Maritime attachment practice routinely confronts a structural enforcement gap: a plaintiff holds a judgment or arbitral award against a debtor, assets are identifiable, yet effective recovery is frustrated by ownership structures designed to obscure true control through layered affiliates and nominal account designations.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in CH Offshore, Limited v. Mexiship Ocean CCC S.A. de C.V., 163 F.4th 171 (5th Cir. 2025) squarely addresses that issue, holding that Rule B ownership is determined by control rather than formal title.

Rule B as a Strategic Tool

Rule B remains a powerful tool in maritime litigation. It allows a plaintiff to attach a defendant’s property within the district if four elements are satisfied:

• A valid admiralty claim
• The defendant’s absence from the district
• The presence of the defendant’s property
• No statutory or maritime law bar to the attachment

If the attachment is successful, then the defendant debtor’s property acts as security to force the respondent’s appearance in the action and debt satisfaction if the suit is successful.

The Rule E(4)(f) Hearing Framework

The rules then allow for the “owner” of the attached property to make a “limited appearance” to contest the attachment. The court will then conduct a Rule E(4)(f) hearing, based on that supplemental rule which provides: “Whenever property is arrested or attached, any person claiming an interest in it shall be entitled to a prompt hearing at which the plaintiff shall be required to show why the arrest or attachment should not be vacated or other relief granted consistent with these rules.”

A Rule E(4)(f) hearing is not for a court to make “binding determinations of fact; they merely hold that it is or is not likely that alleged facts are true.”[1] Courts merely review the limited evidence then available to determine whether plaintiff may be able to prove its contentions.[2]

Case Background: Arbitration Award Meets Enforcement Obstacles

The dispute in CH Offshore Limited arose from a charter party agreement between CH Offshore, a vessel owner, and Mexiship Ocean, a charterer. Following an alleged breach and failure to redeliver the vessel, CH Offshore obtained a favorable arbitration award in Singapore but faced the familiar problem of enforcement against a non-cooperative foreign counterparty.

The opportunity for attachment emerged when CH Offshore discovered that a third party owed a refund of approximately $800,000 to Mexiship Ocean. That refund was directed to a U.S. bank account held not in Mexiship Ocean’s name, but in the name of an allegedly related entity, Mexiship Texas.

CH Offshore moved quickly, obtaining a Rule B writ of maritime garnishment in the Southern District of Texas to attach those funds as security for its arbitration award. At issue in the case is whether Mexiship Ocean or Mexiship Texas owned the funds that CH Offshore sought to attach.

District Court’s Formal Approach

After limited discovery, however, the district court vacated the writ, concluding that there was “no evidence” the funds belonged to Mexiship Ocean. The court also denied leave to amend the complaint to assert an alter ego theory and state law attachment grounds. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated both rulings.

The district court approached the issue formally, focusing on account title and beneficiary designation. Essentially, because Mexiship Texas was the named account holder, the funds were not the property of Mexiship Ocean.

Fifth Circuit: Substance Over Form

The Fifth Circuit rejected that approach outright. It emphasized that ownership for Rule B purposes is not determined by labels, but by substance. Specifically, the court reiterated that “control is the primary determinant of ownership…” This is a critical point because, in practice, maritime practitioners frequently encounter asset structures designed to obscure ownership through layered foreign entities. The Fifth Circuit’s analysis confirms that courts must look beyond formal title to the economic realities of control and disposition.

The evidence showed that:

• Mexiship Ocean was the contracting party entitled to the refund.
• The refund was directed to a bank account designated by Mexiship Ocean.
• A single individual exercised authority across all affiliated entities.
• There were no formal agreements documenting intercompany transfers as between Mexiship Ocean and Mexiship Texas.

Taken together, these facts created a plausible inference that Mexiship Ocean exercised control over the funds, even if they were routed through Mexiship Texas. As is all too common, a single individual controlled multiple entities, intercompany transactions lacked documentation, and funds were routed in a manner that obscured ownership. But, if control can be demonstrated, attachment remains viable even where the funds sit in a nominally separate entity.

Here, the Fifth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to engage with the relevant evidence and case law pertaining to control, and therefore, ownership, of the settlement refund.

Practical Implications for Maritime Litigators

As a practical matter, this decision materially strengthens the plaintiff’s position in contested Rule B proceedings at the Rule E(4)(f) hearing stage. It allows for a broader evidentiary approach and supports that limited pre-hearing discovery should be allowed. Here, the district court had allowed targeted discovery into the relationship between the affiliated entities, which evidence the Fifth Circuit relied heavily upon in finding that the vacatur was premature.

At the same time, it raises the bar for defendants seeking vacatur. A simple showing of separate account ownership is not sufficient. Courts must engage in a fact-intensive analysis of control.

Brian Lindsey is a partner in Kean Miller’s Offshore Energy & Marine practice, based in the firm’s Lafayette office. His practice focuses on civil defense litigation for industrial, transportation, energy, and maritime clients, as well as prosecuting related claims arising from complex, multi-party disputes. Brian brings deep experience across a broad range of admiralty matters, including Jones Act claims, personal injury defense, property damage, vessel collisions and allisions, contract disputes, and insurance coverage issues, offering clients practical, strategic counsel in high-stakes maritime litigation.

[1] Schifffahrtsgesellschaft MS N Schelde MBH & Co. KG v. Pola Maritime Ltd., No. 16-10728, 2016 WL 3667638, at *2 (E.D. La. July 11, 2016).

[2] See, e.g., Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. ATL Shipping Ltd., 475 F. Supp. 2d 275, 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); A. Coker & Co. v. Nat’l Shipping Agency, No. 99-1440, 1999 WL 311941, at *2 (E.D. La. May 17, 1999); Ullises Shipping Corp. v. FAL Shipping Co., 415 F. Supp. 2d 318, 322-23 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Linea Naviera de Cabotaje, C.A. v. Mar Caribe de Navegacion, C.A., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1359-60 (M.D. Fla. 2001).