A resolution from the Court of Appeals in New Orleans, United States, in the case of Three Fifty Markets, Ltd. v. M/V ARGOS M, released in May 2026 and accessed by Canarymaritime sets an international precedent. It establishes a significant precedent for global maritime trade, all stemming from a supply that occurred in Las Palmas. The ruling confirms the right of fuel suppliers to retain fuel 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 financial risks inherent in brokering bunker supplies.
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 conducted through the Emirati intermediary AUM Scrap and Metals Waste Trading LLC, which acted on behalf of the vessel’s time charterer, the German company 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 the instruments of enforcement under U.S. federal law.
The key issue in the litigation lay in the interpretation of the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA). The shipowner, the Greek Argos Bulkers, supported by managers such as Pontos Marine, sought to annul the preliminary in rem seizure 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 seizure, 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 trade justifies that suppliers should not be required to conduct exhaustive contractual checks at each port of call.
The ruling highlights the relevance of the doctrine of ‘apparent authority’. The American court determined that AUM Scrap & Metals Waste Trading LLC had the capacity to legally bind the fleet due to its prior links 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 transaction, considering that the margins applied by Three Fifty Markets were consistent with premiums for volatility, short timelines, and credit risks inherent in port calls in Las Palmas.
A critical aspect of the resolution 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 that referred to the sales conditions—available upon request—the lack of objection from AUM or Shimsupa legally validated the choice of U.S. law to adjudicate the dispute. This legal mechanism protects suppliers who incorporate federal law choice clauses, neutralizing shipowners’ attempts to impose foreign legislations that do not recognize maritime liens for necessary supplies.
The case also left room for internal legal debate through a dissenting opinion from Judge Andrew Oldham. This judge 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 originally prohibited the capacity to subcontract the lien, 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 reinforces the legal certainty of local operators by recognizing that the arrest of a vessel in a foreign port, based on the non-payment of physical supplies executed in Las Palmas, is a fully valid recourse. Local bunker companies and port agents now have clear backing: due diligence in executing essential supplies, supported by clear communication of the sales conditions, prevails over the private ‘no lien’ clauses that shipowners attempt to impose to avoid their financial responsibilities in the event of default by their charterers.
