chalos

 

George M. Chalos of Chalos & Co, P.C. was a speaker at the 2024 Malta Maritime Summit in Valetta, Malta wherein he delivered a riveting presentation to a packed house of delegates on the rise to prominence of the United States in the maritime industry despite a seemingly invisible presence on the ocean and its robust port state law enforcement practices, including the fair treatment of seafarers and prosecutions of suspected Marpol and sanctions violations. The message was clear that education, training, and compliance practices in the ever-changing landscape of complex regulations have become necessary for even small businesses in the industry.

During the event, Mr. Chalos had the privilege of meeting with the Malta Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Public Works, Chris Bonnet. Minister Bonnet was elected to Parliament in March 2022 and serves as Parliamentary Secretary for European Funds.

The Malta Maritime Summit is a biennial event hosted in Valletta, Malta in which prominent and influential maritime stakeholders gather to discuss and debate the advancements, concerns, and challenges facing the various sectors in the maritime and transportation industry, including technology, regulations & compliance, the environment, and finance.

To read more about the presentation by Mr. Chalos, please click here

For more information about the Malta Maritime Summit, please click here.

For more information about George M. Chalos and Chalos & Co, P.C., please contact us at info@chaloslaw.com.

Chalos & Co is pleased to share that its principal and founder, George M. Chalos, Esq. will be speaking at the Marine Claims International Conference in Dublin, Ireland on September 26th, 2024. This annual conference “brings together the key players in the global marine insurance claims sector to discuss the market landscape and take an in-depth look at the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for 2024 and beyond.”  George will discuss the power of the ex parte remedy to arrest and/or attach vessels and property in the United States as a means to obtain jurisdiction and/or to enforce foreign arbitral awards and judgements.

If you wish to learn more about the presentation and the Marine International Conference, please click here.

Chalos & Co is pleased to share that George M. Chalos, Esq. and Briton P. Sparkman were selected to author the “Shipping Laws and Regulations – USA Chapter” of the Global Legal Group’s publication: “The International Comparative Legal Guide – Shipping Law 2024.”  Established in 2002, Global Legal Group (GLG) is an independent London-based legal media company which provides primary legal, regulatory and policy information and reporting to businesses worldwide.  The Group is passionate about highly relevant, real-time information that empowers learning and advice as it’s shared among its global community, which is made up of private practice lawyers, in-house counsel, compliance officers and businesspeople.

If you wish to read the chapter authored by Chalos & Co, please click here

Chalos & Co was recently published in the February 2024 Issue of The Arbitrator, for its article “Sire, Hire, Price Majeure and a Global Pandemic: Are Vetting Clauses a Warranty or a Due Diligence Obligation?”  The article was part of a presentation made by George M. Chalos, Esq. at the November 2023 meetings of the International Congress of Maritime Arbitrators  (ICMA XXII) in Dubai.

The Arbitrator is published quarterly by the Society of Maritime Arbitrators.  To read the article in full, please click here.

We are thrilled to share a recent triumph at Chalos & Co that reinforces our commitment to justice and litigation expertise.  Last week, George M. Chalos secured a resounding defense verdict in a difficult premises liability trial presided over by NY State Supreme Court Justice, Dawn Jiminez.   At trial, the plaintiff alleged that an unreasonably dangerous condition caused an unfortunate series of events which lead to serious personal injuries and permanent partial disabilities.  With the assistance of our clients, our team meticulously presented evidence from various fact and expert witnesses to counter the plaintiff’s claims and to demonstrate the lack of liability on the defendants’ behalf.  After thorough examination of the evidence, the jury, comprised of six (6) thoughtful individuals, engaged in careful deliberation.  The persuasive arguments presented in a compelling summation and closing were well received by the jury which swiftly returned a complete defense verdict.  This victory underscores the depth of our firm’s litigators in navigating complex legal terrain and representing our clients in diverse challenging matters.

For more information on the Chalos & Co litigation team, contact us at: info@chaloslaw.com.

George M. Chalos of Chalos & Co, P.C. presented at the Marine Claims International 2023 conference in Dublin, Ireland during September 27-29, 2023. Mr. Chalos’ lively presentation posed the following question, “The United States and Maritime Claims: Have the Colonials become the Judge, Jury, and Executioner.” The presentation explored the United States’ commercial prominence in the shipping industry, and how U.S. authorities have exploited that position to enforce MARPOL and sanctions beyond the traditional limits of U.S. jurisdiction.

Chalos & Co, P.C. was also a proud sponsor of the event.  To learn more about the annual conference, please visit the website here.

For more information, please do not hesitate to contact us at info@chaloslaw.com.

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), reports that at least 38 people have died in Duck Boat casualties in the last 24 years. In 1999, the MISS MAJESTIC was carrying passengers on Lake Hamilton near Hot Springs, Arkansas. Due to what would later be determined by an NTSB investigation to be the tour company’s failure to properly repair and maintain the vessel, the Duck Boat began listing hard to port and sank, taking the lives of 21 people on board. In addition, the NTSB uncovered several other safety issues, including a need for improved oversight by the USCG.

Despite the concerns, additional action was not taken by the USCG. Nearly 20 years later, another fatal sinking occurred on Table Rock Lake near Branson, Missouri in 2019, which claimed the lives of 17 people when the STRETCH DUCK 7 took on excessive water during a severe weather event. That NTSB investigation found some of the same maintenance and safety related concerns previously outlined following the MISS MAJESTIC accident were contributing factors to the tragedy. We previously wrote about the criminal case against the former Master and Managers of the STRETCH DUCK 7, which was dismissed for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, and can be accessed here.  That decision dismissing the government’s criminal charges under the seaman’s manslaughter act was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. McKee, 68 F.4th 1100 (8th Cir. May 30, 2023).

The USCG has now sought to enact regulations which would subject Duck Boat vessels, their owners and operators to certain uniform and regulatory mandated safety requirements. The 9 requirements of the Interim Rule, which took effect September 11, 2023 are:

(1) Remove the canopies and any window coverings of such vessels for waterborne operations, or install a canopy that does not restrict horizontal or vertical escape by passengers in the event of flooding or sinking;
(2) If a canopy and window coverings are removed from any such vessel pursuant to paragraph (1), require that all passengers wear a personal flotation device approved by the Coast Guard before the onset of waterborne operations of such vessel;
(3) Re-engineer such vessels to permanently close all unnecessary access plugs and reduce all through-hull penetrations to the minimum number and size necessary for operation;
(4) Install independently powered electric bilge pumps that can dewater such vessels at the volume of the largest remaining penetration in order to supplement an operable Higgins pump or a dewatering pump of equivalent or greater capacity;
(5) Install in such vessels not fewer than four independently powered bilge alarms;
(6) Conduct an in-water inspection of any such vessel after each time a through-hull penetration has been removed or uncovered;
(7) Verify the watertight integrity of any such vessel through an in-water inspection at the outset of each waterborne departure;
(8) Install underwater light emitting diode (LED) lights that activate automatically in an emergency; and
(9) Otherwise comply with any other provisions of relevant Coast Guard guidance or instructions in the inspection, configuration, and operation of such vessels.

Vessel operators have 180 days from the date of this rule’s issuance to comply. See 88 FR 62295.

To read the interim rule click here.

For more information, please visit our website at chaloslaw.com, or contact us at info@chaloslaw.com.

Chalos & Co was recently published in The Arrest News for its article, “Foreign Seafarers as Material Witnesses—Modern Day Subjugation?”, which depicts the unfair treatment of foreign seafarers by the U.S. Government in MARPOL/APPS cases.

To read the article in full click here.

In January 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) issued the following link to the enforcement alert entitled, “EPA Reminder About Clean Water Act Vessel General Permit (VGP) Requirements”.  Commercial vessel owners and operators that enter ports and waterways of the United States are required to comply with the 2013 VGP, including filing a notice of intent for discharges that are incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.

The EPA has repeatedly expressed an ambition to become more aggressive in its approach to VGP enforcement activity.  The VGP rules and regulations are not well drafted and there remains confusion and disagreement amongst the technical community as to what is (and what is not) compliant.  For example, the VGP is written to require sampling three (3) times within the first ten (10) discharge events (not to exceed 180-day period). See VGP Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.5.2 at Table 4, page. 34. The VGP does not specify whether the sampling and discharge events are limited to within VGP waters or are meant to cover the Vessel anywhere in the world.  In the EPA “Response to Comments” on this issue, the EPA recognized that vessels may not be able to comply with this monitoring due to a variety of factors including a vessel that discharges fewer than ten (10) times within a 180-day period. The “Response to Comment” further indicates that a vessel that discharges fewer than ten (10) times may comply with this requirement by completing the required number of tests in the first ten (10) samples in whatever timeframe it takes to get to the 10^th discharge so as not to penalize those vessels that discharge less frequently. See EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0141-0480-A1, Excerpt 2.

Similarly, discharge limits in the VGP are expressed as CFU. See VGP Section 2.2.3.5 (pg. 29). However, the VGP allows for testing results using methods that are expressed in MPN. See VGP Section 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 (pg. 31). The VGP fails to provide any guidance, calculations or regulatory interpretation which express acceptable limitations utilizing MPN.  There is no way to convert MPN to CFU given the systemic differences in these bacteria measurement protocols, as one is a count and the other is a statistical estimation.

The VGP is also confused on when calibration should be performed. VGP section 2.2.3.5.1.1.3 (at pg. 31) states that applicable sensors and other equipment must be calibrated annually but clarifies in the next sentence that the equipment must be calibrated no less frequently than recommended by the manufacturer.  Understandably, vessel owners, operators and their QI’s have interpreted this requirement to mean that conducting maintenance in accordance with the equipment manufacturer’s recommended is sufficient and additional annual testing would not be needed if it was not called for by the manufacturer. The EPA appears to disagree and in recent enforcement actions has sought to impose a more onerous obligation.

For more information on the EPA enforcement of suspected VGP violations and/or for more information on best practices to comply with the existing regulatory requirements, contact Chalos & Co, PC – International Law Firm at: info@chaloslaw.com.

Sign at Larnaca International Airport, Larnaca Cyprus October 13, 2022

Worldwide, there are signs and placards throughout airports, train stations, seaports, and bus stops offering assistance to individuals who may be experiencing being held against their will.  They often pose a series of questions along the lines of the following:

 “Is someone . . . holding your passport or personal documents; threatening you or your family; controlling your movements; and/or forbidding you to go anywhere or speak with anyone you want.” 

 These are tale-tell warning signs of human trafficking, involuntary servitude, and modern-day slavery.  The posted signs are jarring, but they are not just for individuals to reach out for help, but to raise awareness for the public to be on the lookout for distressed individuals in need. There is no dispute that the persons being held against their will is a bad thing and has no place in the modern world.

However, in the United States, there is a government sanctioned regime whereby foreign seafarers are routinely held against their will as involuntary detainees and material witnesses in MARPOL/APPS prosecutions.  Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1908(e), the Coast Guard (and Customs and Border Protection acting at the Coast Guard’s instruction) can revoke and refuse to reinstate a foreign flagged vessel’s departure clearance until surety satisfactory to the Secretary is posted.  Such “surety” takes the form of an “Agreement on Security,” which requires not only the posting of a financial undertaking by the Vessel’s Owners and Operators, but also requires the removal of seafarers from the Vessel.  It is standard for the Coast Guard to insist that the Captain and the entire Engine Room Department be disembarked from their shipboard home, turnover their passports/travel documents, and remain in a hotel within the federal district where the matter is pending  for an unknown and unlimited amount of time during the government’s investigation.

The seafarers are not parties or signatories to the “Agreement on Security.” When a seafarer asks to go home or to have his passport returned to him, the government denies those requests. When a seafarer applies to the Court to have his travel documents returned or to have his deposition taken so he may leave the United States, the government opposes the requests.  Typically, the government will implement some combination of the following procedure to block a seafarer’s right to departure: 1) claim that the crewmember is in the United States voluntarily; 2) argue that there is no right to a deposition because criminal charges are not yet pending; and 3) if all else fails, obtain a material witness arrest warrant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3144 to ensure that a seafarer remains for trial. The purpose of the material witness statute is to secure the presence of a witness who possesses information material to a criminal proceeding.

Some district courts have found that seafarers held pursuant to an Agreement on Security and/or material witness warrants in MARPOL/APPS cases were functionally detained as a result of this arrangement, even if not formally incarcerated, and therefore entitled to have their deposition taken so that they could return to their jobs and families abroad.  See, e.g.  In re Zak, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222937, *17 (D. Me. 2017); United States v. Dalnave Navigation, Criminal No. 09-130, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21765, 2009 WL 743100, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2009); Mercator Lines Ltd. (Sing.) PTE Ltd. v. M/V GAURAV PREM, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153429, *28-31 (SDAL 2011).  However, even in those matters, the seafarers had to complain of detention for many months before the Court took action.

In two (2) recent cases, U.S. Magistrate Judges in the Eastern District of Louisiana and Southern District of California have refused to order depositions, instead finding that the government’s interests in completing charging decisions and live testimony of witnesses was of greater interest than the rights and liberty of the individual seafarers.  See, e.g., In re Joanna, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114281, (ED La. 2021)(finding that the prosecutors’ subjective intent of the use of the material witness warrant was not reviewable, so long as the warrant was facially valid)(citations omitted). In another recent case, United States v. Evridiki Navigation, et al., in the District of Delaware, the Court finally ordered Rule 15 depositions after the crewmembers were detained for several months by government officials on the basis their testimony would be significant to the investigation and prosecution.  When the crewmembers returned for trial six (6) months later, the government shockingly did not call any of the seafarers as witnesses in the case.

The actions of the government is all the more egregious compared to how the material witness warrant statute is routinely used in other criminal matters in the United States.  For example, in U.S. v. Whited, the Court found that Christopher Cambron had material information relevant to a pending criminal matter in which the defendant was accused of armed robbery of at least seven (7) businesses.  Due to Mr. Cambron’s history of drug and alcohol abuse, the government sought a material witness warrant to keep him in custody to ensure his availability for trial. United States v. Whited, 3:21-cr-29, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230521 (E.D. Tenn. 2022). The Court agreed and ordered Mr. Cambron detained.  However, the District Court directed his deposition to be completed within a week and Mr. Cambron’s deposition was completed the day after Christmas on December 26, 2022. He was released the next day after spending less than seven (7) days in custody. Similarly, in U.S. border cases, material witnesses are often detained, deposed, and then released within a matter of days. See, e.g., W.D. Tex. Local Criminal Rule 15b (setting out the procedure for deposition and release of material witnesses and requiring release within 24-hours of deposition or 45 days of first appearance in Court, whichever occurs sooner).

So why are seafarers, who are historically recognized as ‘wards of the Court’ to be afforded special treatment and protection, abused by the system in MARPOL/APPS cases. The reason is simple: the crewmembers are pawns utilized by the government as an additional pressure point on the Owner and Operator in these prosecutions.  The expense of paying for the total wage salary, per diems, hotel costs, and local travel expenses for the crewmembers detained in the district can reach $30,000 – $50,000 per month (or more).  Meanwhile, seafarers who most times have done nothing wrong, are forced miss important life events: births, deaths, anniversaries, family obligations, etc; a result that is all the more inhumane and disproportionate when considering that the US Courts routinely utilize remote appearances and/or video recorded deposition testimony in lieu of live, in-person testimony.

For more information on the US investigation and prosecution of suspected Marpol/APPS violations and/or the unfair treatment of foreign seafarers in the United States, contact: info@chaloslaw.com.