IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30280

INTERNATIONAL MARINE, L.L.C.; INTERNATIONAL OFFSHORE

SERVICES, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

DELTA TOWING, L.L.C.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge:

The district court entered an order declaring enforceable under general

maritime law a liquidated damages provision in a contract between DefendantAppellee Delta Towing, L.L.C. and Plaintiffs-Appellants International Marine,

L.L.C. and International Offshore Services, L.L.C. Upon Plaintiffs’ motion, the

district court certified the order as a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 54(b), and Plaintiffs now appeals. We AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 8, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-30280 Document: 00512105709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2013
No. 12-30280

I. BACKGROUND

A. Negotiations Lead to Vessel Sales Agreement

On September 8, 2006, International Marine, L.L.C. entered into a Vessel 1

Sales Agreement (“VSA”) with Delta Towing, L.L.C. (“Delta”) wherein

International purchased two tugboats from Delta for $4 million. The companies’

agreement was preceded by several months of negotiations between

International’s president, Stephen Williams, and counsel, Peter Rouse, and the

treasurer of Delta’s parent company, Darren Vorst. Throughout the

negotiations, Williams was clear that the vessels were for “in house” use and

would not be used to compete with Delta. Delta initially declined to sell the

vessels because it intended to use them to grow its business, but ultimately

agreed to sell them subject to its standard non-compete language.

The signed VSA includes a liquidated damages provision (“LD Provision”)

that, inter alia, provided for a $250,000 payment for, inter alia, each violation

of the non-competition clause. This figure had been the subject of significant

negotiations between Rouse and Delta, and its magnitude had dropped

significantly over several rounds of negotiations, from a starting figure of $4

million per violation.

B. Liquidated Damages and Related Provisions

The VSA contains two relevant contract provisions. The first, Paragraph

11F, is a non-competition clause between International (Buyer) and Delta

(Seller), which reads as follows:

F. Covenant Regarding Name/Use of Vessels/Hiring of

Crews. . . . Buyer represents that it is purchasing the

Vessels for use with Buyer’s owned or chartered

equipment in support of Buyer’s internal operations. 

International Offshore Services, L.L.C. served as International Marine, L.L.C.’s

1

guarantor in the subsequently signed Vessel Sales Agreement. Collectively, we refer to both

companies as “International.”

2

 Case: 12-30280 Document: 00512105709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2013
No. 12-30280

Inasmuch, Buyer covenants and agrees that neither it

nor any of its affiliated companies will charter

out or enter into towing contracts or otherwise

utilize or permit anyone else to utilize the Vessels

for hire (collectively “Charters Out”) in the inland or

offshore waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico . . . (the

“Covered Trade”) for a period of five (5) years from the

date of this Agreement (the “Covered Term”). . . .

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event Buyer or

its affiliated companies wish to Charter Out

either or both of the Vessels in the Covered Trade

during all or part of the Covered Term, Buyer

shall be obligated to time charter the applicable

Vessels to Seller for Seller to enter into Charters

Out with customers acceptable to Seller . . . .

VSA ¶ 11F (emphasis added). Thus, in the event International decided to

compete with Delta for third-party charters, it was first obligated to notify Delta

and give it the option of operating charters itself. If Delta chose to operate the

charter, it would remit ninety percent of the gross charter fee to International. 

If Delta was unable to secure charter customers for the vessels within a

reasonable period of time, International was permitted to operate its own

charters and would remit ten percent of the charter fee to Delta. Additionally,

the charter hire rate charged to customers had to be reasonably agreeable to

both Delta and International.

The VSA’s LD Provision, Paragraph 11G, reads as follows:

G. Liquidated Damages. The consideration for the

provisions in paragraph 11F and this paragraph 11G is

that the above Purchase Price is below the fair market

price of the Vessels at the time of sale and other good

and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency

of which is hereby acknowledged and confessed. In the

event Buyer or its affiliated companies or other

subsequent owner, manager, or charter of the

Vessels violates any of the covenants and

agreements in paragraph 11F, Buyer shall pay to

3

 Case: 12-30280 Document: 00512105709 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2013
No. 12-30280

Seller as liquidated damages, and not as a

penalty, the greater of (i) the sum of Two

Hundred Fifty Thousand and no/100 Dollars

($250,000.00) per incident or occurrence or (ii) if

applicable the gross amount of revenue earned in

violation of such covenant and agreement with

respect of the incident or occurrence in question

. . . . All liquidated damages shall be payable within 30

days of notice of the violation. It is understood that the

resultant damages of any such breach of the

covenants and agreements contained in

paragraph 11F would be difficult to ascertain

with certainty but that the amount stipulated

herein is a good faith reasonable estimate of the

damages Seller would suffer. . . . In no event shall

any party or the affiliated companies thereof or the

respective shareholders, officers, directors, employees,

agents, or representatives thereof circumvent or

attempt to circumvent the provisions of paragraph 11F

or this paragraph 11G by any means, direct or indirect.

VSA ¶ 11G (emphasis added).

C. Delta Discovers Breach of VSA ¶ 11F

In July 2008, Delta notified International that it had become aware that

the vessels had been chartered without Delta’s knowledge in violation of the

VSA. International responded in late November 2008 by remitting a check for

$53,293.33, which it claimed was the extent of the “owed commissions.” Delta

refused to accept the check as the full amount owed and requested material

backing up International’s figure. In early 2009, while conducting an audit with

one of Delta’s employees, International discovered that it owed Delta an

additional $37,657, which it remitted in another check. Delta refused to

negotiate this check as well, and later sent a demand letter for the liquidated

damages amount multiplied by the alleged thirty-six charters that breached the

4

 Case: 12-30280 Document: 00512105709 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/08/2013
No. 12-30280

VSA, which totaled $9 million. International has conceded it breached the

contract by operating twenty-seven charters.

D. International Seeks Declaratory Judgment

In December 2009, Delta sued International in Texas state court for

breaching the VSA, including for failing to timely remit multiple charter

payments. The VSA’s forum selection clause mandates the parties resolve their

dispute in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 

Therefore, International filed the instant suit, seeking a declaratory judgment

that it had not breached the VSA and that the LD Provision was an

unenforceable penalty as a matter of law. Delta counterclaimed for breach of

contract, seeking enforcement of the LD Provision. Judge McNamara was

assigned to the case. The parties engaged in discovery, including conducting

depositions.

On March 11, 2011, in a detailed and well-reasoned Order and Reasons,2

Judge McNamara granted Delta’s motion for summary judgment in part and

denied International’s motion, finding the LD Provision was enforceable. The

McNamara Order declined to resolve the issue of damages. Subsequently, Judge

McNamara retired, and the case was reassigned to Judge Fallon. International

then filed a Motion to Vacate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)

and a Motion to Reconsider based on additional testimony obtained from Delta’s

former damages expert and Chief Operating Officer, Barry Matherne, who had

left Delta since his previous deposition. On February 13, 2012, the district court

denied International’s motion in its entirety and reaffirmed that the LD

Provision was enforceable. The Fallon Order specifically declined to revisit the 3

merits of the McNamara Order, and instead focused on whether the new

 Hereinafter, we will refer to this order as the “McNamara Order.”

2

 Hereinafter, we will refer to this order as the “Fallon Order.” 3

5

 Case: 12-30280 Document: 00512105709 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/08/2013
No. 12-30280

Matherne deposition changed the analysis as to whether the LD Provision was

enforceable. The Fallon Order concluded that it did not.

International then moved for Judge Fallon to certify the judgment as final

or for interlocutory appeal. On March 16, 2012, Judge Fallon certified the Fallon

Order as a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 

International timely appealed.3

II. DISCUSSION

At its core, International’s argument is that both the McNamara and

Fallon Orders erred when they held the LD Provision was enforceable. 

International raises several specific points of error in the Orders, including

improper consideration of the parties’ negotiating capacities and the application

of an improper standard of review.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same

standard as the district court. QT Trading, L.P. v. M/V Saga Morus, 641 F.3d

105, 108 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate

when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Factual

controversies are construed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, but

only if both parties have introduced evidence showing that an actual controversy

exists.” QT Trading, 641 F.3d at 108 (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). We review the district court’s judgment, and our analysis need not be

based solely on the district court’s stated reasons. See Cambridge Integrated

Delta briefly asserts that International has not properly appealed the McNamara and 3

Fallon Orders. Although Delta does not press this argument, we are “obligated to examine the

basis for our jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary.” In re Cortez, 457 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir.

2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have determined that we have

jurisdiction over this appeal.

Additionally, the VSA states that it is governed according to general maritime law and

Louisiana law, if applicable. Judge McNamara determined the LD Provision was subject to

general maritime law, a determination the parties have not appealed.

6

 Case: 12-30280 Document: 00512105709 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/08/2013
No. 12-30280

Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Concentra Integrated Servs., Inc., 697 F.3d 248, 253 (5th Cir.

2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (“We are not limited to the

district court’s reasons for its grant of summary judgment and may affirm the

district court’s summary judgment on any ground raised below and supported

by the record.”).

The interpretation of maritime contract terms is a matter of law we review

de novo. One Beacon Ins. Co. v. Crowley Marine Servs., Inc., 648 F.3d 258, 262

(5th Cir. 2011). When interpreting maritime contracts, federal admiralty law

rather than state law applies. See Har-Win, Inc. v. Consol. Grain & Barge Co.,

794 F.2d 985, 987 (5th Cir. 1986) (collecting citations). Whether a liquidated

damages clause is a penalty is a question of law. Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. 27,946

Long Tons of Corn, 830 F.2d 1321, 1331 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). The

burden of proving that a liquidated damages clause is a penalty is on the party

urging for it to be viewed as a penalty. Farmers Exp. Co. v. M/V Georgis Prois,

799 F.2d 159, 162 (5th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

A. Applicable Law

In interpreting liquidated damages clauses in maritime contracts, we

apply the Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section 356 comment b (the

“Restatement”) to determine whether such a clause is “so unreasonably large as

to be a penalty.” We have explained the comment’s two-part test as follows:

The first factor is the anticipated or actual loss caused

by the breach. The amount fixed is reasonable if it

approximates the actual loss that has resulted from a

particular breach, even though it may not approximate

the loss that might have been anticipated under other

possible situations, or if the breach approximates the

loss anticipated at the time of making the contract,

even though it does not approximate the actual loss. 

The second factor is the difficulty of proof of loss. The

greater the difficulty of proof of loss, the more flexibility

7

 Case: 12-30280 Document: 00512105709 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/08/2013
No. 12-30280

is allowed in approximating the anticipated or actual

harm.

Farmers Exp., 799 F.2d at 162 (citations omitted).

Our circuit precedent in the context of maritime liquidated damages is

limited to two cases: Farmers Export, 799 F.2d 159, and Louis Dreyfus, 830 F.2d

1321. Both concern liquidated damages that attached when a vessel overstayed

its timeslot at a berth. In Farmers Export, we upheld a $5,000 per hour

liquidated damages charge as reasonable and not a penalty. 799 F.2d at 165. 

In reaching this conclusion, we noted that while “the reasonableness of the

damages [is] a question of law, in making that determination we rely on the

findings of fact of the district court.” Id. at 164. We therefore viewed as

persuasive the district court’s factual findings that $5,000 was a reasonable

forecast of the grain facility owner’s damages. Id. at 165. To reach that

conclusion, the district court considered expert testimony about actual damage 

estimates and the charges levied by other grain elevators. Id. at 164.

In Louis Dreyfus, we refused to enforce a liquidated damages clause that

assessed a $30,000 per day liquidated damages charge to a ship that failed to

vacate its loading berth. 830 F.3d at 1332. We stated that the “district court

was entitled to find” that the charge, which was based on a “reasonable preestimate of” the damages that would accrue in a full calendar day, “is excessive

when the vessel occupies the berth for a much shorter time.” Id.

B. Analysis

Our review of the record shows that Delta’s concerns about

competition—and International’s assurances that it would not compete with

Delta—were critical in the negotiations that led to the sale of the vessels, and

they underpin the LD Provision. This conclusion anchors our analysis of the

Restatement’s factors.

8

 Case: 12-30280 Document: 00512105709 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/08/2013
No. 12-30280

Pursuant to our precedent, we first examine the second Restatement factor

“because the more difficult it is to prove damages, the more leeway the court

allows in determining whether the liquidated damages are reasonably related

to anticipated damages.” Farmers Exp., 799 F.2d at 162. Contrary to

International’s assertions, the damage that would accrue from International’s

breach of VSA Paragraph 11F was not just the ten-percent fee International

owed when it chartered out the vessels. Instead, and more importantly, it was

also Delta’s inability to prevent competition, leading to the potential loss of

customers, business opportunities and market share due to International’s

failure to notify Delta of its intent to compete.

International does not dispute the difficulty in estimating damages before

a non-competition clause is breached. We have previously recognized that it is

difficult to calculate the damage that results when a covenant not to compete is

breached. See Blase Indus. Corp. v. Anorad Corp., 442 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.

2006) (“[C]ovenants not to compete often include a liquidated damages provision

to avoid the difficulty of calculating damages.”). The McNamara Order

considered testimony about the difficulty of estimating damages ex ante, and we

agree with its conclusion that these damages are difficult to prove. Therefore,

we have—and the district courts properly had—“more leeway” in determining

whether the LD Provision is reasonably related to anticipated damages. 

Farmers Exp., 799 F.2d at 162.

In reaching its decision as to the first Restatement factor, which assesses

the reasonableness of the LD Provision, the McNamara Order assessed the

expert testimony as to potential charter contracts that Delta could have obtained

and the typical charter fee at which the vessels had been hired out before they

were sold. The testimony showed that there was variability in the length of

charter contracts, but that a single contract could last for as long as several

years. The testimony also showed that day rates for charters in late 2006 and

9

 Case: 12-30280 Document: 00512105709 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/08/2013
No. 12-30280

2007 could range up to several thousand dollars. Thus, a single charter contract

could reasonably generate substantial revenue equal to or in excess of the LD

Provision. Moreover, as the McNamara Order noted, “International Marine has

presented no evidence suggesting that [Delta’s] concerns regarding loss of

market share, future customers or future business were unreasonable or

unrelated to [Delta’s] anticipated loss.” R. at 3742. We follow Farmers Export

in finding persuasive the district court’s careful factual findings as to whether

the LD Provision was a reasonable forecast of damages. Adopting the language

of the McNamara Order, we hold that “[l]ooking at the contract at the time it

was made, ex ante breach, this court cannot bicker with the $250,000 per

occurrence forecast.” R. at 3746. International has not met its burden to prove 4

that the LD Provision was a penalty. We thus hold that the district court

properly held the LD Provision enforceable.5

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

International places considerable emphasis on the total amount of liquidated damages 4

Delta has claimed. Notwithstanding the Fallon Order’s express reservation of the damages

issue for trial, we note that the total damages claimed are so large because International

breached the non-competition provision at least twenty-seven times. We are loath to find the

LD Provision unenforceable merely because International adopted a pattern of disregarding

its contractual obligations.

 Because we have determined the district courts’ judgment was correct, we need not

5

reach International’s arguments related to the district courts’ allegedly improper reasoning

and standard of review. We also decline to decide whether the Restatement’s “extreme case”

language applies to this situation. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356 comment b

(“If, to take an extreme case, it is clear that no loss at all has occurred, a provision fixing a

substantial sum as damages is unenforceable.”). Matherne’s testimony that he was unaware

of any damage to Delta’s competitive position as a result of International’s breaches is more

probative of the difficulty of proving such damages than of whether damage actually occurred.

10

 Case: 12-30280 Document: 00512105709 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/08/2013