The court of appeals acknowledged that United States "federal courts have long possessed the inherent power to restrain the parties before them from engaging in suits in foreign jurisdictions." Therefore, instead of vacating the restraining order and potentially causing races to judgment in multiple United States and foreign forums, the court of appeals remanded this specific issue to the district court for the purpose of performing the proper analysis and creating a sufficient record. The Plan went effective on January 4, 2016, forming the O. Although the court of appeals affirmed the district court's holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, the court of appeals remanded, in part, to the district court to reconsider the geographic scope of the corresponding restraining order. USA's First Modified Liquidation Plans (the "Plan"). Just less than 2 months from the time I had to put Elwood down and had to file for an annulment of my marriage, I am back in the shop.Its a long, complicated, effed up story and I don’t want to get into it, but I am finally able to focus again on my work. One, I am attempting to clear my queue to ZERO so I can spend a couple weeks organizing the shop, liquidating old stock and doing a bit of re-tooling, so-to-speak.
Although vessels were "happy" to pay for the bunkers, they did not want to pay more than once. § 1335 (the "Interpleader Statute") or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 (the "Interpleader Rule"), both of which are designed to protect stakeholders facing multiple claims for a single obligation. Bunker-related interpleader cases raised unprecedented issues concerning United States bankruptcy law, maritime law, and interpleader law. On December 15, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut confirmed O. Valero further argued that, despite the absence of any direct contract between Valero and the vessel, it was entitled to a maritime lien under CIMLA primarily because the order originated from the vessel's owner or charterer (i.e. However, the court found that, while these facts might have established that the vessel was aware that Valero would be the physical supplier, they did not establish the key elements that the vessel specifically "directed" O. Valero argued new evidence revealed that, prior to the bunker supply, the vessel knew O. Malta could not physically deliver the bunkers and agreed that Valero would be the physical supplier (Valero was expressly identified as "supplier" on O. Malta's sales order confirmation to the vessel). The court, therefore, denied Valero's motion and, in contrast, granted the vessel's cross motion for summary judgment. US Oil filed a motion to vacate the restraining order, but the district court denied the motion. The liquidating trusts are continuing efforts to collect outstanding bunker supply receivables. Upon Hapag's deposit of a bond to the district court's registry, Judge Caproni issued an order restraining the competing claimants from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings or actions "anywhere" against Hapag and its vessels. USA, and ING Bank each transferred all of their respective rights and interests to certain outstanding bunker supply receivables to the two liquidating trusts.