Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil Trading LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
814 F.3d 146, 2016 AMC 305 (2016)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft (Hapag-Lloyd) (plaintiff) owned and chartered a fleet of shipping vessels. Hapag-Lloyd contracted with O.W. Bunker Germany GmbH (O.W. Germany) (defendant) to purchase fuel for three of Hapag-Lloyd’s ships. The fuel was supplied and delivered to the ships by O.W. Germany’s subcontractor, U.S. Oil Trading LLC (USOT) (defendant). Soon after the fuel was delivered to the ships, O.W. Germany’s parent company filed for bankruptcy. Following the bankruptcy, both USOT and entities affiliated with O.W. Germany asserted claims to the outstanding payment by Hapag-Lloyd for the fuel that had been delivered to the three ships. USOT instituted in rem actions against each of the ships in federal district courts in Washington and California and obtained arrest warrants for the ships. On the same day, Hapag-Lloyd filed an interpleader complaint in federal district court in New York and moved for an anti-suit injunction. The district court granted Hapag-Lloyd’s motion and enjoined the parties from instituting any other proceedings in any jurisdiction in the matter, including arrests of the ships. The court required Hapag-Lloyd to post an initial bond for the value of the claims. USOT filed a motion to vacate the injunction. The district court denied USOT’s motion, and USOT appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wesley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.