A ruling from the Court of Appeals in New Orleans, United States, in the litigation Three Fifty Markets, Ltd. v. M/V ARGOS M published this May 2026 and accessed by Canarymaritime sets an international precedent. It establishes a significant precedent for global maritime trade, all due to a supply that took place in Las Palmas. The ruling confirms the right of physical fuel suppliers to exercise a lien when acting in good faith, even in the presence of complex chartering structures with restrictive clauses. This case, originating in the Port of Las Palmas, illustrates the inherent financial risks in the mediation of bunker supply. The legal conflict originated in October 2022 when the British company Three Fifty Markets, Ltd. supplied 800 metric tons of very low sulfur fuel oil to the bulk carrier M/V ARGOS M. The operation was carried out through the Emirati intermediary AUM Scrap and Metals Waste Trading LLC, which acted on behalf of the time charterer of the vessel, the German Shimsupa GmbH, using the broker BunkerEx. Although the fuel was physically pumped at the Gran Canaria docks by Oryx Energies, the payment chain fractured: neither Shimsupa nor the guarantor AUM settled the invoice, forcing Three Fifty Markets to activate enforcement instruments under U.S. federal law. The crux of the litigation lay in the interpretation of the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA). The shipowner, the Greek Argos Bulkers, backed by managers such as Pontos Marine, attempted to annul the preventive in rem lien executed in New Orleans by arguing the existence of ‘no lien’ clauses in the master charter contract. However, the court upheld the validity of the lien by determining that these internal prohibitions are ineffective against suppliers who were unaware of their existence and interacted with agents who had apparent authority. The judges emphasized that the speed of modern commerce justifies that suppliers should not have to conduct exhaustive contractual checks at each port call. The ruling underscores the relevance of the doctrine of ‘apparent authority’. The American court determined that AUM Scrap & Metals Waste Trading LLC had the legal capacity to bind the fleet due to its prior connections with the charterer and the lack of objections from the technical management of the M/V ARGOS M upon receiving the cargo details. The ruling dismissed Argos Bulkers’ complaints regarding the price of the operation, considering that the margins applied by Three Fifty Markets were consistent with the premiums for volatility, short terms, and credit risks typical of calls in Las Palmas. A critical aspect of the ruling was the incorporation by reference of the General Terms and Conditions of Sale (GTCS). The court concluded that since the broker BunkerEx sent the order confirmation and it referenced the terms of sale—available upon request—the lack of objection from AUM or Shimsupa legally validated the choice of U.S. law to resolve the dispute. This legal mechanism protects suppliers that incorporate federal choice of law clauses, neutralizing attempts by shipowners to impose foreign legislation that does not recognize the maritime lien for necessity supplies. The case also left room for internal legal debate through a dissenting opinion from Judge Andrew Oldham. This magistrate argued that the majority’s analysis failed to determine which law governed the original charter contract between the shipowner and the charterer. In his opinion, if that contract initially prohibited the outsourcing of the lien capacity, the clauses of subsequent supply agreements could lack effect, a point he believes should have been returned to the lower courts. For the logistical framework of the Port of Las Palmas, this judicial precedent is of vital importance. The ruling strengthens the legal security of local operators by recognizing that the arrest of a vessel in a foreign port, based on non-payment for physical supplies executed in Las Palmas, is a fully legitimate recourse. Local bunker companies and port agents now have clear backing: due diligence in executing essential supplies, supported by clear communication of the terms of sale, prevails over private ‘no lien’ clauses that shipowners attempt to interpose to evade their financial responsibilities in case of bankruptcy of their charterers.
© 2026 canarymaritime