.
After the redelivery date, Geden transferred its fleet to other entities (including Advantage defendants); Psara sued Space, Geden, and Advantage entities in U.S. federal court asserting breach, fraudulent transfer, and corporate succession claims and obtained Rule B maritime attachments on two Advantage vessels.
Advantage (non‑signatories to the charter) moved to refer Psara’s U.S. suit to the London arbitration; the district court granted the referral, stayed and administratively closed the case, retained jurisdiction to enforce any award, and left Rule B attachments in place with posted substitute security.
Psara appealed; the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding the administrative closure/stay was nonfinal and not reviewable under the FAA or other doctrines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s order referring the case to arbitration and administratively closing it is a final, appealable order under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3)	The order is final and appealable under § 16(a)(3) (compelled arbitration + case closure)	The order is effectively a stay/administrative closure and thus nonfinal and not appealable under § 16(b)(3)	The order is nonfinal (equivalent to a stay/administrative closure) and not appealable under § 16(a)(3); appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether alternative bases (collateral order doctrine or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3)) permit interlocutory appellate review	Collateral order doctrine or § 1292(a)(3) provide jurisdiction to review interlocutory arbitration referrals in admiralty	Section 16 governs and forecloses collateral‑order appeals; §1292(a)(3) applies only to orders determining substantive rights/liabilities, not procedural referrals	Collateral order doctrine does not override §16; §1292(a)(3) is inapplicable because the referral did not determine substantive rights; no appellate jurisdiction

Green Tree Financial Corp.–Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2000) (an order compelling arbitration is appealable if it dismisses the case; a stay is not appealable)
Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1994) (defines "final decision with respect to an arbitration")
Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 389 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 2004) (administrative closure is functionally equivalent to a stay and is nonfinal)
Al Rushaid v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, Inc., 814 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2016) (section 16 provides the exclusive framework for appeals of arbitration orders; collateral order doctrine cannot be used to circumvent it)
Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 772 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes final dismissals from stays/closures for appealability)
Southern Louisiana Cement, Inc. v. Van Aalst Bulk Handling, B.V., 383 F.3d 297 (5th Cir. 2004) (an arbitration order staying a case is not appealable as a final order)
In re Ingram Towing Co., 59 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 1995) (§1292(a)(3) covers only orders determining substantive rights and liabilities)