DeOrcLis 67 Partners, LLP 

8751 \V. I3ruw.lrrl Ltl~zrl., Str. 203 

I't. Lauclerdale. FL 33.324 

(954) 052.01 00 

r\tto,n,.y.- i~t L.lu and Proctors In .-\iimrr.?ky 

61 Broadway, 26L'' Floor 

New L'ork, Sew York 10006-2802 

24 Iloyt Street 

St.,,nSord, CT 06905 

(203) 323-9 120 

2.355 i'lai,, Street, P.O. 186 

S. C~I~~~I~III, MA 02659 

February 27,2008 

BY HAND DELIVERY 

__-. 

The Flc.nsrzb!e Richard M Beiman i r y i),l United States District Court MEM ---,.-.&-*-.-.-..L....-. ;d--**.-k-u 

Southern District of New York ~~~~ : -F;s;s;s;s.;s-.,,------.-- 

$$,Jk 2, ?j 1 40 Centre Street, Room 650 B v.: l.T.lj I USE sE,qy 

New York, NY 10007 Pt DOCU hlEbT 

I 

Re: Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd v. Belco 

Southern District of New York, 07 Civ. 5861 

Dear Judge Berrnan: - 

We represent plaintiff Zim Integrated Shipping Services. Ltd. in the above captioned matter. We 

write to seek leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to the joint motion of defendants Sinochem Jiangsu 

Corporation ("Sinochem"), Nanjing Huabin Foreign Trade and Economics Co., Ltd., ("Huabin") and 

Belco Resources, Inc., ("Belco") to dismiss and to vacate plaintiffs complaint and prayer for a maritime 

attachment and garnishment. 

Defendants Sinochem, Huabin and Belco filed last Friday their joint reply brief. In their new 

brief, the defendants raise for the first time several issues of law and factual allegations which were not 

argued in their originating motion and which plaintiff would like to address in a sur-reply. 

More specifically, in further support of their motion to dismiss on grounds of Rule 12(b)(6) and 

forum non conveniens, Defendants Sinochem and Huabin set forth for the first time in their reply brief 

that: 

(1) an action was commenced in China in January 2008 by a defendant which has not appeared; this 

new fact would allegedly support their motion on grounds of fol.unz non convenlens and would 

further allegedly undermine the declaration of another defendant, Dragontrans Shipping 

Services, Ltd., in support of plaintiffs opposition to their motion (See Reply Brief, pages 6 and 

8); 

(2) their elaborated tally of the number of potential U.S. cargo claimants sued by plaintiff in the 

second related action docketed 07 Civ 6500 would allegedly indicate that the U.S. defendants 

represent only a small fraction of the overall number of shippers and defendants (See Reply 

Brief, pages 6-7); this tally is inconsistent with the law and the number of actual or represented 

claimants against Zim as indicated in the declaration of Thomas Willoughby in support of 

plaintiffs opposition; 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 46 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 1 of 2
Letter to Judge Bennan 

Febnraqj 27, 2008 

Page 2 of 2 

(3) a line of cases about "unattributed statcmcnts made by agents" would allegedly render the 

pleadings deficient under Rule 9(b) (See Reply Brief, page 3); 

(4) the Supreme Court's decision in Phillips Petroleum v. Slzutts (violation or the Due Process 

Clause) would allegedly say something different than what plaintiff argued in its opposition brief 

(See Reply Brief, page 4). 

Finally, defendant Belco invokes a new legal argument in support of its motion for vacntur of the 

Rule B attachment by alleging that plaintiff would have already obtained si~fficient security (See Reply 

Brief, pages 9-10). 

We seek leave of the Court to file a sur-reply of no more than three (3) pages to respond to these 

:;cw argu~~~ents raised for the first time by the defendants in tlisir reply brief. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Encl. 

CC: Via e-mail 

Lovells, LLP, Attorneys for Sinochem Jiangsu Corporation. 

Bennett, Giuliano, McDonnell & Perrone, LLP, Attorneysfor Belco Resources, Inc. 

Tisdale Law Offices, LLC, Attornejs for N(it2jitzg Hu~lbiti Foreigtz Trutle & Economics Co., Ltd. 

d 

--.------ 

1 1 

r,(U v 4M hw kJ* 1 I 

I-- - - 1- ---. 

Richard M. Beam~;r, l1.s.i,.~. 

- 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 46 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 2 of 2