Many of our members have in recent years been on the giving and receiving end of such attachment orders. The ability to secure claims by way of this remedy has been an effective means to secure and eventually settle many maritime claims. For ship-owners tired of having their vessels arrested in various jurisdictions, Rule B has been a welcome tool enabling them to secure claims against more elusive charterers and counterparties.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the leading decision in the Winter Storm was wrong. In very broad and clear language the court stated: "We now conclude, with the consent of all the judges of the Court in active service, that Winter Storm was erroneously decided and therefore should no longer be binding precedent in our Circuit."

While the Court has sealed the fate of Rule B attachments for the future, there is some uncertainty regarding the plight of existing attachments. In most cases the attached EFT - the funds if you will - has simply been left with the intermediary bank. The question of the day is whether these funds must now be released, and if so, whether this will require an application to the court. For those on the receiving end of Rule Bs there is similar uncertainty about what steps can or should be taken to have attached funds relased. If funds have already been removed to a separate escrow account it is believed that such arrangements will typically not be affected by this stunning development in New York.

Here at Nordisk the volume of Rule B attachments has at times been very high, but many of these cases have been resolved - typically by settlement. Thus at present the number of existing attachments (without suitable escrow arrangements) is at a fairly low level. Of course, we will be in touch with the affected members with a view to safeguard their interests.

The elimination of Rule B as a remedy in relation to USD transfers leaves us with mixed feelings. While Rule B has been an extremely effective mechanism affording members an opportunity to both secure and settle their claims, it has not come without cost. There have been numerous dubious claims and counterclaims along with wrongful and misdirected attachments, and the legal costs have been significant when the attachment or related request for counter security has been challenged. The judges have now had their say, but the jury is still out when it comes to whether this forceful remedy will be missed.