Printer Friendly
The Free Library
19,607,059 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Court Denies Maritrans' Claim for Damages From the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.


Business Editors

TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 24, 2001

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled on December 21, 2001 that the double hull A double hull is a ship hull design and construction method where the bottom and sides of the ship have two complete layers of watertight hull surface: one outer layer forming the normal hull of the ship, and a second inner hull which is somewhat further into the ship, perhaps a  requirement of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA OPA: see Office of Price Administration. ") does not constitute a "taking" of Maritrans' (NYSE NYSE

See: New York Stock Exchange
 symbol TUG) petroleum barges.

Maritrans is currently evaluating whether to take an appeal.

OPA prohibits existing single-hull tank vessels from continuing operation through their useful life, mandating a phase-out schedule over a period of years.

In 1996, Maritrans filed a lawsuit lawsuit: see procedure; tort.  alleging that the forced retirement of its predominantly pre·dom·i·nant  
adj.
1. Having greatest ascendancy, importance, influence, authority, or force. See Synonyms at dominant.

2.
 single-hulled vessel fleet represents a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment of the United States United States, officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area.  Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by the government without just compensation.

In 1998, the Court ruled that Maritrans' suit was only "ripe" with respect to vessels that had been sold, scrapped or rebuilt after enactment of OPA. Trial concluded in February 2001 with respect to eight of Maritrans' single-hull barges that had been sold, scrapped or rebuilt.

In its decision the Court essentially held that, even though OPA had deprived Maritrans of a substantial portion of the value of its vessels, Maritrans had been able to recoup recoup

To sell an asset at a price sufficient to recover the original outlay or to offset a previous loss.
 its investment during the period from enactment of OPA until the OPA retirement date.

Therefore the government's ban on further use constituted a non-compensible diminution in value diminution in value n. in the event of a breach of contract, the decrease in value of property due to the failure to construct something exactly as specified in the contract. , and not a "taking." Maritrans believes strongly that the forced retirement of Maritrans' vessels did in fact meet the legal test of a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and is evaluating the merits of an appeal.

Stephen A. Van Dyck, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Maritrans, comments, "Naturally, we are extremely disappointed by this ruling. While a favorable fa·vor·a·ble  
adj.
1. Advantageous; helpful: favorable winds.

2. Encouraging; propitious: a favorable diagnosis.

3.
 outcome would have returned substantial value to our shareholders and provided additional funding for completion of our ongoing rebuild program, the Court's ruling will not adversely affect Maritrans' rebuilding program, our financial strength or our outlook for the future. This decision in no way affects the Company's present tender offer that we commenced on December 17, 2001. Additionally, this decision does not diminish our ability to generate substantial earnings going forward, and does not change our earnings outlook as we look ahead to 2002."

The information in this release includes certain forward-looking statements forward-looking statement

A projected financial statement based on management expectations. A forward-looking statement involves risks with regard to the accuracy of assumptions underlying the projections.
. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results, levels of activity, growth, performance, earnings per share or achievements to be materially different from that expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements.

These statements are based on assumptions the Company believes are reasonable, but a variety of factors could cause the Company's actual results, goals, targets or objectives to differ materially from those contemplated, projected, forecast, estimated, anticipated, planned or budgeted.

Such factors include, among others, changes in oil companies' operating and sourcing decisions, competition for marine transportation, domestic oil consumption, the continuation of federal law restricting United States point-to-point maritime shipping to U.S. vessels (the Jones Act), demand for petroleum products, future spot market rates, and the general financial, economic, environmental and regulatory conditions affecting the oil and marine transportation industry in general.

Maritrans Inc. is a U.S. based company with a 73-year commitment to building and operating petroleum transport vessels for the U.S. domestic trade. Maritrans is headquartered in Tampa, FL and maintains an office in the Philadelphia, PA area to support its Northeast crude oil lightering operations. The common stock of Maritrans Inc. is listed on the New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)

World's largest marketplace for securities. The exchange began as an informal meeting of 24 men in 1792 on what is now Wall Street in New York City.
 under the symbol "TUG".
COPYRIGHT 2001 Business Wire
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2001, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Business Wire
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Dec 24, 2001
Words:582
Previous Article:Pearson Agrees to Sell 22% Stake in RTL Group to Bertelsmann for 1.5 Billion Euros.
Next Article:Eco-Tankship in Bid to Block Enron Auction.



Related Articles
Proving medical monitoring damages.
Alaska Sport Fishing Association v. Exxon Corporation highlights the need to take a hard look at the doctrine of parens patriae when applied in...
In re the Exxon Valdez Alaska Native Class v. Exxon Corp.: cultural resources, subsistence living, and the special injury rule.
Trumping pollution exclusions.
Testing the waters in MTBE litigation.
Worker `too old' to receive benefits cannot claim discrimination.
Settlement concludes first MTBE products trial.
Uncertain seas for maritime punitive damages: once assured of smooth sailing, plaintiffs find that U.S. Supreme Court cases have muddied the waters.
Anticipating D&O claims: a rise in environmental securities actions against companies is spurring an influx of pollution claims by policyholders.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2012 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles