UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_________________________________________X

WILHELMSEN PREMIER MARINE FUELS AS

07 Civ. 5798 (CM)

Plaintiff,

against

DECLARATION OF 

UBS PROVEDORES PTY LTD. AND WILLIAM RAE

RAECORP INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD., 

Defendants 

_________________________________________X

William Rae, hereby declares, under penalty of perjury, that:

1. I am the managing director of UBS Provedores Pty Ltd. (“UBS”) and Raecorp.

International Pty Ltd. (“Raecorp”) and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances

surrounding the dispute presently before this Court. I submit this declaration in support of UBS’

and Raecorp’s motion to vacate the Rule B attachment against UBS and Raecorp property in this

district.

2. UBS is a company organized under the laws of Australia, with a place of business in

Morningside, QLD, Australia. UBS is in the business of provisioning military entities with

various supplies. 

3. On September 21, 2006, UBS entered into a marine fuel oil requirements contract with

the U.S. Defense Energy Support Center (“US Navy”) to provide marine fuel oil, also known in

the trade as “bunkers,” to various U.S. military and federal civilian vessels at various ports

throughout Asia (“DESC Contract”). 

4. Because UBS did not have any contacts with physical suppliers of marine fuel oil in the

Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP Document 17-2 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 3
ports where the military vessels were expected to call, UBS contracted with Wilhelmsen, a well

known bunker broker, to assist it meet its marine fuel oil requirements under the DESC Contract. 

UBS communicated with Wilhelmsen through Wilhelmsen’s offices in Norway and Singapore. 

5. UBS relied on Wilhelmsen for introductions to physical suppliers in the ports in which

UBS was obligated to provide marine fuel oil to the Navy. Also, since UBS was a stranger to

these physical suppliers and, therefore, unable to purchase the marine fuel oil directly from them

on credit, UBS relied on Wilhelmsen to extend credit terms to it. 

6. Wilhelmsen’s extension of credit to UBS was accomplished by means of a simultaneous

purchase and sale from the physical supplier to Wilhelmsen and from Wilhelmsen to UBS. 

Wilhelmsen never obtained physical possession of the product. Instead, delivery of the product

was performed by the physical supplier directly to the vessels of UBS’ customer. Wilhelmsen

extended credit terms to UBS under the terms of the UBS/Wilhelmsen contract and the physical

supplier extended Wilhelmsen credit under the terms of Wilhelmsen’s contract with the physical

supplier. 

7. UBS and Wilhelmsen operated pursuant to this arrangement from roughly October, 2006

through April, 2007. A dispute arose between UBS and Wilhelmsen over invoices Wilhelmsen

submitted to UBS for the sale of marine fuel oil delivered to US navy vessels in the port of

Sasebo, Japan (“Disputed Invoices”). Sumitomo Corp. was the physical supplier of the marine

fuel out of which the dispute arose. Sumitomo delivered the marine fuel oil to the US Navy

vessels in Sasebo. The dispute arises out of Wilhelmsen’s failure to adequately document its

invoices submitted to UBS. Because of the inadequate documentation, the US Navy has refused

to pay UBS. UBS, in turn, cannot pay Wilhelmsen.

Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP Document 17-2 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 3
8. Neither UBS nor Raecorp. maintain bank accounts in New York. The wire transfers that

were attached by Wilhelmsen were not sent to New York bank accounts. 

Pursuant to 28 United States Code §1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under

the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Morningside,

QLD, Australia, on September 13, 2007

_______________________

 William Rae

Case 1:07-cv-05798-CM-HBP Document 17-2 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 3 of 3