The World Shipping Council (WSC) challenged how the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) interpreted the “unreasonable refusal to deal or negotiate” rule in 46 U.S.C. § 41104(a)(10). The D.C. Circuit upheld the FMC’s interpretation.
Ocean carriers may need to divert from the planned route due to circumstances such as military conflict in a particular region. Diversions like this may create significant additional costs for the carrier. Can these costs be recovered from cargo interests, or must they be borne by the carrier? There is no bright-line rule. Courts have long dealt with such situations, with some cases dating back to the Suez Crisis of 1956. One such example is Transatlantic Financing Corporation v. United States, 363 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1966).
The Genesis case serves as a reminder to shipowners of the “reasonable possibility” standard. If the shipowner receives written notice indicating a “reasonable possibility” of a claim and damages exceeding the value of the vessel, the shipowner has six months to file a limitation action in federal court.
On September 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set aside the key provision of the Federal Maritime Commission’s Final Rule on Demurrage and Detention Billing Requirements, 46 C.F.R. § 541.4, which allowed invoices for demurrage and detention to be issued only to contracting shippers and consignees. World Shipping Council v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 152 F.4th 215 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Why did the Court find this rule arbitrary and capricious? Who may now be charged for demurrage and detention? These questions are explored in this article.
On October 7, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Shell’s certiorari petition to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision, which held that a contract to inspect and repair lifeboats on an oil platform located on the Outer Continental Shelf is a maritime contract. Earnest v. Palfinger Marine USA, Inc., 90 F.4th 804 (5th Cir. 2024).
The choice of applicable law and the choice of forum—these are two key strategic determinations that must be made in almost all legal matters. Maritime cases are not an exception. In the case decided by the Seventh Circuit on August 6, 2024, the plaintiffs relied on both federal and state law to make their cases as advantageous as possible and requested a jury trial in federal court. See In re Lion Air Flight JT 610 Crash, 110 F.4th 1007 (7th Cir. 2024). How did the court respond to these requests? Read on for more details.
The District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court’s decision to enforce a foreign arbitral award because the respondent, against whom the petitioner sought to enforce the arbitral award, challenged the authority of the petitioner’s attorneys. Does this result align with the traditionally narrow scope of enforcement proceedings under the New York Convention? Should the district court resolve the authority dispute despite the parties’ contractual commitment to resolve such corporate governance issues through arbitration? Is it proper to allow one party to challenge the other party’s authority during enforcement proceedings, even though this party had opportunity—and was even invited—to raise this issue during arbitration? These questions remain unresolved.
Does your company make public statements that it cares about, and is working meaningfully toward, environmental sustainability? If yes, this article is for you. The opinion released by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on August 29, 2024, demonstrates that even aspirational statements, such as the company’s statement on its website that it aims “to achieve positive change in the world and build a more sustainable future for our communities and our planet,” can be actionable under consumer protection laws for being false and misleading representations. Earth Island Inst. v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 22-CV-0895, 2024 WL 3976560 (D.C. Aug. 29, 2024).
Subscribe to our blog to get regular updates in the fields of maritime law, international trade law, and commercial arbitration.