## Facts

- Royal Swan Navigation Co. Ltd. (shipowner) and Global Container Lines, Ltd. (charterer) entered into a time charter for the M/V MASTER PANOS.
- A dispute arose under the charter party and proceeded toward maritime arbitration; Royal Swan sought security for its in personam maritime claim.
- Royal Swan filed a verified admiralty complaint in the Southern District of New York and obtained an ex parte maritime attachment under Supplemental Rule B.
- The warrant of attachment was served on funds in Global’s New York bank account.
- Global had no office or employees regularly based in the district but had contacts with the United States, retained New York counsel, and had a director who traveled to New York almost weekly.
- Global moved to vacate, asserting it could be “found within the district” because its New York attorneys were agents and because of the director’s frequent presence.

## Issues

1. Whether Global could be “found within the district” under Supplemental Rule B(1), requiring both personal jurisdiction in the district and an authorized agent for service of process there.
2. Whether retaining New York counsel (including for limited purposes such as arbitration communications) or a director’s frequent travel establishes an authorized agent or sufficient presence to defeat a Rule B attachment.

## Decision

- The court denied Global’s motion to vacate the maritime attachment.
- The court held Global was not “found within the district” for Rule B purposes because it lacked an authorized agent in the district to accept service of process.
- The attachment of Global’s New York bank account remained in effect as security for Royal Swan’s maritime claim.

## Legal Principles

- Supplemental Rule B permits attachment of a defendant’s property in an in personam admiralty action if the defendant cannot be found within the district.
- In the Southern District of New York, a defendant is “found within the district” only if (1) the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and (2) the defendant can be served in the district through an officer, managing or general agent, or other agent authorized to accept service.
- An agent’s mere presence in the district is insufficient; the agent must be of a character and authority such that the corporation is present through the agent and service can validly be made.
- Appointment of counsel to receive arbitration demands or other limited communications does not, without clear authorization, constitute appointment to accept judicial process.
- A corporate officer or director’s frequent travel to the district, without a stable corporate presence or authorized service agent, does not satisfy Rule B’s service-of-process requirement.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a Rule B maritime attachment because Global, though potentially subject to jurisdictional contacts, was not “found within the district” absent a clearly authorized local agent for service of process, and neither retained counsel for limited functions nor a director’s frequent visits supplied that requirement.


Royal Swan Navigation Co. v. Glob. Container Lines, Ltd., 868 F. Supp. 599 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)