U.S. maritime law offers a maritime plaintiff two principal means of obtaining security for its claims: Rule B attachment in respect of maritime claims, and Rule C arrest in respect of maritime liens. These rules are superficially similar, but each has different criteria and serves a different purpose. Each also gives the defendant the opportunity to obtain countersecurity on related counterclaims. However, what happens when the plaintiff is in bankruptcy, subject to a bankruptcy court’s automatic stay of proceedings against it? Can a debtor be compelled to give countersecurity in such a case? This article discusses a recent decision from a bankruptcy court in (of all places) Colorado that helps answer this question.
Originally published in Maritime and Transport Law September 2016 Newsletter Vol. 12 No. 2.
Please see full publication below for more information.
