Several maritime service providers sued the vessel M/V Nobility in rem for alleged US law maritime liens and arrested the vessel in the Port of Baltimore. The vessel was owned by Maltese entity Fenice Marine Ltd and was operating under a long-term time charter with Bahamian entity Clipper Bulk Shipping Ltd (Clipper Bulk), which appeared in the proceedings as the claimant on behalf and in defence of the vessel in rem. The in rem plaintiffs included: (1) Argentinian entity Loginter SA y Parque Industrial Agua Profunda SA UTE (whose claims were settled by the parties); (2) Polish entity Poseidon & Frachtcontor Junge Ltd (Poseidon), which claimed for unpaid ship husbandry services during a port call in Poland; (3) Liechtensteiner entity Northwest Bunkering Inc (Northwest), which arranged and invoiced for the bunkers that were physically provided by Russian entity Baltic Bunkering Co (Baltic); (4) US (Maryland) entity Canton Maritime Services Inc (Canton), which provided unpaid stevedore and dockage services. At all pertinent times, the vessel was sub-time chartered to Bahamian entity Hawkspere Shipping Co Ltd, which acted through its English agent Serac with respect to the above unpaid services/provisions. Canton, Poseidon and Northwest all moved for summary judgment on their in rem claims; and Clipper Bulk cross-moved for summary judgment against Poseidon and Northwest. Canton's motion (for debts owed by Hawkspere and Serac) was granted as unopposed, leaving only the cross-motions between Poseidon/Northwest and Clipper Bulk for the Court's decision.

As to the bunker claims, Northwest argued that either US law or Maltese law (the law of the flag of the vessel) should apply pursuant to the terms of its contract; whereas Clipper Bulk argued that either English or Russian law should apply pursuant to the terms of the Baltic contract.

Held: The terms of Northwest's contract (even if it were to govern) did not provide for the application of US law. Instead, the Court undertook a maritime choice-of-law analysis under the non-exclusive Lauritzen factors of US general maritime law and determined that Russian law should apply. However, the Court also found that the Baltic contract's English choice-of-law provision was valid. Either way, however, because neither Russian nor English law provides a maritime lien for bunkers as necessaries, Northwest had no valid in rem claim.

As for Poseidon's claim, the dispute centered on whether Polish law provided a basis for an in rem lien. The Arrest Convention 1952 is mentioned in passing with respect to the Polish maritime lien claim for unpaid husbandry services. Poseidon and Clipper Bulk agreed that Polish law applied but disagreed whether Polish law allowed for a maritime lien; but further agreed that 'the provisions of the 1952 Brussels Arrest Convention do not apply [even though Poland is a signatory] because the M/V NOBILITY is registered in Malta, which is not a participant in the convention'. The Court ultimately held that Polish law did provide a maritime lien for the husbanding services under the Polish Maritime Code, art 68.5.