Cal Dive International Inc (CDVIQ)

[c-dive]

Cal Dive is currently holding a lien on another company's vessel for a payment of $1,623,459.92

https://m.hklaw.com/publications/district-court-in-ical-divei-rules-against-vessel-owners-challenge-to-maritime-lien-05-05-2017/

Nice to know Cal Dive is still trying to collect the many millions of dollars owed to them even though they are in chapter 7 liquidation now.

Really hope there is some money left over for us shareholders when this is all over.

My company recently had to put a lien on Vessel for a payment of about $500,000.00 and the company of course paid out.

A work Vessel with a lien on it can not work and can cause the company which owns the vessel to lose millions of dollars in work. If they don't pay the money, Cal Dive can sell their Vessel for payment.

********************************************************************************************
District Court in Cal Dive Rules Against Vessel Owner's Challenge to Maritime Lien

May 5, 2017

Author(s)
Richard Furey

HIGHLIGHTS:
* The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by a vessel owner that sought to dismiss the maritime lien claim of a provider of deck personnel.
* The court's ruling in Cal Dive Offshore Contractors, Inc., et.al. v. M/V SAMPSON, et.al., announced on March 27, 2017, serves to remind vessel owners of the need to provide actual and specific notice of "no lien" provisions to potential lienholders supplying necessaries to the vessel.
* As this decision is limited to denial of a summary judgment, a genuine dispute remains for resolution at trial whether Cal Dive had actual knowledge of the no-lien clause in the charter agreement, and moreover, whether or not a valid maritime lien arose.


Cal Dive was contracted to provide a crew to supervise and assist in the Sampson's pipe-laying activities; the parties disagree whether this crew was ordered by the charterer, Oceanografia, or by (or on behalf of) the vessel owner. Cal Dive alleged a balance due of $1,623,459.92 for unpaid wages, and commenced an action to enforce a maritime lien in remagainst the Sampson, as well as separate related claims in personam against the vessel owner. The owner objected, alleging that a valid maritime lien had not arisen.