The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion Feb. 2 in a maritime dispute involving unpaid fuel bills totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars for the bulk carrier M/V Argos M. The consolidated case, *Three Fifty Markets v. Argos M M/V* (5th Cir. 2026), centers on who bears responsibility when maritime fuel suppliers go unpaid in complex international shipping arrangements.
Three Fifty Markets, an international commodity trading company specializing in marine fuel oil known as bunkers, filed suit against the Greek-owned vessel after AUM Scrap and Metals Waste Trading LLC failed to pay for fuel delivered in October 2022. The dispute arose from a time charter arrangement where the vessel was chartered to German company Shimsupa GmbH, with AUM serving as guarantor due to Shimsupa's poor creditworthiness.
According to court documents, AUM contacted bunker broker BunkerEx Ltd. in early October 2022, purportedly acting on behalf of Shimsupa to arrange fuel for the vessel. BunkerEx then obtained a quote from Three Fifty Markets and relayed it to AUM. Under time pressure, AUM confirmed the price and the bunkers were delivered to the vessel. However, neither AUM nor Shimsupa ever paid Three Fifty's invoice.
The case represents a common problem in maritime commerce where multiple parties may be involved in vessel operations and fuel procurement, creating disputes over payment responsibility when bills go unpaid. Maritime fuel suppliers often must pursue in rem actions against vessels themselves to recover unpaid debts, asserting maritime liens under federal admiralty law.
Three Fifty Markets filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, pursuing claims both against the vessel itself in rem and against Argos Bulkers Inc. as the vessel's owner. A separate but related case was filed by PMG Holding SRL against the same vessel, leading to consolidated proceedings in the district court.
The Fifth Circuit panel hearing the appeal consists of Circuit Judges Patrick Dennis, Andrew Oldham, and Dana Douglas, with Judge Douglas authoring the court's opinion. The cases were assigned docket numbers 2:23-CV-595 and 2:23-CV-623 in the district court before being appealed as case number 24-30413.
Maritime fuel disputes have become increasingly complex as vessel ownership structures grow more sophisticated and charter arrangements involve multiple international entities. Fuel suppliers like Three Fifty Markets often face challenges collecting payment when charter parties or their guarantors default, leading them to assert maritime liens against vessels under federal admiralty jurisdiction.
The admiralty law framework allows creditors to pursue in rem actions against vessels themselves, treating the ship as responsible for debts incurred in its operation. This legal doctrine, rooted in centuries of maritime tradition, enables suppliers to seek attachment and potential sale of vessels to satisfy unpaid bills.
The involvement of multiple international parties - including Greek vessel owners, German charterers, and various trading companies - illustrates the global nature of modern shipping and the jurisdictional complexities that can arise in maritime disputes. Such cases often require courts to navigate competing claims and determine which parties bear ultimate responsibility for vessel-related debts.
Bunker supply disputes have particular significance for the maritime industry, as fuel costs represent a major expense for vessel operations. Suppliers extend credit based on charterer creditworthiness and guarantees, but collection becomes complicated when multiple entities are involved in vessel management and operations.
The Fifth Circuit's review comes at a time when maritime fuel markets face ongoing volatility and credit concerns. International sanctions, fluctuating oil prices, and supply chain disruptions have created additional risks for both suppliers and vessel operators in recent years.
The court's ultimate ruling could provide important guidance on liability allocation in charter party arrangements and the scope of maritime liens for unpaid bunker supplies. Such decisions help establish precedent for similar disputes throughout the Gulf Coast region, which handles significant international shipping traffic.
The case also highlights the role of intermediary brokers like BunkerEx in facilitating fuel transactions while potentially creating additional complexity in establishing contractual relationships and payment obligations when disputes arise.
As global shipping continues to rely on complex multi-party arrangements for vessel operations and supply, courts must balance competing interests of suppliers seeking payment, vessel owners protecting their assets, and charterers managing operational costs. The Fifth Circuit's resolution of this dispute will contribute to the evolving body of admiralty law governing these relationships.
The court's opinion in *Three Fifty Markets v. Argos M M/V* addresses fundamental questions about maritime commerce that affect suppliers, vessel operators, and the broader shipping industry throughout U.S. waters and beyond.