The attorneys at Hohenstein & Parkinson, LLP stand ready to advise and represent clients on the full range of disputes that result in maritime litigation. Our litigation practice includes actions arising from casualty events, cargo damage, charter parties and contracts of affreightment, maritime lien claims, ship and yacht construction disputes, and enforcement of ship mortgages, as well as the maritime aspects of bankruptcy and workout matters. We also handle matters involving assertion and defense of the unique maritime procedural devices of attachment and arrest.
The firm’s experience arises from handling numerous litigated cases, including the full scope of motion practice and the conduct of trials, as well as appellate advocacy. Our attorneys are highly adept at handling complex, multi-jurisdictional maritime matters, which requires the ability to participate and coordinate the work of teams of attorneys in potentially numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. or foreign maritime jurisdictions.
Our extensive background also includes cases of seminal importance, including issues of maritime liens adjudicated in bankruptcy proceedings (Millenium), the interplay of maritime, bankruptcy and interpleader law (O.W. Bunker), and statutory interpretation of the Oil Pollution Act in the context of an allision case (Bouchard).
For additional information or to schedule a consultation, please call 917.873.2528 or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Power Authority of the State of New York v. M/V Ellen S. Bouchard, 968 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2020)(submerged electrical cable held to be a “facility” under the Oil Pollution Act)
Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil Trading LLC, 814 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2016)(the interplay among bankruptcy, maritime and interpleader law addressed in context of multiple actions arising from collapse of bunker supplier (O.W. Bunkers), District Court jurisdiction over such cases affirmed)
APL Co. Pte Ltd v. Blue Water Shipping U.S. Inc., 592 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2010)(trial court’s evaluation of ocean carrier’s mitigation efforts flawed, damages decision vacated and case remanded)
In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc., 419 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2005)(bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to adjudicate maritime lien claims where debtor’s property (vessels) was under bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction)(Sotomayor, J.)
Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker (Switzerland) SA, 2017 WL 892342 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2017)(propriety of interpleader deposit of payment for bunkers recognized and vessel interests discharged from further liability in regard to disputed claims of maritime liens against vessels as well as in personam claims against vessel interests)
Classic Maritime Inc. v. Limbungan Makmur SDN BHD, 646 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)(corporate veil pierced in context of maritime attachment action)
The following matters illustrate the range of our experience: