09- 089 4- cv

Optim um Sh ipp ing & Tradin g S.A. v. Pre

stige M arine Services P

te. Lim ited
UN ITED STA

TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by summar

y order do not have precedenti al effect. Citationto summ ary ord ers filed after

January 1, 2007, is perm itted an d is governed b y this c o ur t’ s Local Rule 32 .1 and F ed er al Ru le of App ella te P r oc ed ur e 32 .1. In abrie f o r oth er pap er inwh ic h l it ig an t c it es a su m m ar y o r de r , i n e achpa r ag r ap h i n whi cha ci ta ti onap pe ar s, atle aston e ci ta ti onm us t e it he r be to th e Federal Append ix or be accompanied by t he notat ion: “(s um mary order) .” A party citing a sum m a r

y o r d e r m u st se r

v e a c o p y o f t h a t su m m a r y o r d e r t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p a p e r in which the summar

y order is cit ed on any party n ot rep resented by coun sel unless the summary or de r is a vai la bl e i n a n e le ct r on ic da ta ba se whi ch is pu bl ic ly acc essi bl e wit ho ut pa ym en t of fe e (such as the datab ase available at ht tp :/ /w ww. ca 2.usc ou r ts .g ov / ). If no copy is served by reason of th e availability of th e order on such a database, the cit ation must include referen ce to that d atabase and the docket numb er of t he case in which the or der was entered. At a stated term

of the Un ited States Court of Appeals for the Second Cir cuit, held atthe Daniel Pat rick Moynihan Un ited Stat es Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New Y ork, onth e 1 da

y o f D ece m be r , t

wo th ou san d n in e. st
Pres ent: J OS É A. C AB R ANES ,

C HEST ER J. S T R AU B , R I C HA R D C. W ES L EY , Circuit Jud ges .

__________________________________________________ O P T I MUM S HI P P I NG & T R A DI NG S.A ., Pl aint iff -A ppe lla nt ,

v. No . 09 -0 894 -c v P R ES T I GE M

AR I NE S E RV I C E S P TE
. L I MI T ED , Defenda nt-App ellee

.

_________________________________________________2

FOR APP ELLANT: P ETER J. G UTOW S KI (M anu el A. M ol in a, Edwa r d J . Car

ls on , on the brief

), Fr eeh ill Ho gan & M ahar , L

LP , N ew Yo r k, N Y.

F OR AP P ELLEE : A L A N H EBLA CK , ( B r ianD. St ar er , on the brief

), Squi r e, S and er s and Dem ps ey, L .L .P ., N ew Yo r k, NY. App eal f r om th e Unit ed S tat es Di s tr ict Cou r t f or th e So uther n D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( J ed S

. Rako ff , J. ).
UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND DE CRE ED that the order of the United Sta tes Dis trict Court for the Southern Distr

ict of New York be VAC ATED and REMAN DE D

. Plaintiff Optimum Shipping & Tr ading S. A. appe als from a February 26, 2009 order of the Di stri ctC ou rt. W hi le thi s a pp ea l w a s sub ju dice , we d ecid ed Shipp ing Corp. of India Ltd . v. Jaldhi O verseas Pte Ltd. , N os . 08 -3 477 -c v(

L) , 08 -3 758 -c v(

XAP ),

__ _ F .3d

__ _, 200 9 WL

331 967 5 (

2d Cir . O ct . 16 , 20 09) , in which w e overruled Win ter Stor m Shi ppi ng, Ltd . v. TPI , 31 0 F .3d263 (2 d Ci r . 20 02) , an d h eld th at e lectr onic fu nd tr ans fe r s bei ng p r oce s s ed b y in te r mediar y ban ks ar e no lo nge r

s ub ject to att achm ent

un der Rul e B

. I n an other

r ecen t d ecis io n, Hawknet, Ltd . v. Overseas Shipp ing Agencies , N o. 09- 212 8- cv, __

_ F .3d

__ _, 200 9 WL 3790654 (2d Cir. Nov. 13, 200 9), we he ld that our decision in Shi pping Co rp. o f I ndia app lie s r et r oact ive ly. Acco r di ngl

y, we VACAT E the Distr

ict Court’s order and REMA ND the matter to the Distr ict Court with instructions to enter an order to s how ca use why it should not dismis s the complaint for l a ckof p er son a l j uri sdi ctio n i n l ig ht o f th ese re ce nt d ec isi on s.

For the Court Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk By: ______________________