Maritime Law--SCOTUS Rules Fish Not Tangible Object Under Sarbanes-Oxley

February 27, 2015

Can a law written to punish the "Enrons" of the world for shredding or doing away with records also be used to convict a Florida fisherman who tossed his undersized catch into the sea in an effort to avoid penalties? This was a question I asked in my blog back in July 12, 2014 Can Fisherman's Case Recast Sarbanes-Oxley?

US Supreme Court.jpg

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled "no". The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether fish are deemed by the government to be a “tangible object”, such that if destroyed with the intent to obstruct an investigation, it would be a crime. 

As background, while inspecting a commercial fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico, a federal agent found that the catch contained undersized red grouper, in violation of conservation regulations, and instructed the captain, Yates, to keep the undersized fish segregated from the rest of the catch until the ship returned to port. After the officer departed, Yates told the crew to throw the undersized fish overboard. Yates was convicted of destroying, concealing, and covering up undersized fish to impede a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. section 519, which applies when a person “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence” a federal investigation. Yates argued that section 1519 originated in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to protect investors, and that its reference to “tangible object” includes objects used to store information, such as computer hard drives.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “tangible object” refers to one used to record or preserve information. Section 1519’s position within Title 18, Chapter 73 and its title, “Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy,” signal that it was not intended to serve as a cross-the-board ban on the destruction of physical evidence. The words immediately surrounding “tangible object,” “falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record [or] document,” also indicate the contextual meaning of that term. Even if traditional tools of statutory construction leave any doubt about the meaning of the term, it would be appropriate to invoke the rule of lenity.

If you wish to contact me or are interested in receiving a copy of the SCOTUS decision, please feel free to contact me at mov@chaloslaw.com.

Maritime Law--Major Changes in the U.S. Relationship with Cuba

Cuban flag.jpg

On December 17, 2014, President Obama announced that the United States would be setting a new course in U.S. relations with Cuba by easing some of the trade and travel restrictions which have been in place for over fifty (50) years.  President Obama stated that the policy of isolating Cuba has failed to accomplish the long term objective of promoting the emergence of a democratic Cuba, stating that doing the same thing and expecting a different result is no good for the American or Cuban people.  The main goal in lifting some of the restrictions is purported to focus on improving human rights, empowering democratic reforms, and promoting the independence of the Cuban people so that they do not need to rely so heavily on the Cuban state.  As a result of President Obama’s announcement, on January 16, 2015, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) amended the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR section 515) and the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) amended the Export Administrations Regulations (15 CFR sections 736, 740, 746, and 748) to implement the policy change by significantly loosening export and travel restrictions to Cuba. 

The U.S. embargo against Cuba was first implemented by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of Commerce in 1963 through a series of regulations which prohibited U.S. persons from dealing in any property in which Cuba or a Cuban national had an interest, imposed a total freeze on Cuban assets and financial dealings with Cuba, and prohibited Americans from traveling to Cuba without a specific license permitting their travel for an approved purpose included in one of twelve (12) delineated categories of authorized travelers.  All exports to Cuba also required a specific license, making it virtually impossible to provide goods to the country. 

The amendments outlined by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of Commerce do not completely eliminate the embargo against Cuba, but rather serve to ease several restrictions that have been in place.  Specifically, the amendments are meant to more easily facilitate travel to Cuba for authorized persons, raise the limit on remittances to Cuba, allows U.S. financial institutions to open correspondent accounts at Cuban financial institutions, and initiate new efforts to increase Cubans’ access to telecommunications equipment.  

The greatest impact on individuals relates to the ability to more freely travel to Cuba without the requirement to obtain a specific license for each entry to Cuba.   From now on, general licenses will be made available to authorized travelers in one of twelve (12) categories; (1) family visits; (2) official business of the US government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations; (3) journalistic activity; (4) professional research and professional meetings; (5) educational activities; (6) religious activities; (7) public performances, clinics, worships, athletic and other competitions and exhibitions; (8) support for the Cuban people; (9) humanitarian projects; (10) activities of private foundations or research or education institutions; (11) exportation, importation, or transmission of information or informational materials; and (12) certain export transactions that may be considered for authorization under existing regulations and guidelines.  Travel by tourists to Cuba is still restricted. 

Under the former regulations, U.S. persons were only allowed to remit US $500.00 to assist Cuban nationals per quarter.  With the new amendments in place, U.S. persons are now allowed to provide a remittance of US $2,000.00 on a quarterly basis for general donative remittances to Cuban nationals.  Further, donative remittances for humanitarian projects, support for the Cuban people and support for the development of private businesses in Cuba will no longer require a specific license to move forward.  Eliminating the requirements for a specific license to engage in these transactions are meant to help to empower the Cuban people to fight for democracy.

The new regulations will also have a substantial impact on American business dealings with Cuba.  The BIS will now permit American companies to export telephones, computers, and internet technology to Cuba and send these supplies to private Cuban firms.  The ability to export telecommunications equipment will likely have the greatest impact on the Cuban economy by providing additional ways to communication and trade with the world through the use of this new equipment.  Though export licenses will generally still be required, a new exception to the export license requirement has been added to allow the exports of goods that generally support the Cuban people.  Wide ranges of goods will likely fall into this category and allow for the export of a large amount of new goods to the Cuban people.

The new OFAC regulations also make significant changes to the shipping sector by creating new exceptions to the “180 day rule” set forth in 31 CFR section 515.207, which bars vessels from the U.S. for 180 days after calling Cuba to engage in the trade of goods or the purchase or provision of services. I have previously blogged on this restriction.  The new regulation (31 CFR section 515.550) provides for the following exceptions from the vessel ban as follows; (i) shipment of cargoes exported under Commerce Department authorization including agricultural, medical, telecommunications, and other permitted goods; (ii) carriage of students, faculty, and staff that are authorized to travel to Cuba; and (iii) vessels engaged in the exportation or re-exportation to Cuba from a third country of most agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices.  The Department of Commerce’s rules still do not allow vessels to depart the U.S. for Cuba without an export license.  Although vessels that have traded in Cuba now will not have to wait 180 days before heading to the U.S., a vessel wanting to travel from the U.S. to Cuba is still going to need an export license to do so.  

The steps taken by President Obama, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of Commerce are essential to help improve the lives of the Cuban people and in normalizing the relationship between the U.S. and Cuba, however, until the U.S. Congress takes formal action to fully normalize relations with Cuba many restrictions still remain in place.  Before engaging in any activities with Cuba, individuals and business should give careful consideration to the new regulations to ensure compliance. 

A copy of the White House Fact Sheet on these new policies is available at the following website: 
White House Fact Sheet

A copy of the Amendments to Cuban Assets Control Regulations issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls is available at the following website: 
OFAC Amendments

A copy of the Amendments to the Export Administration Regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce is available at the following website: 
BIS Amendments

For more information on these new regulations and how it may apply to specific facts and circumstances, please do not hesitate to contact me at mov@chaloslaw.com

Maritime Law--Barbetta Rejected! Passenger May Sue Cruise Line Under Agency Theories

gavel pic.jpg

In Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Docket No. 13-13067 (11th Cir. Nov. 10, 2014), the Plaintiff filed suit against Royal Caribbean for maritime negligence after her elderly father fell and hit his head while on one of Royal Caribbean's cruise vessels. The Plaintiff's father died a week after the injury. Plaintiff alleged that Royal Caribbean is vicariously liable for the negligence of two of its employees, the onboard nurse and doctor, under an actual agency or apparent agency theory. The court concluded that the allegations in plaintiff's complaint plausibly support holding Royal Caribbean vicariously liable for the medical negligence of its onboard nurse and doctor. 

The court declined to adopt the Barbetta rule, which immunizes a ship owner from respondent superior liability whenever a ship's employees render negligent medical care to its passengers. The court found that the complaint in this cause plausibly establishes a claim against Royal Caribbean under the doctrine of actual agency, as well as the principles of apparent agency. Because the plaintiff adequately pled all the elements of both actual and apparent agency, the court held that plaintiff may press her claims under either or both theories. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

This precise issue was discussed in the St. Thomas School of Law symposium on maritime law held in April of this year, which I blogged on some time ago. It was my point that the Eleventh Circuit had never decided, in binding precedent, whether a passenger may hold a ship owner vicariously liable for the medical negligence of the ship's employees. In Franza, the Eleventh Circuit pointed this out and also noted the case of De Zon v. American President Lines, Ltd., 318 U.S. 660, 669 (1943), which held that a "shipowner was liable in damages for harm suffered as a result of any negligence on the part of the ship's doctor." This was my point precisely--if a ship owner is liable in damages for harm suffered by a seafarer as a result of negligence on the part of the ship's doctor, how can a passenger, who has paid for a ticket on a common carrier, be excluded from ever suing the cruise line for the negligence of its doctor?

If you are interested in contacting me or receiving a copy of the decision, please feel free to contact me at mov@chaloslaw.com.

Maritime Law--The Legal Ramifications of Hard-A-Port

October 13, 2014

Brought to my attention by our friends at Shiptalk Ltd is a video of the Hapag-Lloyd containership COLOMBO EXPRESS turning hard-a-port into the MAERSK TANJONG. Both vessels were heading south through the Suez Canal, with the COLOMBO EXPRESS seemingly attempting to overtake the MAERSK TANJONG. Then about 2 1/2 minutes into the seemingly normal maneuver and with no warning at all, the overtaking vessel lurches to port and slammed its bow into the side of the unsuspecting Maersk vessel.

Hapag-Lloyd noted in a statement there were no injuries or pollution as a result of the incident. A Maersk Line spokesperson said that three containers were lost over the side from their ship. You can watch the video here => Containership Collision. While I do not speak fluent Arabic, people can be heard shouting off-camera as the two vessels gradually crash. Three shipping containers fell into the water as a result of the impact, and the COLOMBO EXPRESS was also left with a 65-foot dent, Reuters reports. No causalities were reported.

Photograph taken from www.vesselfinder.com.

Photograph taken from www.vesselfinder.com.

The Suez Canal in Egypt connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea, allowing ships sailing between Europe and Asia to bypass traveling around Africa. It is one of the most heavily used trade routes on the globe, providing reportedly providing the country with roughly $5 billion in annual revenue, according to Reuters. Ship traffic was reportedly halted in the Canal for three hours.


It is reported that both ships had pilots on board and would have been speaking by radio to each other during the passage. Any thoughts on legal causation? If you do, send me an email at mov@chaloslaw.com.