UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------X

ZIM INTEGRATED SHIPPING SERVICES, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

- against -

BELCO RESOURCES, INC., SINOCHEM

JIANGSU CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN

AS SINOCHEM JIANGSU IMPORT & EXPORT

CORPORATION), NANJING HUABIN FOREIGN

TRADE & ECONOMICS CO., LTD.,

DRAGONTRANS SHIPPING LTD. d/b/a

HUABANG INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

SINOTRANS NINGBO INTERNATIONAL

FORWARDING AGENCY CO., LTD.,

JOHN DOE 1-10,

Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------X

Case No. 07-civ-5861 (RMB)

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S DECISION AND ORDER ENTERED ON MAY 5,

2008, DISMISSING THE SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF’S

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEORCHIS & PARTNERS, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

61 Broadway, 26th Floor

New York, New York 10006-2802

(212) 344-4700

Vincent M. De Orchis

Olivier D. L. DuPont

-of CounselCase 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 66 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 1 of 6
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

ARGUMENT......................................................................................................1

POINT I FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER NOTICE OF THE APPLICABILITY OF

FOREIGN LAW VERSUS FAILURE TO STATE CLAIMS UNDER FOREIGN LAW........... 1

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 2

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 66 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 2 of 6
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Faggionato v. Lerner, 500 F. Supp. 2d,

237, 248-249 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .............................................................................................1

McGrath v. Kristensen,

340 U.S. 162, 178-179 (1950) ...............................................................................................2

OGI Oceangate Trans. Co., Ltd. v. RP Logistics PVT., Ltd.,

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46841, 13-14 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) .........................................................1

Winn v. Schafer,

499 F. Supp. 2d 390, 395-396 (S.D.N.Y 2007).................................................................. 1, 2

Statutes

46 U.S.C.S. § 1303(5) ................................................................................................................2

46 U.S.C. § 1304(6) ...................................................................................................................2

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 44.1. ...........................................................................................................1

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 66 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 3 of 6
1

INTRODUCTION

Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (Zim) raised the following question of law at Point

III of its brief in support of its motion for reconsideration: a failure to notify the intent to raise

foreign law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. does not warrant dismissal of a cause of action, but

waiver of the application of foreign law. (Br. Pages 11-13). In its opposition brief, Defendant

Sinochem Jiangsu Corporation (“Sinochem”) evades the question and frames a separate and thus

irrelevant question of law: a failure to state claims under foreign law warrants dismissal (Opp.

Br. Page 8). Sinochem's deliberate shifting of issues will not mislead the Court.

POINT 1: FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER NOTICE OF THE APPLICABILITY OF

FOREIGN LAW VERSUS FAILURE TO STATE CLAIMS UNDER FOREIGN LAW

In its Decision and Order of May 5, 2008, the Court did not dismiss Zim's second and

third causes of action because Zim had failed to state a cause of action under Israeli law1. The

Court dismissed Zim's second and third causes of action because it found that Zim had failed to

amend its pleadings to "give notice of the intent to raise foreign [Israeli] law". (Order page 8).

However, Sinochem rephrased the issue as if the Court had decided that Zim failed to

state causes of action under Israeli law, which it did not2. It cites three cases that do not address

the issue of failure to raise the application of foreign law. In all three cases, the parties had not

even disputed the fact that foreign law applied: Faggionato v. Lerner, 500 F. Supp. 2d, 237, 248-

249 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (applying French law which did not recognize standing to plaintiff); OGI

Oceangate Trans. Co., Ltd. v. RP Logistics PVT, Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46841, 13-14

(S.D.N.Y. 2007) (vacating a Rule B attachment because Court was unable to determine the

existence of a prima facie admiralty claim under Indian law); Winn v. Schafer, 499 F. Supp. 2d

 1 The Court dismissed however Zim's fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action because Chinese law

did not recognize such causes of action.

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 66 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 4 of 6
2

390, 395-396 (S.D.N.Y 2007) (applying UK securities law which did not recognize standing to

plaintiff).

Sinochem will not distract the Court from the black letter of the law on the issue of

sanctions for failure to give notice of intent to raise foreign law: the waiver of the application of

foreign law and the application of forum law, to wit, U.S. law. (Br. pages 11-13).

CONCLUSION

We recognize that Zim's present motion requires this Honorable Court to correct its

original opinion. Hopefully, Zim's Motion for Reconsideration will convince this Court to reach

the same conclusion as Justice Jackson once stated in McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U.S. 162, 179

(1950): "if there are other ways of gracefully and good naturedly surrendering former views to a

better considered position, I invoke them all".

We respectfully ask the Court to grant this Motion for Reconsideration and provide the

following relief (in the alternative):

• reverse the Order and find that Israeli law, or any other applicable law, applies to Zim’s

second and third causes of action; or

• reverse the Order and find that U.S. COGSA applies to Zim’s second and third causes of

action; or

• reverse the Order and hold a special hearing to determine which law applies to Zim’s

second and third causes of action.

We thank the Honorable Court for its attention and indulgence to this application.

Dated: New York, New York

 June 9, 2008

DEORCHIS & PARTNERS, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By:_____s/____________________________

Vincent M. DeOrchis (VMD-6515)

Olivier D. L. DuPont (OD-2817)

61 Broadway, 26th Floor

 2 The requirements of Zim's second and third causes of action under Israeli law is codified word

for word under 46 U.S.C. 1303(5) and 1304(6). (See Opp. Mot. Dism. pages 14-17).

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 66 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 5 of 6
3

New York, New York 10006-2802

(212) 344-4700

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 66 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 6 of 6