## Facts

- Entron, Ltd. filed an admiralty suit seeking to enforce a maritime lien against the Crane Vessel *Titan 5* (the “Crane”) in an in rem proceeding.
- The Crane asserted that it was an agency or instrumentality of the Russian state and therefore immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), even though its operations at issue were commercial in nature.
- In support of immunity, the Crane relied on FSIA language addressing immunity from attachment and execution, arguing that attachment-type relief was unavailable without an explicit waiver by the foreign state.
- Entron argued that the FSIA permits an admiralty action to enforce a maritime lien against a foreign-state vessel used for commercial activity, and that the lien-enforcement mechanism authorized by the statute is not defeated by the absence of an express waiver of attachment immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether the FSIA permits an in rem admiralty action to enforce a maritime lien against a vessel alleged to be owned or controlled by a foreign state when the claim arises from the vessel’s commercial activity.
2. Whether FSIA provisions concerning immunity from attachment require an explicit waiver before a foreign-state vessel may be arrested or held to answer in a maritime-lien enforcement suit.
3. Whether the FSIA’s admiralty/maritime-lien framework authorizes traditional admiralty process against a foreign-state vessel in these circumstances.

## Decision

- The court rejected the Crane’s claim that FSIA immunity barred the maritime-lien enforcement action solely because Russia had not expressly waived immunity from attachment.
- The court allowed Entron’s admiralty proceeding to go forward and declined to treat the absence of an explicit attachment waiver as a categorical bar to the vessel’s arrest in the lien-enforcement case.
- The court treated the FSIA’s special treatment of maritime-lien enforcement against foreign-state vessels used in commercial activity as controlling, rather than reading the attachment-immunity language to eliminate that remedy.

## Legal Principles

- The FSIA supplies the rules governing immunity of a foreign state and its agencies or instrumentalities in U.S. courts, including in admiralty.
- A foreign-state vessel’s involvement in commercial activity can place a maritime-lien enforcement action within an FSIA exception to immunity, permitting adjudication of the lien claim in federal court when statutory conditions are satisfied.
- In an admiralty action brought to enforce a maritime lien against a foreign-state vessel used for commercial activity, FSIA’s provisions specific to maritime-lien enforcement govern the availability of traditional admiralty process.
- FSIA’s general references to immunity from attachment are not read to nullify Congress’s separate authorization for maritime-lien enforcement proceedings against commercial vessels connected to a foreign state.

## Conclusion

*Entron, Ltd. v. Crane Vessel Titan 5* holds that a vessel alleged to be an instrumentality of a foreign state is not automatically immune under the FSIA from an in rem admiralty action to enforce a maritime lien arising out of commercial activity, and that the absence of an explicit waiver of attachment immunity does not, by itself, prevent the arrest of the vessel where the case fits within the FSIA’s maritime-lien enforcement framework.


Entron, Ltd. v. Crane Vessel Titan 5, 1996 AMC 1463 (1995)