A Petition for Writ of Certiorari has been filed with the Supreme Court seeking review of Shipping Corp. of India, Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte, Ltd.
At the risk of grossly simplifying, this case deals with the ability to attach electronic funds transfers as they pass through banks in New York. The federal rules governing admiralty disputes allow for attachment or prejudgment seizure of "property" to provide for funds to satisfy the claims in dispute. What is "property" is defined by state law. In international banking, if dollars are denominated as the currency for the transaction, foreign banks use an intermediary bank to convert the current to dollars. While those funds are present in the Clearing House bank (in New York City), can they be subject to attachment? Even if the dispute is between two non-American parties?
My earlier post on this case, with briefs and analysis, is here.
The Petition has the following Questions Presented:
1. Whether attachments under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of electronic funds transfers ("EFTs") are precluded by New York State law, specifically §§ 4-A-502(4) & 503 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code?
2. Whether in order to maintain uniform rules relating to maritime matters, which was the fundamental purpose of certain provisions in the Constitution, conflicting provisions of State law and that work material prejudice to the attachment remedy are invalid to that extent?
3. Whether no State, through its enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code, can purport to restrict or define "intangible" property subject to maritime attachment?
The Supreme Court docket can be viewed here. It denotes that the prevailing party in the Court of Appeals did not file a response.
There were two amicus briefs filed, one by the Maritime Law Association of the United States and one by the Clearinghouse Association. Thanks to counsel for providing copies of their pleadings.
MLA filed an Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioner.
The Clearing House Association filed an Amicus Brief in Opposition.
Comments