D istri ct Ju d g e Je dS . R ak o ff of the U n ited S tates D istri ct C o u rtfor the S o u thern * D is tr ic t o f N e w Y o rk , s ittin g b y d e s ig n a tio n . 10
- 00 56
- cv P ilo t E n te rp ri s e s , In c . v . B ro d o s p lit , In c . e t a l.

UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . CI TAT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GOV ERNED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AN D TH I S CO URT’ S LOCA L RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DAT AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UMM AR Y OR DE R” ) . A P AR T Y CI T I NG T O A S UMM AR Y OR DE R M US T S E RV E A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY P ARTY NOT REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of

the U ni t ed St at es Courtof A ppeal s f

orthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani elPatr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 3 day of

Sept ember , tw o thous and t en. rd P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

GE RA RD E . L YNC H, C i r cui tJudges , J ED S. RA K O FF, D is tr i ct Judge . *

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- P IL O T E N T E R P R IS E S , IN C .,

P lai nt i f f

-Appellant , v. N o. 10- 0056- cv BR ODOS P L I T INC . , BR ODOS P L I T P L I VI DB A d .o .o ., B R O D O S P L IT S H IP P IN G L T D ., B R O D O G R A D J E V N A IN D U S T R IJ A S P L IT d .d ., B R O D O S P L IT B R O D O G R A D IL IS T E d .o .o .,

D ef endant s -Appellees .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : G E O R G E M . C H A L O S , C h a lo s & C o ., P .C ., O ys t erB ay, N ew Y ork.2

AP P E AR ING F OR AP P E L L E E : G A R T H S. W O L FSO N , M ahoney & K eane , L L P, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. A ppealf r om a j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtf orthe Southern D i s tr i ct o f N e w Y o rk (H a ro ldB a e r, Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJUDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tth e De c e mb e r2 8 , 2 0 1 0 o r d e ro f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I RMED . Pl ai nt i f f Pi l otE nt erpr i s es Inc . (“ Pi l ot ”) appeal s fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s vaca turof an o rd e r o f a ttac h m e n t issu e dp u rsu a n t t o R u le B o f th e S up p lem e n tal R u les fo r C e rta in A dm i r al ty and M ar i t i m e C l ai m s . W e r evi ew the dis tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on f orabus e of d isc re tio n , w h ich w e w illid e n tify if th e “ d e c isio n re sts o n a n e rr o r o f la w o r a c lea rly
err oneous f

i ndi ng of f act . ” See A qu a S t oli Shi ppi ng L t d. v. G ar dnerSm i th Pty L t d. , 460 F. 3d 434, 439 ( 2d C i r . 2006) . W e as sum e the p art i es ’ f ami l i ar i ty w i th the f

act s and pr ocedur alhi s t ory of

thi s cas e, w hi ch w e r ef

er ence onl y as nece s s ary t o expl ai n ourdeci s i on t o a f f i rm. T he part i es agr ee thatthe att achmenti n thi s cas e r es tr ai ned both (1) el ectr oni c f unds tr ans f er s ( “EF T s ”) i n the hands of one orm or e int erm ediary banks , and ( 2) a l ett erof undert aki ng ( “LO U ”) i s s ued on be hal f of BS Sun Shi ppi ng M onr ovi a ( “B S Sun”) t o C i t go P e tro leu m C o rp . (“C itg o ” ) b y B S S u n ’s p ro tec tio n a n din d e m n ity (“ P & I” ) c lub in consi derat i on forthe C i t go notatt empt i ng t o arr es tthe M / T St i ni ce, a ves s eloper at ed by P ilo t a n do w n e db y B S S u n a n dits a lleg e da lter- e g o d e fe n d a n ts B ro d o sp litIn c ., B ro d o sp lit Pl i vi dba d. o. o. , B rodospl i tShi ppi ng L t d. , B r odogr adj evna I ndus tr i j a Spl i td. d. , and3

B rodospli tB rodog radi l i st e d. o. o. (col l ect i vely, “B rod o spl i tdefend ants ”). T he p art i es al so a g re e th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r v a c a tin g th e a ttac h m e n t re lea se dth e a ttac h m e n t o f b o th th e E F T s a n dth e L O U . Pi l otdoe s notchal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deri ns of aras i tr el eas es f

r om r es tr ai nt th e B ro d o s p lit d e fe n d a n ts’ E F T s. S e e S h ip p in g C o rp . o f In d ia L td . v . Ja ld h i O v e rse a s P te L t d. ( “Shi ppi ng C orp. of I ndi a”) , 585 F. 3d 5 8 (2d C i r . 2009) . R ather , Pi l otchal l enges the d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r to th e e x ten t itre lea se s th e L O U . It arg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld have a l l ow ed di s covery and i nvi t ed br i ef i ng “as t o the pr opr i et ary and/ orbenef i ci al
ow ner s hi p of

the r i ght s conveye d i n the LO U . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at18. W e di s agr ee. T he di s tri ctco urtexpl ai ned thati tr el eas ed the LO U f r om r es tr ai ntbecaus e i tw as

“ ‘w o rth les s a s to P ilo t.’ ” E n d o rse dC h a lo s L e tter a t 2 , P ilo t E n terp rise s In c . v . B ro d o sp lit I nc. , etal . , N o. 07 C i v. 8520 ( S. D . N . Y . D ec. 28, 2009) . T hi s conclus i on f i nds s upporti n the t erm s of the LO U , w hi ch w as “r es tr i ct ed” t o P& I cl ub’ s s at i s f act i on of any j udgm ent
r ender ed i n C i t go’ s f

avoron i t s i n r em cl ai m agai ns tthe M / T S t i ni ce unde rbi l l s of l adi ng i s s u e dt o Ci t g o . P i l o td o e s n o td i s p u t e th a tCi t g o h a s f i l e dn o s u c h c l a i m a n d th a tth e t i me fo r d o in g so h a s sin c e p a ss e d . U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e d istric t co u rt a c ted w e ll w ith in its d isc re tio n in c o n c lu d in g tha t th e L O U w a s w o rth les s a n dp ro p e rly re lea se dfro m re stra in t. W e h a v e c o n sid e re dth e p a rties ’ o th e r a rg u m e n ts a n dfin dthe m to b e w ith o u t m e rit. Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e De c e mb e r2 8 , 2 0 1 0 o r d e ro f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I RMED . FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt