SCL Basilisk AG v. Agribusiness United Savannah Logistics LLC
875 F.3d 609
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- SCL Basilisk and Thorco (plaintiffs) sought an order in the Southern District of Georgia requiring Agribusiness Savannah, Sonada, and related Agribusiness entities to post security in aid of a London arbitration arising from a charter-party dispute over carriage of grain.
- Plaintiffs alleged the defendants were present or registered in Georgia and sought $667,528.86 in security to cover potential arbitral award and costs stemming from a prior detention of the vessel and incurred damages.
- Plaintiffs invoked maritime jurisdiction and relied on Supplemental Rule B (and Rule 64 via Rule B(1)(e)) and Georgia’s International Commercial Arbitration Code (Ga. Code § 9-9-30) as bases for pre‑arbitral security.
- The district court denied relief, reasoning Rule B attachment was inapplicable because defendants were "found" in the district, and § 9-9-30 does not itself create new remedies beyond existing state or federal procedures.
- Plaintiffs appealed, urging that § 9-9-30 (and maritime equitable powers) authorized the requested security; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of Supplemental Rule B attachment | Rule B permits attachment or state-law equivalents; plaintiffs sought security under it | Defendants present/registered in district, so Rule B(1)(a) inapplicable; plaintiffs are "found" | Attachment under Rule B(1)(a) unavailable because defendants were found in the district; Rule B cannot be used solely to obtain security without jurisdiction |
| Scope of Ga. Code § 9-9-30 (interim measure of protection) | § 9-9-30 authorizes courts to grant broad interim remedies, including orders requiring pre-judgment security in aid of arbitration | § 9-9-30 is based on UNCITRAL Article 9 and merely confirms compatibility of court interim measures with arbitration; it does not create new remedies | § 9-9-30 does not independently grant substantive authority to create new remedies; it permits use of existing state remedies but does not override federal maritime law or Supplemental Rules |
| Inherent admiralty/equitable power to order security | Courts have inherent admiralty powers (Leonhardt) to craft prejudgment maritime remedies, so equitable power supports the requested security | Leonhardt preserves historical admiralty powers only insofar as consistent with Supplemental Rules; historic attachment served to secure jurisdiction, not purely security | Court rejected a free-standing equitable power to order pre‑arbitral security here; Leonhardt does not authorize attachment solely for security inconsistent with Supplemental Rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd., 460 F.3d 434 (2d Cir.) (discussing purpose and limits of Rule B attachment in maritime disputes)
- Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottacchi S.A. de Navegacion, 773 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc) (recognizing courts’ historical admiralty powers but requiring consistency with Supplemental Rules)
- Nehring v. Steamship M/V Point Vail, 901 F.2d 1044 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding security cannot be separated from the jurisdictional purpose of Rule B attachment)
- Seawind Compania, S.A. v. Crescent Line, Inc., 320 F.2d 580 (2d Cir. 1963) (security as adjunct to obtaining jurisdiction under maritime attachment)
- Manro v. Almeida, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 473 (U.S. 1825) (early recognition that maritime attachment compelled appearance by attaching goods)
- ContiChem LPG v. Parsons Shipping Co., 229 F.3d 426 (2d Cir.) (discussing limitations on attachment and related maritime procedures)