The end of rule B ?

3 мая 2019 г.: ru 1 8 июня 2019 г.: ru 1 12 июля 2019 г.: ru 1 всего: 6 20.10.09

Hereby we inform you about a Second Circuit case decided on October 16, 2009, The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., which severely limits the scope of the type of property that may be attached pursuant to Rule B. The Court, in sum and substance, held that “electronic fund transfers (“EFTs”) being processed by an intermediary bank are not property subject to attachment under Rule B.” Since EFTs are no longer considered property of either the originator or the beneficiary, it cannot be “defendant’s property” subject to Rule B attachment.


The decision suggests that the attachment of EFTs has “threatened the usefulness of the dollar in international transactions.” In attempting to avoid Rule B attachments, many potential Rule B defendants conduct their cross-border transactions in a currency other than U.S. Dollars, causing a reduction in the use of the dollar as the preferred currency of international commerce. The large volume of maritime cases was filed between October 1, 2008 and January 31, 2009 and the resulting burden has been placed on the banks and the District Court Judges. The Court’s focus on the aforementioned reasoning and its weak legal rationale for reaching its conclusion lead us to believe that this was a result-driven decision and that the Court has succumbed to intense pressure from the garnishee banks to put an end to Rule B attachments of EFT transfers transiting through New York.

  • Interlegal won the court dispute against large state-owned stevedore2020.09.08

      The Client – port operator – applied to Interlegal for due diligence of one of state-owned stevedores. Such due dil...

    show more
  • Discharge of cargo residues and washwater: instruments of legal defense for Interlegal client2020.09.04

      Since the State Enterprise “Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority” (USPA), jointly with other governmental bodies (such as the State Borde...

    show more
  • Interlegal defended interests of “thyssenkrupp Materials Trading GmbH” in Court of Appeal of Donetsk2020.09.03

      Recently, in Court of Appeal of Donetsk there was a hearing of a case concerning an appeal against the ruling of Kramatorsk Town C...

    show more
  • Interlegal defended world freight forwarder`s interests in court, allowing no damages recover totaling up to UAH 15 million2020.09.01

    Interlegal got a request from a Client, one of the world's largest forwarders, to protect his interests in enforcement proceedings to recove...

    show more
  • Group of companies: structuring as a holding company2020.08.17

    The client – large foreign shipowner applied to Interlegal upon corporate issues regarding Liberian companies acting as nominal shipowners....

    show more
  • Interlegal lawyers refunded costs for a cancelled travel2020.08.11

    A Client apply to Interlegal for refund of costs on travel to exotic country – naturally being cancelled due to closing borders and cancelli...

    show more
  • Yacht Charter Parties 2020: what to stipulate in autumn?2020.08.06

    In the framework of regular services for one of our Client’s commercial yachts, Interlegal supported conclusion of Charter Parties in autumn...

    show more
  • Ship arrest preserved: the Debtor paid due amount2020.08.05

    On March 24, 2020, we wrote that Interlegal lawyers arrested the vessel flying under foreign flag, in Kherson Sea Port water area, followed...

    show more
  • Ship arrest as operating mechanism for debt recovery2020.08.10

    The Client – large foreign bunkering company applied to Interlegal for debt recovery from the Shipowner for bunker supply. Interlegal law...

    show more
  • Maritime claim as grounds for amicable settlement2020.08.04

    The Client – large Ukrainian stevedoring company applied to Interlegal for reimbursement of damages caused by the vessel in the process of c...

    show more