Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Maritime Cross-Border Insolvency pp 65–104Cite as

The Maritime Industry and the Peculiarity of Maritime Liens

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 347 Accesses

Abstract

The maritime industry and especially the shipping industry are for many reasons a special case when it comes to insolvency. Not only is the international character of shipping an inherent feature but the mobility of the main assets of most financially struggling shipping companies, the ship itself, presents a further complicating factor for the reorganisation or liquidation under national insolvency laws. This chapter serves to display one of the most salient features of maritime law, the law of maritime securities and in particular that of maritime liens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This book only covers maritime law and the resulting law of maritime liens. The law of inland navigation will not be considered.

  2. 2.

    See for an overview of the beginnings of maritime commerce: Reddie (1841), pp. 31–61.

  3. 3.

    See for a detailed description of the Phoenicians’ merits in shipping: Reddie (1841), pp. 34, 35.

  4. 4.

    See Stopford (2009), p. 11.

  5. 5.

    See Wild (1999), p. 6.

  6. 6.

    See Ruangsilp (2007), p. 5.

  7. 7.

    Quoted in Harlaftis and Theotokas (2010), p. 3.

  8. 8.

    See Harlaftis and Theotokas (2010), p. 4.

  9. 9.

    Spruyt (1994), p. 7.

  10. 10.

    See UNCTAD (2015), p. 5.

  11. 11.

    See for this and the following UNCTAD (2015), p. 6.

  12. 12.

    For a detailed economic discussion on shipping market cycles: Stopford (2009), pp. 93–134.

  13. 13.

    See for this and the following Syriopoulos (2010), p. 814.

  14. 14.

    The merger of the German shipping company Hapag-Lloyd and the Chilean shipping company CSAV in December 2014 is an example. After the merger they form the fourth biggest shipping company world-wide with about 200 ships. See Hapag-Lloyd’s press release on 2 December 2014 available at https://www.hapag-lloyd.com/en/ir/financial-news/financial-news.iry-2014.irid-1435149.html (last visited on 10 June 2018), or the acquisition of Hamburg Südamerikanische Dampfschiffahrts- Gesellschaft (Hamburg Süd) by A. P. Moller-Maersk Group (Maersk) in 2017. The approval of the share purchase agreement was announced on 28 April 2017. See Maersk’s press release on 28 April 2017 available at http://investor.maersk.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1023455 (last visited on 10 June 2018).

  15. 15.

    See for this and the following French (2006), p. 11.

  16. 16.

    Art. 3 (1), (2) and (4) of the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, Brussels, 10 May 1952.

  17. 17.

    Art. 3 (2) of the International Convention on Arrest of Ships, Geneva, 12 March 1999.

  18. 18.

    See for a detailed display and discussion: Berlingieri (2011), p. 199.

  19. 19.

    See French (2006), p. 12.

  20. 20.

    The Evpo Agnic [1988] C.A., 3 All E.R. 810.

  21. 21.

    See Buss (2016), p. 167.

  22. 22.

    See on one-ship companies: Stopford (2009), p. 273.

  23. 23.

    The Skaw Prince [1994] 3 SLR 146.

  24. 24.

    See French (2006), p. 10. The bareboat charter allows the one-ship company to register the ship in its domestic register and at the same time the bareboat charterer can choose his ‘flag of convenice’ for the registration of the chartered ship for the time of the charter. This allows the mortgages for the financining of the ship to remain on the primary and often more reliable and trusted register.

  25. 25.

    See for this and the following Mandaraka-Sheppard (2013), p. 69.

  26. 26.

    See Athanassopoulou (2005), p. 117.

  27. 27.

    See UNCTAD (2015), p. 42. The 14,074 ships registered in Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands account for 41.80% of world total dwt.

  28. 28.

    See de la Pedraja (1992), p. 280.

  29. 29.

    See McCullough (2007/2008), pp. 460–469.

  30. 30.

    See Bennett (2006), p. 1.

  31. 31.

    See Rose (2004), p. 1.

  32. 32.

    See Heiss and Trümper (2015), § 38, marg. no. 336.

  33. 33.

    In 1854 ship-owners founded the first club as the “Shipowners Mutual Protection Society”.

  34. 34.

    See Bennett (2006), p. 11.

  35. 35.

    Bennett (2006), p. 11.

  36. 36.

    See Heiss and Trümper (2015), § 38, marg. no. 338.

  37. 37.

    These are: The American Club, Skuld, Gard, Britannia, The Japan P&I Club, The London Club, The North of England P&I Club, The Shipowners’ Club, The Standard Club Ltd, Steamship Mutual, The Swedish Club, The UK P&I Club, The West of England.

  38. 38.

    See Bennett (2006), p. 486.

  39. 39.

    See Heiss and Trümper (2015), § 38, marg. no. 339.

  40. 40.

    Bennett (2006), p. 763.

  41. 41.

    For a detailed display and discussion of general average: Rose (2005).

  42. 42.

    French (2006), p. 2.

  43. 43.

    See Nikaki (2016), p. 212.

  44. 44.

    When it comes to financing modern and large seagoing vessels, the capital volume may be so high that the financing risk for only one bank would be too burdensome. For example the vessel Emma Maersk has a capacity of 15,000 TEU and the construction cost in 2006 exceeded USD 145,000,000 (see Emma Maersk Container Vessel Specification available at http://www.emma-maersk.com/specification/ (last visited on 10 June 2018)). For such vessels, the banks form a financing syndicate to share the financial risks and benefits.

  45. 45.

    See Stopford (2009), p. 286.

  46. 46.

    See French (2006), p. 289.

  47. 47.

    For an introduction to ship mortgages and a discussion and display of the legal particularities of this ship-specific security interest see: England: Bowtle and McGuinness (2001), Chapter 3, pp. 25–78; Germany: Grädler and Zintl (2013), pp. 95–99; USA: Schoenbaum (2011), pp. 713–721.

  48. 48.

    For a detailed display of the single claims privileged by maritime liens see Schmidt-Vollmer (2003).

  49. 49.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 459.

  50. 50.

    See Mandaraka- Sheppard (2009), pp. 22, 23.

  51. 51.

    See The Bold Buccleugh [1851] 7 Moo. P.C. 267, on p. 284.

  52. 52.

    See Derrington and Turner (2007), p. 54.

  53. 53.

    See Herber (2016), p. 121.

  54. 54.

    See Tetley (1994a), p. 539.

  55. 55.

    Tetley and Wilkins (1998), p. 7.

  56. 56.

    See McCabe (2012), p. 581.

  57. 57.

    See Tetley (1994b), p. 110.

  58. 58.

    See Thomas (1980), p. 3.

  59. 59.

    See for example the security right of a lessor stipulated in §§ 562-562d BGB.

  60. 60.

    The concept of registration of ship mortgages is universal and well established in Germany (Schiffsregistergesetz), England & Wales (Merchant Shipping Act 1988, sec. 21) and the USA (46 U.S.C. Chapter 313).

  61. 61.

    See Weil (1996), p. 205.

  62. 62.

    See Krohn (2004), p. 209; Jackson (2005), p. 476.

  63. 63.

    See for this paragraph: Rabe (2000) Vor § 754 marg. no. 4.

  64. 64.

    See Herber (2016), p. 121; T. Eckardt in Schmidt (2014), Vor § 596 marg. no. 1.

  65. 65.

    See Rabe(2000) Vor § 754 marg. no. 1.

  66. 66.

    See BGH 9.12.1985, (1986) TranspR, on p. 247 on § 102 BinSchG, the corresponding German rule for inland shipping.

  67. 67.

    See T. Eckardt in Schmidt (2014), Vor § 596 marg. no. 1.

  68. 68.

    See T. Eckardt in Schmidt (2014), Vor § 601 marg. no. 1.

  69. 69.

    See for this and the following sentence Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 87.

  70. 70.

    See Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 236.

  71. 71.

    See I. Drescher in Krüger and Rauscher (2016) § 945 marg. no. 3.

  72. 72.

    B. Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 88.

  73. 73.

    See Franks et al. (2017), on p. 8.

  74. 74.

    Gesetz zur Reform des Seehandelsrechts, BT-Drs. 17/10309.

  75. 75.

    See BT-Drs. 17/10309, on p. 143.

  76. 76.

    See BT-Drs. 18/1287, on pp. 1, 2.

  77. 77.

    Sec. 599 HGB mirrors the basic principle of accessoriness, which makes the security interest lapse as soon as the secured claim lapses.

  78. 78.

    See Rabe (2000) § 762, marg. no. 2.

  79. 79.

    Thomas (1980), p. 244.

  80. 80.

    See Krohn (2004), p. 223.

  81. 81.

    See Krohn (2004), p. 224.

  82. 82.

    See BT-Drucks. 6/2225 on p. 39; BGH 21.1.1991, (1991) TranspR, on p. 198.

  83. 83.

    The German legislator introduced the Gesetz zum Internationalen Privatrecht für außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse und für Sachen on 21 May 1999, BGBl. I 1026. This legislation, especially for maritime liens, is based on the doctrine of lex causae which was applied by the majority of courts in Germany already before 1999 and which was proposed by Drobnig (1991), pp. 13–36.

  84. 84.

    See T. Eckardt in Schmidt (2014), Vor § 596 marg. no. 6.

  85. 85.

    See for a display and evaluation of the different approaches and views on the recognition of foreign maritime liens by German courts before the introduction of Art. 45 (2) EGBGB: Mankowski (1990) TranspR, pp. 213–228.

  86. 86.

    The translation of the German Introductory Act to the Civil Code (EGBGB) is provided by the German Ministry of Justice available at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgbeg/ (last visited on 10 June 2018). All following English translation of the German EGBGB are derived from this source.

  87. 87.

    See Krohn (2004), p. 211; Herber (2016), pp. 125 and 423.

  88. 88.

    See BT-Drs. 14/343, p. 18; Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 96.

  89. 89.

    See Herber (2016), p. 424; Puttfarken (1998), p. 793; Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 98.

  90. 90.

    See T. Eckardt in Schmidt (2014), Vor § 596 marg. no. 6.

  91. 91.

    Tiedemann (1995), p. 60; Heinz (2011), p. 75.

  92. 92.

    See Herber (1999), p. 295; Puttfarken (1998), p. 795.

  93. 93.

    See Puttfarken (1998), p. 795 and pp. 810, 811; Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 98.

  94. 94.

    In the period from 1995 to 2010, only 6 debt-related arrest procedures where dealt with by German Courts, whereas at the same time 287 debt-related arrest procedures were dealt with in the ports of Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Netherlands, South Africa and the UK (see Franks et al. (2017), p. 8).

  95. 95.

    See BT-Drs. 17/10309, on p. 131: “It is the suppliers’ own risk to grant credit for delivery of goods”.

  96. 96.

    See T. Eckardt in Schmidt (2014), Vor § 596 marg. no. 7.

  97. 97.

    See BT-Drs. 14/343, p. 18.

  98. 98.

    See Herber (2016), p. 125; Rabe (2000) Vor § 761 marg. no. 4; T. Eckardt in Schmidt (2014), Vor § 596 marg. no. 8.

  99. 99.

    See Puttfarken (1998), pp. 810, 811; Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 98.

  100. 100.

    OLG Oldenburg 7.6.1974 (1975) VersR, on p. 271.

  101. 101.

    See Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 104.

  102. 102.

    In favour of an application of the lex fori doctrine in order to protect other creditors of the ship or shipping company: Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 104.

  103. 103.

    See T. Eckardt in Schmidt (2014), Vor § 596 marg. no. 9.

  104. 104.

    See Herber (1999), p. 295.

  105. 105.

    See T. Eckardt in Schmidt (2014), Vor § 596 marg. no. 9.

  106. 106.

    See Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 119.

  107. 107.

    The Bold Buccleugh [1851] 7 Moo P. C. 284.

  108. 108.

    The Halcyon Isle [1980] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 325.

  109. 109.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 481.

  110. 110.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 517.

  111. 111.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 517.

  112. 112.

    See Bowtle and McGuinness (2001), p. 123.

  113. 113.

    See Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 129.

  114. 114.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 525; Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 128.

  115. 115.

    See Bowtle and McGuinness (2001), p. 123.

  116. 116.

    The Monica S [1967] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 113.

  117. 117.

    Jackson (2005), p. 475.

  118. 118.

    Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 119.

  119. 119.

    Maritime liens for bottomry or respondentia are in times of modern payment methods nearly obsolete.

  120. 120.

    For an example for the claims group of damage done by the ship: Berliner Bank AG v Czarnikow Sugar Ltd (The Rama) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 281.

  121. 121.

    Already recognised as secured by a maritime lien in: The Two Friends [1862] 167 E. R. 249.

  122. 122.

    The master’s disbursement is only secured by a maritime lien if the disbursement is authorised by the ship owner: The Castlegate [1893] A. C. 38.

  123. 123.

    In the past, the wages of the ordinary crew and the master were dealt with separately and their merger came only in 1995, when the wages of crew and master were codified as the only maritime liens in sec. 41 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

  124. 124.

    The leading court decisions holding that maritime liens for necessaries do not exist under English law: Northcote v Owners of the Heinrich Bjorn (The Heinrich Bjorn) [1885] 10 P. D. 44; Bankers Trust International v Todd Shipyards Corp (The Halcyon Isle) [1980] 3 All E. R. 197.

  125. 125.

    See T. Harrison Legal Issues in Bunkering (2011), on p. 181; Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 114.

  126. 126.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 467.

  127. 127.

    See Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 133.

  128. 128.

    See Lind (2010), p. 46.

  129. 129.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 258.

  130. 130.

    The Dictator [1892] P. D. 304.

  131. 131.

    See The Bold Buccleugh [1851] 7 Moo P. C. 267.

  132. 132.

    Lord Steyn mentioned this deficit when reviewing the procedural theory on action in rem, but left it undecided, as the case did not deal with maritime liens—The Indian Grace [1997] 4 All E. R. 380.

  133. 133.

    See Rose (2003), p. 58.

  134. 134.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 260.

  135. 135.

    See Davies and Dickey (2004), pp. 121/122; for a detailed display see Jackson (2005), pp. 501–508.

  136. 136.

    See The Europa [1863] 2 Moo. N.S. 1.

  137. 137.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 297.

  138. 138.

    See Thomas (1980), pp. 244, 246.

  139. 139.

    Brandon J expressed this view in The Lyrma (No. 2) [1978] 2 Ll. L. Rep., p. 33.

  140. 140.

    See The Veritas [1901] P. D. 304.

  141. 141.

    The Mons [1932] P. D. 109.

  142. 142.

    La Constancia [1845] 166 E.R. 807.

  143. 143.

    See Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 146.

  144. 144.

    See for this and the following sentence Thomas (1980), p. 254.

  145. 145.

    This has been confirmed by a number of cases: The James W. Elwell [1921] P. D. 351, The Athena [1923] 7 Ll. L. R. 75.

  146. 146.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 524.

  147. 147.

    See Derrington and Turner (2007), p. 54.

  148. 148.

    See Jackson (2005), p. 31; case law: The Halcyon Isle [1981] A. C. 221; The Acrux [1965] P. D. 391.

  149. 149.

    See Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 154.

  150. 150.

    Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyards Corp (The Halcyon Isle) [1981] A.C. 221.

  151. 151.

    In Jackson (2005), p. 720, Jackson states: “The decision in The Halcyon Isle seems a prime example of concealment of reality through abstruse legal labels.”; Jackson already expressed his criticism of the Privy Council’s decision in Jackson (1981), pp. 338, 339.

  152. 152.

    Reiter Petroleum Inc v The Ship Sam Hawk [2015] FCA 1005.

  153. 153.

    Already in 2002 legal academics called for an Australian dissenting approach to The Halcyon Isle: Davies and Lewins (2002), p. 780.

  154. 154.

    See Davies and Lewins (2002), p. 780.

  155. 155.

    Bankers Trust International v Todd Shipyards Corp (The Halcyon Isle) [1980] 3 All E. R. 197.

  156. 156.

    OLG Bremen (1995) TranspR, on p. 302.

  157. 157.

    See Puttfarken (1998), p. 793.

  158. 158.

    The rules on maritime liens are set out in 46 U.S.C. §§ 31301–31343.

  159. 159.

    The Rupert City 213 F. 263 (W. D. Wash. 1914).

  160. 160.

    In the USA the personification theory has gained major acceptance, whereas English law adheres to the procedural theory; see Hartley (1981), p. 19; Hayden and Leland (2005), p. 1239.

  161. 161.

    See Davies (2000/2001), p. 339.

  162. 162.

    See van de Biezenbos (2015), p. 611.

  163. 163.

    See for this and the following sentence Peck (2013), p. 984.

  164. 164.

    Under 46 U.S.C. § 31341 (a) these persons are: the owner, the master, the vessel manager or an officer or agent appointed by the owner, charterer, an owner pro hac vice (for this occasion; often a lawyer) or an agreed buyer in possession of the vessel.

  165. 165.

    For this and the following sentence Tetley and Wilkins (1998), p. 1403.

  166. 166.

    Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc. [1991] 500 U.S. 603.

  167. 167.

    See for this and the following Hayden and Leland (2005), p. 1239.

  168. 168.

    E.g. pilotage, wharfage and dockage, stevedoring, purchase of engines, bunkers, fish finding radar, positioning systems, fumigation (Hayden and Leland (2005), pp. 1239/1240).

  169. 169.

    See Harrison (2011), p. 183.

  170. 170.

    Donovan (2001/2002), p. 192.

  171. 171.

    Trans-Tec Asia v. M/V Harmony Container [2008] 518 F.3d 1120.

  172. 172.

    See Hayden and Leland (2005), pp. 1239/1240 and the illustrating case of Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co. [1920] 254 U.S. 6–7.

  173. 173.

    See for this and the following sentence Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 169.

  174. 174.

    Silver Star Enterprises Inc. v. M/V Saramacca [1996] 82 F.3d 666.

  175. 175.

    See McDonald (2000), p. 28.

  176. 176.

    See Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 169.

  177. 177.

    Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.

  178. 178.

    See Hayden and Leland (2005), p. 1251.

  179. 179.

    See Hayden and Leland (2005), p. 1252.

  180. 180.

    See Weil (1996), p. 210.

  181. 181.

    Puttfarken (1998), p. 794.

  182. 182.

    See for this and the following quote The Key City [1872] 81 U.S. 660.

  183. 183.

    Puttfarken (1998), p. 794.

  184. 184.

    See Force et al. (2008), p. 327.

  185. 185.

    See for a detailed list: Force et al. (2008), p. 328.

  186. 186.

    N.Y. Dock Co. v. S.S. Poznan [1927] AMC 727.

  187. 187.

    The C.J. Saxe [1906] 145 F. 749 (S.D.N.Y.).

  188. 188.

    The John G. Stevens [1898] 170 U.S. 113.

  189. 189.

    See van de Biezenbos (2015), p. 614.

  190. 190.

    Hayden and Leland (2005), p. 1249.

  191. 191.

    The William Leishear [1927] 21 F.2d 863 (D. Md.)

  192. 192.

    See Trans-Tec Asia v. M/V Harmony Container [2008] 518 F.3d 1120.

  193. 193.

    See In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc. [2003] AMC 1185; Donovan (2001/2002), p. 196.

  194. 194.

    See Force et al. (2008), p. 342.

  195. 195.

    See Gulf Trading & Transportation Co. v. Vessel Hoegh Shield [1982] 658 F.2d 363.

  196. 196.

    See Schoenbaum (2011), p. 735.

  197. 197.

    See Dresdner Bank v. M/V Voyager [2006] 463 F.3d 1210.

  198. 198.

    Lauritzen v. Larsen [1953] 345 U.S. 571.

  199. 199.

    See Schoenbaum (2011), p. 735.

  200. 200.

    Donovan (1992), p. 132.

  201. 201.

    Gulf Trading & Transportation Co. v. Vessel Hoegh Shield [1982] 658 F.2d 363.

  202. 202.

    This US public policy stance of protecting US maritime interests is well illustrated in the case of Arochem Corp. v. Wilomi, Inc. [1992] 962 F.2d 496: “Although the contract was formed in England, it is illogical to argue England has as great an interest as the United States in protecting an American purchaser form an unlawful arrest of cargo on an American vessel in an American port”.

  203. 203.

    Ocean Ship Supply, Ltd. v. M/V Leah [1984] 729 F.2d 971.

  204. 204.

    World Fuel Services Corporation v. The Ship ‘Nordems’ [2010] FC 332.

  205. 205.

    For a detailed case analysis see: Letalik (2012), pp. 529–538.

  206. 206.

    See for this and the following sentence Force et al. (2008), p. 343.

  207. 207.

    See Potash Co. of Canada, Limited v. M/V Raleigh [1973] AMC 2658; Rainbow Line, Inc. v. M/V Tequila [1973] AMC 1431.

  208. 208.

    For a detailed discussion of the ranking and priority of maritime lienholders in arrest and insolvency procedures see the relevant sections above. This part only serves to give a direct comparison of maritime liens’ status in the three covered jurisdictions of Germany, England & Wales and the USA.

  209. 209.

    See In re Aro Co Ltd [1980], Ch. 196.

  210. 210.

    See Bowtle and McGuinness (2001), pp. 134, 135. The effect of a maritime lien’s priority over ship mortgages has been described by Fletcher Moulton LJ in The Manor [1907] P.D. 339, “It may well be that to allow a ship to become subject to a maritime lien may not be an infringement of the rights of the mortgagee, even though that maritime lien ranks above claims under the mortgage. For example, it cannot be said to be a breach of the rights of the mortgagee, if a ship in distress accepts salvage assistance, though a maritime lien thereby arises. But there is an obvious difference between allowing a ship to become burthened with a maritime lien, and allowing her to remain burthened with such a lien, without the power of discharge it, for, to that extent, you have, as in this case, substantially diminished, that is to say, impaired the value of the mortgage security”.

  211. 211.

    See Davies (2016), p. 200.

  212. 212.

    See Davies (2016), p. 201.

  213. 213.

    See Thomas (1980), pp. 331, 332.

  214. 214.

    See Rabe (2000) Vor § 754 marg. no. 18, 19; Thomas (1980), p. 332.

  215. 215.

    See Berlingieri (1995), p. 57.

  216. 216.

    See Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 29.

  217. 217.

    The ratifying states were: Belgium, Brazil, Denmark (denunciation in 1965), Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Madagascar, Norway (denunciation in 1965), Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden (denunciation in 1965).

  218. 218.

    See Herber (2016), p. 121; Puttfarken (1998), p. 795.

  219. 219.

    See for this and the following sentence Force et al. (2008), p. 266.

  220. 220.

    The ratifying states today are: Albania, Benin, Congo, Ecuador, Estonia, Lithuania, Monaco, Nigeria, Peru, Russian Federation, Serbia, Spain, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Ukraine, Vanuatu; the list is available at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028004a70a (last visited on 10 June 2018).

  221. 221.

    See Schmidt-Vollmer (2003), p. 26.

References

  • Athanassopoulou, V. (2005). Schiffsunternehmen und Schiffsüberlassungsverträge. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, H. (2006). The law of marine insurance (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlingieri, F. (1995). The 1993 Convention on maritime liens and mortgages. Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, (1), 57–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlingieri, F. (2011). Arrest of ships - A commentary on the 1952 and 1999 Arrest Conventions (5th ed.). London: Informa Law & Finance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowtle, G., & McGuinness, K. (2001). The law of ship mortgages. London: Informa Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, C. (2016). Ship mortgagees: Enforcement and remedies. In B. Soyer & A. Tettenborn (Eds.), Ship building, sale and finance (pp. 149–169). Abingdon: Informa Law from Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2000/2001). In defense of unpopular virtues: Personification and ratification. Tulane Law Review, 75, 337–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2016). Cross-border insolvency and admiralty: A middle path of reciprocal comity. CMI Year Book, 2015, 196–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M., & Dickey, A. (2004). Shipping law (3rd ed.). Prymont: Lawbook Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M., & Lewins, K. (2002). Foreign maritime liens: Should they be recognised in Australian Courts? The Australian Law Journal, 76, 775–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Pedraja, R. (1992). The rise & decline of U.S. merchant shipping in the twentieth century. New York: Twayne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrington, S., & Turner, J. (2007). The law and practice of admiralty matter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, C. (1992). Arrest and attachment in admiralty. University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 5, 127–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, C. (2001/2002). Picking the shipowner’s poison - choice-of-law clauses and maritime liens. University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 14, 185–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drobnig, U. (1991). Vorschlag einer besonderen sachenrechtlichen Kollisionsnorm für Transportmittel. In D. Henrich (Ed.), Vorschläge und Gutachten zur Reform des deutschen internationalen Sachen- und Immaterialgüterrechts (pp. 13–36). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Force, R., Yiannopoulos, A. N., & Davies, M. (2008). Admiralty and maritime law (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Beard Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franks, J., Sussman, O., & Vig, V. (2017, May 1). The privatization of bankruptcy: evidence from financial distress in the shipping industry. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=901114082024072029116002105005110121030041056053016028064071121025069083126088028120037055028024056025125023078124086064100089008041091078061103003122090118113084034014005093123101009101096114101024066026012089099121125108120071069069006098089072072&EXT=pdf

  • French, L. (2006). In S. Harwood (Ed.), Shipping finance (3rd ed.). London: Euromoney Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grädler, T., & Zintl, J. (2013). Die Schiffshypothek. Recht der Transportwirtschaft, 95–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlaftis, G., & Theotokas, I. (2010). Maritime business during the twentieth century: Continuity and change. In C. Grammenos (Ed.), The handbook of maritime economics and business (2nd ed., pp. 3–33). London: Lloyd’s List.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, T. (2011). Legal issues in bunkering - An introduction to the law relating to the sale and use of marine fuel. Adderbury: Petrospot Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, S. (1981). How to secure a maritime lien. London: Lampert & Selway Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, R., & Leland, K. (2005). The uniqueness of admiralty and maritime law: The unique nature of maritime liens. Tulane Law Review, 79, 1227–1257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinz, N. (2011). Das Vollmachtsstatut - Eine einheitliche Kollisionsnorm für Europa. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiss, H., & Trümper, T.-N. (2015). In R. Beckmann & A. Matusche-Beckmann (Eds.), Versicherungsrechts-Handbuch (3rd ed.). München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herber, R. (1999). Die wundersame Wiederauferstehung der Schiffsgläubigerrechte für Landungsschäden und Kapitänsgeschäfte. Transportrecht, 294–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herber, R. (2016). Seehandelsrecht- Systematische Darstellung (2nd ed.). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. (1981). Foreign maritime liens in English courts - Principle and policy. Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, (3), 335–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. (2005). Enforcement of maritime claims (4th ed.). London: Informa Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krohn, M. (2004). Die Pfandrechte an registrierten Schiffen. Frankfurt am Main: Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krüger, W., & Rauscher, T. (Eds.). (2016). Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung (Vol. 2, 5th ed.). München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letalik, N. (2012). Forum shopping comes to Canada: The recognition of foreign maritime liens. In A. Chircop, N. Letalik, T. McDorman, & S. Rolston (Eds.), The regulation of international shipping: International and comparative perspectives (pp. 525–539). Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, D. (2010). Pragmatism and anthropomorphism: Reconceiving the doctrine of the personality of the ship. University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 22, 39–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandaraka- Sheppard, A. (2009). Modern maritime law and risk management (2nd ed.). London: Informa Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandaraka-Sheppard, A. (2013). Modern maritime law - Volume 2: Managing risks and liabilities (3rd ed.). Oxford: Informa Law.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski, P. (1990). Das Statut der Schiffsgläubigerrechte. Transportrecht, 213–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, A. (2012). Demosthenes and the origins of the maritime lien. Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce, 43, 581–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, R. (2007/2008). Law Wars: The battle between bankruptcy and admiralty. Tulane Maritime Law Journal, 32, 457–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, E. (2000). An overview of maritime liens and their priorities in the United States. Lloyd’s Shipping and Nautical Year Book 2000, 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikaki, T. (2016). Financing newbuilding vessels and Barecon 2001: A fair deal? In B. Soyer & A. Tettenborn (Eds.), Ship building, sale and finance (pp. 212–240). Abingdon: Informa Law from Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, S. (2013). Navigating the Murky waters of admiralty and bankruptcy law. Tulane Law Review, 87, 955–994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puttfarken, H.-J. (1998). Neues vom Schiffsgläubigerrecht. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 62, 787–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabe, D. (2000). Seehandelsrecht (4th ed.). München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddie, J. (1841 (Reprint 2005)). An historical view of the law of maritime commerce. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, F. (2003). The action In Rem in English Law. In E. van Hooydonk (Ed.), English and continental maritime law - after 115 years of maritime law unification: A search for differences between common law and civil law (pp. 45–60). Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, F. (2004). Marine insurance - law and practice. London: Informa Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, F. (2005). General average - law and practice (2nd ed.). London: Informa Law from Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruangsilp, B. (2007). Dutch East India Company merchants at the Court of Ayutthaya - Dutch perceptions of the Thai Kingdom c. 1604–1765. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, K. (Ed.). (2014). Münchener Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch (Vol. 7, 3rd ed.). München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Vollmer, B. (2003). Schiffsgläubigerrechte und ihre Geltendmachung - Eine rechtsvergleichende Darstellung unter Berücksichtigung des deutschen, englischen, US-amerikanischen und niederländischen Rechts. Münster: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenbaum, T. (2011). Admiralty and maritime law (Vol. I, 5th ed.). St. Paul: West/Thomson Reuters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spruyt, J. (1994). Ship management (2nd ed.). London: Lloyd’s of London Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stopford, M. (2009). Maritime economics (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Syriopoulos, T. (2010). Shipping finance and international capital markets. In C. Grammenos (Ed.), The handbook of maritime economics and business (2nd ed., pp. 811–849). London: Lloyd’s List.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetley, W. (1994a). International conflicts of laws - common, civil and maritime. Montreal: International Shipping Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetley, W. (1994b). The general maritime law - the Lex Maritima. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 20, 105–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetley, W., & Wilkins, R. (1998). Maritime liens and claims (2nd ed.). Montreal: International Shipping Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. R. (1980). Maritime liens. London: Stevenson & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedemann, S. (1995). Die Haftung aus Vermögensübernahme im internationalen Recht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. (2015). Review of maritime transport. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Biezenbos, K. (2015). A sea change in creditor priorities. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 48, 595–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil, D. (1996). Charting a course through dangerous waters: A Landlubber’s introduction to the rules of maritime indebtedness in the context of a maritime bankruptcy. University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 9, 195–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild, A. (1999). The East India Company: Trade and conquest from 1600. London: Harper Collins Illustrated.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Erik Göretzlehner

Authors
  1. Erik Göretzlehner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Göretzlehner, E. (2019). The Maritime Industry and the Peculiarity of Maritime Liens. In: Maritime Cross-Border Insolvency. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11793-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11793-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11792-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11793-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation