1

07-0833 -cv Co ns ub D e l aw ar e , LL C v . S chahinEn g e nhar iaL im it ada 1 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 August Term 2007 4 Docke t No. 07-0833-c v 5 (Argued: May

15, 2008 Dec ided: September 23, 2008) 6

_________________________________________________________________________ 7 CO NSU B DE L AWA RE L L C, 8 Plaintiff-Appellee , 9 v

. 10 SCHAHI

N ENGEN HARIA L I MI TADA, 11 12 De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt, 13 STANDARD CHARTERED B ANK, 14 Gar nishee. 15

_________________________________________________________________________ 16 B e fo re : CA RD AM ON E, MI NE R, a nd POO L ER, Cir c uit

Judg e s. 17 Appea l from a F ebrua ry 13, 2007 order

enter ed in the United States District Court for the 18 Southern District of Ne w York ( Scheindlin, J .) deny ing de fenda

nt-appe llant’s motion to vacate a 19 maritime writ of attachment ag ainst it and in favor of plaintiff-a

ppellee, the District Court having 20 found that funds that a re the subject of a

n elec tronic funds tra

nsfer are proper

ty subject to a 21 maritime attac hment while they are in the hands of a

n intermediar

y bank; and that c lauses in the 22 a g re e me nts be tw e e n th e pa rt ie s p ro vid ingfo r e xclu siv e jur isd ic tio n in the c ou rt s o f E ng land

did 23 not prec lude plaintiff-a ppellee f rom seekinga mar itime writ of attachme nt in the District Court 24 or

div e st the Di str ic t Co ur

t of jur isd ic tio n to iss ue su c h a wr it. 25 The judg ment of the District Court is aff irmed. 26 C H RI STO PH ER C AR L S ON (Mar la DiResta, on the 27 brief) , Cly de & Co. US L L P, New Yor k, NY, 28 fo r D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt.2 1 N EIL E. M C D O N ELL (Stephen M. Raa b, on the 2 brief) , Dorsey & Whitney

L L P, New Yor

k, NY, 3 for Plaintiff-A ppellee. 4 MI

NER, Circuit J udg e: 5 Def

endant- appellant Scha

hin Eng enhar ia L imitada (“Scha hin”) a ppeals fr om a Fe bruar

y 6 13, 2007 order

enter ed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York 7 (Scheindlin, J .) deny ing its motion to vacate a mar itime writ of attachme nt held by 8 pla int if

f- a pp e lle e Con su

b D e lawa re L L C ( “ Con su

b” ). Th e Di str ic t Co ur

t he ld, purs ua

nt t o 9 Wint er Storm Shipping, Ltd. v. TPI , 310 F.3d 263 ( 2d Cir. 2002), that funds that ar e the subjec t 10 of an e lectronic funds transf er ( “EF T”) a

re pr operty

subject to a mar itime attachment while they 11 are in t

he ha nd s o f a n inte rm e dia

ry ba nk . T he Di str ic t Co ur

t f ur the r f ound that c la us e s in 12 ag ree ments betwee n the par ties providing f

or exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arisingfrom 13 tho se a g re e me nts in t he c ourt s o f E ng land

did no t pr e c lud e Con su

b f ro m se e kin ga

mari tim e wr it 14 of

atta c hme nt i n th e Di str ic t Co ur t or div e st the Di str ic t Co ur

t of jur isd ic tio n to iss ue su c h a wr it. 15 For

the re asons that follow, the judg ment of the District Court is aff irmed. 16 BACK GR OUND 17 I

. Th e Agre e me nts 18 On

No ve mbe r 8 , 2 00 1, Con su b a nd Sc ha hin (a lon gwi th o the r p art ie s unr e late d to thi s 19 proce eding ) ente red into a novation ag ree ment (the “Novation Ag ree ment”) where by Consub 20 ag ree d to perfor

m for Schahin c erta in maritime obligations with respect to submarine fiber21 op tic s. Th e No vatio n A g re e me nt a nd its a c c omp anyingob lig atio ns we re e nte re d into p ur su ant t o 22 an existi ngag ree ment titled “ACMA 2001 Submarine Tele communications Cable Maintena nce 23 and Relate d Service s Ag ree ment,” date d J une 30, 2000 (the “ACMA Agree ment” and3 1 collectively , with the Novation Ag ree ment, the “Agree ments”), whic h was e x ecute d betwee n 2 Schahin and other parties unr elated to this ac tion. The Novation Ag ree ment provided that 3 Consub was to assume the oblig ations of one of the orig inal parties to the ACMA Agree ment and 4 there by

to become bound by

the ACMA Ag ree ment. Pursuant to these Ag ree ments, Consub 5 provided a

nd operated a ve ssel equipped to ca rry out maintenance and re port operations on 6 su bma ri ne fi be r- op tic c a

ble s lo c ate d o n th e high s e a s. 7 The ACMA Agree ment and the Novation Agr eeme nt eac h contained a forum sele ction 8 clause . Article 22.4 of the ACMA Ag ree ment provided that “ [t ]he Ag ree ment shall be 9 considere d as an A g ree ment made in Eng land and subjec t to English law unde r the e x clusive 10 jurisdiction of the courts of E ng land and Wales.” Article 3.2 of the Novation Agree ment 11 provided that “ [e] ach of the par ties here by

submit [ sic] to t he exclusive jurisdiction of the 12 En g lis h Co ur

ts i n r e latio n to any

dis pute or

c la im a ri sin gout of

or in c onne c tio n w iththi s 13 Novation Ag ree ment.” 14 Ea c h A g re e me nt a lso c on ta ine d a n a rb itr atio n c la

us e . A rt ic le 22 .5 of

the AC MA 15 Agre e me nt p ro vid e d, in r e le va nt p art , th at “ [a]s an a lte rn ativ e to l iti g atio n, and if the Part ie s so 16 ag ree , any

differ ence s of opinion which may arise in r espec t of the interpr etation and e x ecution 17 of the Agree ment and any dispute which may

subsist m ay

be settled in ac corda

nce w ith the Rules 18 of Arbitration and Conciliation of the International Chamber of Commerc e.” Article 3.3 of the 19 No vatio n A g re e me nt p ro vid e d, sim ila rl y , in re le va nt p art , th at “ [a]s an a lte rn ativ e to t he En g lis h 20 Court s, and

if the pa rt ie s so a g re e , a

ny dis pute or

c la im a ri sin gout of

or in c onne c tio n w iththi s 21 Novation Ag ree ment may be settled in ar

bitration in acc ordanc e with Clauses 22.5 and 22.6 of 22 the [ACMA] Ag ree ment.”4 1 The ACMA Agree ment further provided that “ [a] ny

decision or a

war d by the ar bitration 2 tribunal shall be fina l and binding upon the Parties . . . [and] m ay be enf orce d ag ainst the parties 3 to the arbitration procee ding or their asse ts where ver the y may be found. Judgment upon the 4 awa

rd may be ente red in a

ny court having jur isdiction thereof.” 5 I I

. Procee dings in L ondon 6 Con su

b c omm e nc e d p ro c e e din g s o n N ov e mbe r 2 6, 20 03 in t he Roya l Co ur

ts o f Jus tic e in 7 L ondon (the “ Eng lish P roce eding s”) in ac corda nce w ith the Ag ree ments’ forum se lection 8 clause s, in order to c ollect pay ments it alleg es ar e owe d for the se rvice s it performe d for Scha hin. 9 Sin c e the ini tiatio n o f t he En g lis h Pr oc e e din g s, Sc ha hin ha s f ile d v ari ou s a

pp lic atio ns in 10 B ra zilia

n c ourt s c la imi ngthat it

wa s n ot p ro pe rl y

se rv e d w ithpr oc e ss i n B ra zil, wh e re it i s 11 located. Consub ave rs that Schahin’s a im is m ere ly to delay the proc eeding s in L ondon. 12 Sc ha

hin ’s a pp lic atio ns c ur

re ntl y re ma in p e nd ing

in t he c ourt s in

B ra zil. 13 I I I

. Procee dings in the Southern D istrict of NewYork 14 On Novembe r 13, 2006, Consub filed a c omplaint in the United States District Court for 15 the Southe rn

Di str ic t of

Ne w Y or k s e e kin ga

mari tim e atta c hme nt a

nd g arn ishme nt p ur su ant t o 16 Sup ple me nta l Ru le B (“ Rul e B ” ) o f t he Sup ple me nta l Ru le s f

or Ce rt a in A dmi ra lty

and Ma ri tim e 17 Cla ims of

the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure (t he “ Ad mir a lty Rul e s” ) t o s e c ur e its c la im 18 ag ainst Schahin in the amount of $5,986,117.65, includingprincipal, intere st, and fee s. On 19 November

14, 2006, the District Court g rante d Consub’s reque st and issued an e x parte Orde r for 20 Process of Ma

ritime Attachment (“ Attachment Or der” ), which Consub there afte r ser ved on the 21 g arnishee s named ther ein, includingStandard Char tere d Ba nk. The Attac hment Orde r authorized 22 the attac hment of “a ll tangible or intang ible proper

ty belong ing to, c laimed by or beingheld for5 1 Schahin . . . in an amount up to and including$5,986,117.65.” 2 On

or a bo ut D e c e mbe r 1 , 2 00 6, in a n unr e late d tr ans a c tio n, Sc ha hin ins tr uc te d it s b ank

in 3 Br azil, Banc o Schahin S.A. (“B anco Scha hin”), to transf

er f unds in the amount of $4,281,767.96 4 from its acc ount at Ba nco Schahin to a third- party ’s U.S. dollar-de nominated ac count at Clariden 5 Ba nk in Z urich, Switzerland. B eca use this funds transfe r involved the c onversion of B razilian 6 rea is into Unit ed States dollars, the tra nsfer was route d throug h two intermediar y banks in the 7 Un ite d St ate s. On De c e mbe r 4 , 2 00 6, a ft e r r e c e ivi ngSc ha hin ’s tr ans fe r o rd e r, B anc o Sc ha hin in 8 turn issued its own transfe r orde r to intermediar y bank Standar d Charter ed B ank in New York. 9 Ba nco Schahin’ s transfe r orde r instructed Standa rd Charte red B ank, one of the g arnishee s named 10 in the Attachment Or der, to tra nsfer the funds, with a va lue date of Dec ember

4, 2006, to the 11 benef

iciary bank, Clariden B ank in Switz erla nd, via another

New Y ork intermedia

ry bank, B ank 12 of Ne w York. 13 On Dec ember 6, 2006, Standard Char

tere d Ba nk advised B anco Scha

hin that the 14 e le c tr on ic fu

nd s tr ans fe r o f $ 4, 28 1, 76 7. 96 be ingro ute d thro ug h it s b ank in a c c or da

nc e wi th 15 Ba

nco Schahin’ s pay

ment order

had bee n frozen in compliance with the Attachment Or der. 16 Followingthe attac hment of Schahin’s f unds at Standard Char

tere d Ba nk, Consub asked 17 Schahin to post a bank guara ntee in lieu of the attachme nt, but Schahin declined Consub’s 18 inv itatio n. Ins te a d, on De c e mbe r 1 5, 20 06 , Sc ha hin se rv e d Co ns ub wi th a

n o rd e r t o s ho w c a

us e 19 in supp ortof a m ot io n t o v acat e th e at tac hm ent , argui ng, i n p art , t hatfun ds in tr ans itvi a an E FT 20 are not “prope rty” within the meaningof Rule B of the Admira lty Rules and that Consub 21 there fore had not prope rly attache d the funds. Schahin a lso claimed that the for um selection 22 clause s in the Ag ree ments prohibited Consub from seekinga Rule B maritime attac hment6 1 throug h courts in New York. Schahin did not dispute that the District Court had persona l 2 jur isd ic tio n o ve r i t. 3 On Fe bruar y 13, 2007, the District Court denied Scha hin’s motion to vacate the 4 Attachment Or der, f ollowing our

decision in Wint er Storm Shipping, Ltd. v. TPI , 310 F.3d 263 5 (2d Cir. 2002), which he ld that funds in transit via EFTs a re subjec t to attachment under Rule B 6 wh ile in t

he ha nd s o f a n inte rm e dia

ry ba nk . Se e Con su

b D e l. L L C v. Sc ha

hin Eg e nh ari a 7 L imitada, 476 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) . The District Court stated that Winter Storm 8 “re mains g ood law and is bindingon this Court.” I d. at 311. The D istrict Court also rejec ted 9 Schahin’s for

um selection ar g ument, finding that “the Agree ments’ exclusive jurisdiction clauses 10 do not, and wer e not intended to, pre clude Rule B attachme nt in this Court.” I d. at 312. 11 Schahin moved in Dec ember 2006 for pe rmission to file an interlocutory appea l on the 12 EFT issue. I

n its Februa

ry 13, 2007 order

denying Scha

hin’s motion to vacate the A ttachment 13 Orde r, the District Court ce rtified the F ebrua ry 13, 2007 order

for inter locutory

appea l under 28 14 U. S.C. § 1 29 2( b) . I d. at 31 3 ( “ Th e so le g ro un d o n whic h Sc ha hin se e ks int e rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l is 15 thi s Co ur

t’ s d e c isi on

to f oll owWint e r S tor

m and ho ld t hat E F Ts are pr op e rt

y and thu s su bje c t to 16 Rule B attachment. I find that this issue warra nts imm ediate r eview on a ppeal.” ). Afte r the 17 Fe bruar

y 13, 2007 order

was issued, Scha

hin moved for c ertification of the forum sele ction issue 18 fo r i nte rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l. T he Di str ic t Co ur

t de nie d th at mo tio n. Th is C ourt g ra nte d Sc ha hin 19 permission to appea l the order on the basis of the EF T issue on April 20, 2007. The attached 20 fu

nd s o f $ 4, 28 1, 76 7. 96 re ma in f ro zen at Sta nd ard Cha rt e re d B ank

pe nd ingthe outc ome of

thi s 21 a pp e a l. 22 DI SCU SSIO N7 1 I

. J urisdiction 2 We have a ppellate jurisdiction to enter tain Schahin’s cla ims related to the que stions (1) 3 whether

Rule B pe rmits attachment of f unds in EFTs and ( 2) whe ther the f orum selec tion clauses 4 in the Ag ree ments prec lude a Rule B attachme nt. The District Court’s denia l of Schahin’s 5 mot ion

to c e rt if y the qu e sti on

re late d to the fo rum se le c tio n c la us e s is of no c on se qu e nc e be c a

us e 6 the District Court’s ce rtification of the EFT issue — in its Fe bruar y 13, 2007 order

denying 7 Schahin’s motion to vacate the Attachme nt Order — had the e ffe ct of c ertify ing the entire 8 F e br

ua ry 13 , 2 00 7 o rd e r, no t ju st the qu e sti on wh e the r f

un ds in E F Ts are su

bje c t to mari tim e 9 atta c hme nts wh ile in t he ha nd s o f i nte rm e dia

ry ba nk s. Se e Un ite d St ate s v . St anle y , 4 83 U. S. 10 669, 676–77 (1987) ( explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) “br ings the ‘orde r,’ not the que stion, 11 befor e the [appellate ] court”); City of Ne w York v. B ere tta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384, 391–92 12 (2d Cir. 2008) (“ When a district court c ertifies, pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a question of 13 controlling law, the e ntire orde r is cer tified and we may

assume jurisdiction over the entire or der, 14 not merely

over the question as fra

med by the district court.” ). 15 I I

. Standard of Re view 16 Th is C ourt re vie ws a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on

on a mot ion to v a c ate a

mari tim e 17 attachme nt order f or abuse of discre tion. Aqua Stoli S hipping Ltd. v. Gardne r Smith P ty L td., 18 460 F.3d 434, 439 ( 2d Cir. 2006). On appe al from a district court’s de termination as to the 19 applicability

of a f orum selec tion clause, we revie w fa ctual finding s for c lear err or and le g al 20 conclusions de novo. See Asoma Corp. v. SK Shipping Co., L td., 467 F.3d 817, 822 (2d Cir. 21 2006). 22 I I I

. Whether an EF T in the Hands of an Intermedia

ry Ba nk is the Property

of the Or iginator8 1 and is Subject to a Rule B Maritime Attachme nt 2 Schahin urg es us to apply New Y ork law — spe cifica lly , Article 4- A of Ne w York’ s 3 Uniform Commercia l Code — to answer the question whethe r funds that a re the subject of a

n 4 EF T r e ma in t

he pr op e rt

y of the or ig inator

wh ile the y

are he ld b y

an inte rm e dia

ry ba nk . Sc ha hin 5 conce des, as it must, that success on this argument is conditioned upon an over ruling of the 6 de c isi on

in Wi nte r S tor

m, whic h h e ld t

hat f un ds in t he ha nd s o f a n inte rm e dia

ry ba nk purs ua nt t o 7 an E F T a

re the pr op e rt

y of the or ig inator

and are the re fo re su

bje c t to a Rul e B mari tim e 8 atta c hme nt. 9 Schahin re lies on languag e in a f ootnote in Aqua Stoli that ex presse d doubt about the 10 ho ldi ngin Wi nte r S tor m and its re lia nc e on pr e c e de nt t

hat invo lve d f

or fe iture law. Aq

ua Sto li 11 no te d th at: 12 The c orre ctness of our decision in Wint er Storm see ms open to question, 1 3 e s p e c ia ll y it s r e li an c e o n[U n it e d

St ate s v . ] D a c c ar e tt , [6 F

. 3 d 3 7 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) ], 14 to h old

that E F Ts are pr op e rt

y of the be ne fi c iary

or se nd e r o f a

n E F T. B e c a

us e 15 Dac car ett was a forf eiture c ase, its holding that EFTs a re attachable assets does 1 6 n o tan s w e r th e m o r e s a l i e n tqu e s t i o no f w h o s e a s s e t s th e y

ar e w h i l e i ntr an s i t

. In 17 the a

bs e nc e of a fe de ra l r ule , w e wo uld

no rm a lly loo k to state law, wh ic h in thi s 18 case would be the Ne w York c odification of the Uniform Commercial Code, N .Y. 19 U.C.C. L aw § 4- A-502 to 504. Unde r state law , the EF T could not be attached 20 beca

use EF Ts are proper

ty of neither

the sende r nor the be nefic iary while pre sent 21 in an intermedia ry bank. I d. §§ 4-A-502 c mt. 4, 4-A-504 cmt. 1. 22 Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 446 n.6 (e mphasis in origina l). Our holdingtoday oug ht to jettis on any 23 sp e c ulatio n th at th is n ote in A qu a Sto li f or e tol d th e de mis e of

Wint e r S tor

m. A qu a Sto li 24 conce rned A dmiralty Rule E(4)( f), whic h g overns motions to vacate orde rs of attachment. 25 Although the attachme nt at issue in Aqua Stoli was of EF T funds, the que stion in t hat ca se wa s 26 not whether

those funds could pe rmissibly be attac hed but what the c orre ct standar d was forWe do not reac h today the question of whe ther funds involved in a n EFT e n route to a 1 defe ndant ar e subjec t to a Rule B attachment. Schahin petitioned this Court for a “ hearing e n banc.” Schahin claimed, ba sed 2 substantially

on the re asons it advanc es on appe al, that this case involves issues of exceptional importance beca

use of the pote ntial for the ( 1) ser ious disruption of the functioning of the Ne w York ba nking industry ; (2) cr eation of ne w law dire ctly at odds with exi sting fe dera l prec edent 9 1 vacatur of an a

ttachment orde r pursua

nt to Admiralty

Rule E(4)( f). See id. at 447 (discussing the 2 limit ed cir cumstance s under whic h districts courts may exercise discr etion to vacate Rule B 3 attachme nt orders ba sed on equitable g rounds). More over, f ootnote six , on its face , 4 acknow ledg ed that fe dera l law — i.e., Admira lty Rule B — g overns the que stion of who owns 5 the funds in an EF T as they pass throug h an interme diary bank. See id. at 446 n.6 (“In the 6 absenc e of a

fede ral rule [i .e. Rule B ], we would normally look to state law” to a

nswer the 7 question of “whose assets [the funds] are while in tra nsit.”). Fina lly , Aqua Stoli its elf a ffirme d 8 that the rule se t forth in Wint er Storm is the law of this jurisdiction. See id. at 436 (“ Under the 9 l aw o f t h i s C i rc u i t , E FT s t o [ ] o r f ro ma p arty

ar e a tt ac h ab l e b y

a c o urtas th ey

p as s th ro u gh 1 10 banks located in that court’s jurisdiction.” ( citing Winter Storm, 310 F.3d at 263)). 11 Ev e n if

the re e xiste d s ome qu e sti on a s to the via

bil ity of Wint e r S tor

m, i t is we ll 12 established in this Circuit that “one pane l of this Court cannot overr ule a pr ior dec ision of 13 another

panel, unless ther e has be en an inter veningSupreme Court dec ision that casts doubt on 14 [t his Court’s] controlling prec edent,” Veltri v. B ldg. Ser v. 32B- J Pension Fund, 393 F .3d 318, 15 327 (2d Cir. 2004) (inter nal quotation marks omitted), or unless a n en banc panel of

this Court 16 overr

ules the prior de cision, Anderson v. Rec ore, 317 F .3d 194, 201 (2d Cir. 2003). The re ha s 17 been no inter

veningSupreme Court ca se, and no de cision by an en ba nc pane l overrulingWint er 18 Sto rm . Moreove r, there is no justi fication for depa rting from the pr inciple of star e dec isis here 2and

Ne w Y or k St ate ba nk inglaw; and

(3 ) i nte rf e re nc e wi th t

he g oa l of un if or mity in m ari tim e attachme nts sought to be a chieve d in admiralty law. Schahin’ s petition was denied by this Court on November

8, 2007. 10 1 wher e Schahin ha s not shown that Wi nter Storm is unworkable, a nd wher e admira lty

jurisdiction 2 is the subject of c ong ressional leg islation and Congr ess re mains fre e to alter the Winter Storm 3 rule. 4 In any

event, Winter Storm was cor rec tly decide d. In Wint er Storm, this Court held that 5 “ EF T f

un ds in t he ha nd s o f a n inte rm e dia

ry ba nk may be atta c he d p ur su ant t o A dmi ra lty Rul e 6 B (1 )( a ). ” 31 0 F .3 d at 27 8. Rul e B (1 )( a ) p ro vid e s: 7 I f a de fenda nt is not found within t he district when a verifie d complaint pray

ing 8 for attachment and the aff idavit require d by

Rule B( 1)(b) are filed, a ve rified 9 complaint may contain a pr ay er f

or proc ess to attach the defe ndant’s tang ible or 10 intang ible persona l property — up to the amount sued for — in the hands of 11 g arn ish e e s n ame d in the pr oc e ss. 12 F ED . R. C IV . P. S UPP . R. B(1) (a) . Wint er Storm re lied on “the br oad, inclusive languag e of 13 Admiralty

Rule B( 1)(a )” a s well as the EF T ana ly sis in Dacca rett, 6 F .3d 37. In Dac car ett, the 14 United States g overnme nt attache d the proc eeds of illega l drugsales while the pr ocee ds were 15 be ingro ute d thro ug h inte rm e dia ry ba nk s in Ne w Y or k. Th e atta c hme nts we re ma de purs ua nt t o 16 21 U. S.C. § 8 81 (a )( 6) , whic h p ro vid e s f or the fo rf e iture to t he g ov e rnme nt o f “ [a]ll mon e y s, 17 neg otiable instruments, secur ities, or other thing s of value f urnished or intende d to be furnishe d 18 by

any person in exchang e for

a contr olled substance [as we ll as] all proceeds tra cea ble to such 19 an exchang e.” 21 U .S.C. § 881(a)(6) . The c laimants in Dacc are tt argued that the EF Ts wer e 20 “mer ely

elec tronic communications” and there fore wer e not seizable prope rty under the forf

eiture 21 statute. 6 F.3d at 54. Dacc are tt rejec ted that ar g ument, holding that “ an EF T while it takes the 22 form of a

bank cr edit at an inter

mediary bank is clea

rly a seizable re s under the f orfe iture11 1 statutes.” 6 F .3d at 55. 2 Acc ordingto Schahin, Dac car ett should be restric ted to the “na rrow” holding that the 3 proce eds of a

n illega l drugsale in the for m of an EF T at an inter

mediary bank constitute a r es 4 that can be seized under the f orfe iture statute. Schahin a rgues that the prope rty

owner ship of the 5 funds was not at issue in Dacc are tt because the proc eeds w ere forf eited to the g overnme nt at the 6 mo men t o f t he d rug sa le. S ee Ma nu facturas Int ’l , L td a. v . M frs . Ha no ver T rus t C o. , 7 92 F. 7 Supp. 180, 188 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (Unde r the for feiture statutes, the proc eeds of the illeg al drug 8 sales ar e “c onsidered f orfe ited [t o the g overnme nt] at the moment the illeg al ac t is commit ted.”)

. 9 Schahin’s ar g ument, howeve r, is belied by Dac car ett itself, which re fer red to United States v. 92 10 Bue na Vista Ave nue, 507 U.S. 111 (1993), f or the proposition that the Supreme Court ha s 11 clar ified “the g overnme nt cannot conte nd that it owns the defe ndant prope rties until a judgme nt 12 of for feiture is entere d” in favor of the g overnme nt. Dacc are tt, 6 F.3d at 53–54. 13 In Wint er Storm, this Court anticipated Schahin’s a rgument. This Court found that there 14 was no princ ipled distinction between the se izure pursuant to the for feiture laws in Dac car ett and 15 the a dmi ra lty

atta c hme nt at is su e in Wi nte r S tor m: 16 I t is of no moment that Dacc are tt was a drugcase and this is an admiralty case , or 17 that the civil forf eiture statute a

nd the Admiralty

Rules differ

in their descr iptions 18 of the c ircumstance s justify ing pr ocess a g ainst proper ty , or that in Dac car ett the 19 g overnme nt used Admiralty Rule C to arrest the f

unds while Wint er Storm used 20 Rule B to attac h them. These a re distinctions without a differ ence beca use they 21 do no t be ar u po n th e de c isi ve qu e sti on pr e se nte d, name ly , whe the r E F T f un ds in 22 the hands of a n intermediar

y bank ar e subjec t to interdiction by leg al proc ess. 23 Da c c are tt’ s h old ingthat su c h f un ds are su

bje c t to Ad

mir a lty Rul e C arr e st 24 fu

rn ish e s a uth or ity fo r t he c on c lus ion

that th e y are e qu a lly

su bje c t to Ad

mir a lty 25 Rule B attachment.Wint e r S tor m a lso dis c us se d th e un su c c e ssf ul a rgume nt m a de by

the c la ima

nts in 3 Dac car ett that the EF T transa ction was mer ely an ele ctronic c ommunication: Whil e cla imants would have us believe that modern tec hnology moved the funds fr om t he or ig inatin gba

nk thr ou g h th e int e rm e dia

ry ba nk to t he ir ult imate destination without stoppi ng , that was not the c ase. With eac h EFT a t least two separ ate tra

nsactions occ urre d: first, funds moved fr om the orig inating ba nk to the intermediar

y bank; then the inter

mediary bank wa s to transfer

the funds to the de sti natio n b ank

. . . . Whil e the tw o tr ans a c tio ns c an o c c ur a lmo st instantaneously , sometimes they are separ ated by

sever al day s. Each of

the amounts at issue was se ized at the intermediar y bank af ter the f irst transac tion had conclude d and bef

ore the second ha d begun. 310 F.3d. at 277 (quoting D acc are tt, 6 F.3d at 54). 12 1 Wint er Storm, 310 F.3d. a t 278. Even more to the point, W inter Storm rea soned, indepe ndent of 3 2 Dac car ett, that “[t] here is no question that feder al admira lty law re g ards a

defe ndant’s bank 3 acc ount as proper

ty subject to maritime attac hment under Rule B .” 310 F .3d at 276. This court 4 was ther efor e “[un]able to discern in admira lty law or e lsewher e a ba sis for re g arding[t he 5 defe ndant’s funds] in [ the intermedia ry bank’s] hands prior to their e lectronic transfe r to [the 6 plaintiff’s bank a ccount] as any thing other

than funds held by

[t he interme diary

bank] for the 7 acc ount of [the defenda nt] .” I d. 8 Sc ha

hin ur g e s u s to a

pp ly Ne w Y or k’ s U nif or m Co mme rc ia l Co de , N .Y .U .C. C. L AW §§ 9 4-A-502–04 to the que stions of (1) whe ther funds in a n EFT ma y be seized at a

n intermediar

y 10 ba

nk and (2 ) who owns the fu

nd s a s th e y

pa ss t hr ou g h th e int e rm e dia

ry ba nk . A c c or din gto 11 Sc ha

hin , p ro pe rt

y ri g hts have tr a dit ion a lly

be e n a do ma in o f s tate law; Ne w Y or k’ s st atus a s a 12 fi na

nc ia l c e nte r j us tif

ie s th e a pp lic atio n o f N e w Y or

k la w; and the a pp lic atio n o f Art ic le 4- A w ill 13 pr omo te a dmi ra lty law’ s g oa l of

un if or mity . Se c tio n 4 -A -5 03 pr ov ide s: 14 For

proper cause and in compliance with applicable la w, a c ourt may

restra in (i) a pe rson 15 from issuing a pay ment order

to initi ate a

funds transf

er, ( ii) an orig inator’s ba

nk fromConsub argues that under New Y ork law, Scha

hin actually

reta ined control ove r the 4 funds while they

wer e in transit. Acc ordingto Consub, the series of de bits and cre dits invol ved in the EFT w as g overne d by Schahin’s instructions, see N .Y. U.C.C. L AW § 4-A-302( 1)(a ), and Schahin re tained ce rtain rig hts and risks in connec tion with the transfer , including a g ener al “money back guara

ntee” if the transf

er w as not completed a

nd potentially

a rig ht to interest if the pay ment was de layed, see N.Y. U.C.C. L AW §§ 4- A- 30 5, 40 2( 3) -( 4) & c mt. 2. Sc ha hin a lso reta ined a r isk of loss with respect to the f unds to the ext ent it was re sponsible for the f ailure of the EF T to be prope rly

completed. See N.Y. U.C.C. L AW § 4-A-402( 5) & cmt. 2. Be cause New York l aw d oes no t ap pl y

here to th e is su e of t he p erm is si bi li ty of t he at tac hm entof t he E FT funds, we do not r eac h questions of Schahin’s prope rty interest in the funds unde r Ne w York law. 13 1 executing the pay ment order

of the orig inator, or ( iii) the benef iciary ’s bank f

rom 2 rele asingfunds to the bene ficiar y or the be nefic iary

from withdra

wingthe funds. A c ourt 3 may

not otherwise r estrain a

person f rom issuing a

pay ment order , paying or

rec eiving 4 pay

ment of a pa

y ment order , or otherw ise ac ting with re spect to a f unds transfe r. 5 N.Y. U.C.C. L AW § 4 -A -5 03 . Se c tio n 4 -A -5 02 pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art : “ Cr e dit or pr oc e ss 6 with respec t to a pay ment by the orig inator to the bene ficiar y pursuant to a f

unds transfe r may

be 7 serve d only

on the bene ficiar

y ’s bank . . . . Any

other ba nk serve d with the cre ditor proce ss is not 8 oblige d to act with re spect to the proc ess.” N.Y . U.C.C. L AW 4-A-502( 4). Schahin fur ther re lies 9 on Aqua Stoli for the proposition that under N ew Yor k’s U.C.C., funds that are the subject of a n 10 EF T at an inte rm e dia ry ba nk c ann ot b e atta c he d und e r R ule B “ be c a

us e [und e r N e w Y or

k St ate 11 law] EFTs ar e prope rty of neither

the sende r nor the be nefic iary while pre sent in an intermedia ry 12 bank.” A qua Stoli, 460 F3d. at 446 n.6 (c iting N.Y. U .C.C. §§ 4-A-502 cmt. 4 (“ [A] cre ditor of 13 the orig inator ca

nnot rea ch any

other funds be cause no proper ty of the orig inator is being 14 transfe rre d.”), 4- A-504 c mt. 1). Acc ordingto Schahin, the fore g oing e stablishes that EFTs a re 15 the prope rty

of the interme diary

bank. Section 4-A -502, howe ver, me rely provides that 16 intermediar

y banks nee d not act with re spect to proc ess serve d upon them — it does not vest the 17 proper

ty interest in those funds in the interme diary bank. Footnote 6 of

Aqua Stoli, therefor e, 414 1 pr ov ide s n o s up po rt fo r S c ha hin ’s argume nt t

hat inte rm e dia

ry ba nk s o wn the EF T f

un ds in t he ir 2 possession. 3 In any

event, the outc ome of these questions under Ne w York la w is not determinative 4 here wher e, as Scha hin does not dispute, admiralty jurisdiction ex ists. S chahin r elies on B anque 5 Wor

ms v . B ank

Am e ri c a Int’ l, 7 7 N .Y .2 d 3 62 , 3 72 (N .Y . 1 99 1) , whic h e xpla ine d: 6 B oth

the

. . . d ra ft e rs of Ar tic le 4Aand

the Ne w Y or

k L e g isl atur e so ug ht t o 7 a c h ie v e a

nu mb e r o f im p o rta n t p o li c y g o a ls thr o u g he n a c tm e n t o f [A rti c le 4

- A ]. 8 National uniformity in the treatment of elec tronic funds tra nsfer s is an important 9 g oal, as a

re spe ed, ef

ficienc y , cer

tainty (i.e., to ena

ble par ticipants in fund 1 0 tr an s f

e r s t o h av e b e t t e r

un d e r s t an d i n go f

th e i r r i g h t s an d

l i a b i l i t i e s ) , an d

f i n a l i ty. 11 77 N.Y.2d at 372. B anque Worms, howeve r, did not involve admiralty jurisdiction, and 12 Schahin does not dispute that the Agree ments involved here are maritime contra cts. “The 13 use of the pr ocess of attachme nt in civil causes of ma ritime jurisdiction by

courts of 14 admiralty

. . . has pre vailed duringa per iod ext endingas fa r bac k as the a

uthentic history 15 of those tribunals ca n be tra ced.” Atkins v. Disintegr atingCo., 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 272, 16 303 (1874). We have previously elabor ated on the policy

rea sons supporting the 17 a pp lic atio n o f R

ule B , r athe r t

ha n s tate law, to m ari tim e atta c hme nts : 18 [G] iven the importanc e of ma ritime attachme nt, . . . leavingthe func tional 19 us e fu lne ss o f R ule B atta c hme nts to t

he va g ari e s o f t

he laws of

fi ft y state s w ou ld 20 c re ate a

me a sure of

ana rc hy in a fe de ra l sc he me de signe d to ins ur e that ma ri tim e 21 actor s may be sued where their prope rty is found. Such anar chy

would be 22 inconsistent with an ancie nt purpose of a dmiralty law in providingconvenie nt fora 23 for those who want to enf orce rig hts under mar itime law ag ainst hard- to-catch 24 defe ndants. I t would also be detrimenta l to international commerc e. 25 Aurora

Maritime Co. v. Abdullah Mohamed F ahem & Co., 85 F.3d 44, 48–49 (2d Cir. 1996). 26 Th e se po lic ie s le nd su pp or t to Con su

b’ s a rgume nt t hat E F T f un ds sh ou ld b e pa

rt ic ula rl y 27 susceptible to Rule B attachments, g iven the ea se of mobility of both funds and de fenda nts. SeeThis clause in the A CMA Ag ree ment might also be char acte rized as a c hoice- of-law 5 clause , but the applicability of Eng lish subst antive law is not at issue he re.

15 1 id. at 49 (“ [I ]n li g ht o f t he mob ili ty

of mari tim e de fe nd ants and the ir c a pit a l, p e rm itt ing[state 2 law] to trump Rule B attachme nts would undermine a r ule upon which mar itime actors re ly . . . .” 3 (interna l quotation marks omitted)). New York lawhas no ef

fec t on the applicability

of Rule B 4 to f

un ds inv olv e d in

EF Ts wh ile the y

are in t he ha nd s o f i nte rm e dia

ry ba nk s: “ B e c a

us e that r ule 5 is derived f

rom fede ral law , there is no occa sion to look for g uidance in state law.” Wint er 6 Storm, 310 F.3d at 278. Ac cording ly , we a ffirm the D istrict Court’s application of Winter Storm 7 to t

his c a se and

its c on c lus ion

that th e fu

nd s h e ld b y

Sta nd ard Cha rt e re d B ank

we re se iza

ble 8 under the Attachment Or der. 9 I V. Whether the F orum Selection Clauses Prec lude a Rule B Attachment 10 Schahin’s sec ond argument in support of vac atur of the Attachment Or der is base d on the 11 forum sele ction clause s in the Ag ree ments. The for um selection cla

use in the Novation 12 Ag ree ment provides: “Ea ch of the parties he reby submit [ sic] to t he exclusive jurisdiction of the 13 En g lis h Co ur

ts i n r e latio n to any

dis pute or

c la im a ri sin gout of

or in c onne c tio n w iththi s 14 Novation Ag ree ment.” The forum sele ction clause in the ACMA Ag ree ment states that “[t] he 15 Ag ree ment shall be consider ed as a n Ag ree ment made in Eng land and subjec t to English law 16 under the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Eng land and Wales.” Schahin’s theor y is that 5 17 Rule B mar itime attachments ca n survive for

um selection cla

uses only wher e those c lauses ar e 18 expressly

restric ted to disputes on the merits. Schahin claims that the for um selection cla

uses 19 express the intent of the par ties that all judicial proce eding s, including a ll prejudg ment 20 attachme nt proce eding s, be conduc ted exclusively in the Eng lish Courts. The District Court16 1 dis a g re e d, c on c lud ingthat “ the la ngua g e of the No vatio n A g re e me nt’ s f or um s e le c tio n c la

us e is 2 unambig uous and . . . the Agree ments’ exclusive jurisdiction clauses do not, and we re not 3 intended to, pre clude Rule B attachme nt in this Court.” Consub Del. L L C, 476 F. Supp. 2d at 4 312. 5 “The primary objective of

a cour t in interpretinga contr act is to g ive ef fec t to the intent of 6 the par

ties as re veale d by

the languag e of the ir ag ree ment.” Compag nie Fina ncier e de CI C et de 7 L ’Union Europe enne v. Me rrill Ly nch, Pierc e, F enner

& Smith I nc., 232 F .3d 153, 157 (2d Cir. 8 2000) (c iting Say ers v. Roche ster Te l. Corp. Supplemental Mgmt. Pension Plan, 7 F.3d 1091, 9 1094 (2d Cir.1993)). 10 Acc ordingto Schahin, the “in re lation” and “ in connec tion with” clauses de monstrate that 11 the fo rum se le c tio n c la us e a pp lie s to any

dis pute re late d to the No vatio n A g re e me nt, and no t ju st 12 to disputes concer ning the merits. The District Court conc luded that a Rule B attachme nt “in no 13 wa

y int e rf e re s w iththe e xclu siv e jur isd ic tio n o f t he En g lis h Co ur

ts t o d e c ide any

matte r ‘ in 14 relation to any

dispute or claim’ a

rising out of

the Ag ree ments.” Consub Del. L L C, 476 F. Supp. 15 2d at 312. The D istrict Court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s dec ision in P olar Shipping Ltd. v. 16 Or ie nta l Sh ipp ingCor p. , 6 80 F .2 d 6 27 , 6 31 (9 th C ir . 1 98 2) , whic h r e a so ne d th at a c la us e 17 pr ov idi ngthat “ [a]ny dis pute ari sin gun de r t

he c ha rt e r s ha ll b e de c ide d b y

the En g lis h Co ur

ts” 18 did not demonstrate an “ inten[t ] t o limit proce eding s to obtain prejudg ment secur ity ” to the 19 Eng lish Courts because a Rule B “ attachme nt does not fit neatly within the word ‘dispute.’” I d. 20 at 63 2 ( fi rs t a lte ratio n in or ig ina l) . T he Di str ic t Co ur t a lso no te d th at ot

he r c ourt s w ith in t

his 21 Circuit have f

ollowed the re asoningin Polar Shippi ng . See Consub Del. L L C, 476 F. Supp. 2d at 22 31 1 n .3 4 (ci ti ng, e. g., S ea Tra ns po rtCo nt ract ors , L td . v . I ndus . C hem iques duS enegal , 4 11 F.17 1 Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Staronset Shipping Ltd. v. N. Star Navig ation Inc., 659 F . Supp. 2 189 (S.D.N.Y. 1987))

. 3 Schahin claims that the District Court’s a naly sis “ignor es the thre shold issue” of what 4 exactly

the par ties ag ree d to. We disagr ee. I n addition to the plain lang uag e of the forum 5 se le c tio n c la

us e s, the Di str ic t Co ur

t lo ok e d at th e arb itr atio n c la us e in t he AC MAAgre e me nt, 6 which stated that an ar bitration awa

rd “ma y be enf orce d ag ainst the parties to the a rbitration 7 proce edingor their a ssets where ver the y may be found.” Fr om that lang uag e, the c ourt rea soned 8 that the par

ties “anticipate[d] the involvement of c ourts outside of Eng land for the purpose of 9 satis fy

ingan e ve ntu a l ju dg me nt. ” Con su b D e l. L L C, 4 76 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 31 3. Sc ha

hin 10 e mph a size s th e fa c t th at th e arb itr atio n c la us e re fe rs to o the r c ourt s b e sid e En g lis h c ourt s 11 wh e re a s th e lit ig atio n f or um s e le c tio n c la

us e do e s n ot. We a g re e wi th C on su b th at Sc ha

hin 12 offe rs no re ason why the par ties would have a g ree d to make collate ral e nforc ement proc edure s 13 available worldwide f or ar bitration but not for litigation. 14 Con su

b a lso argue s th at un de r E ng lis h la w, e xclu siv e jur isd ic tio n c la us e s a re c on str ue d to 15 exclude applications for ancillar y relief made in other

jurisdictions. The District Court 16 c on sid e re d th is a

rgume nt, c iti ngto C on su

b’ s e xpe rt on En g lis h la

w a nd no tin gthat un de r E ng lis h 17 law, cla

uses providingfor e x clusive jurisdiction in the Eng lish courts do not lim it pre-judg ment 18 attachme nt proce eding s to the chosen f orum. Consub Del. L L C, 476 F. Supp. 2d at 311 n.34 19 (“Eng lish law is consistent with the approac h followed in Polar Shipping.” (citingDec laration of 20 Timothy

J ean- Paul Howe, Consub’s pre fer red e x pert on Eng lish law, as to Eng lish law on 21 Ex clusive Jurisdi ction Clauses)). 22 We conclude that the Ag ree ment is subject to the jurisdiction of the Eng lish courts and18 1 that an attac hment “does not fit neatly ” into the word “ Ag ree ment,” see Polar Shipping, 680 F .2d 2 at 632. Schahin has not de monstrated how the f orum selec tion clauses in the Novation 3 Ag ree ment and the ACMA Agree ment are differ ent from other forum sele ction clause s that have 4 been he ld not to divest courts outside of the selec ted forum of admiralty

jurisdiction. 5 CO NC LU SION 6 For

the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the District Court is AFF I RMED.