The recent decision in Three Fifty Markets, Ltd. v Argos M M/V, 166 F.4th 462 (5th Cir. 2026), issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on February 2, 2026, significantly strengthens the rights of bunker fuel suppliers to pursue maritime lien claims against vessels.
The Three Fifty Markets decision reinforced fuel suppliers’ lien rights of under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA) by validating the time charter’s “Apparent Authority”, enforcing suppliers incorporated terms, and simplified “middleman” analysis. The Three Fifty Markets decision also serves as a warning to shipowners that a “no-lien” clause alone is insufficient and that owners must now take more proactive steps to protect their vessels from being arrested for unpaid fuel debts incurred by charterers.
The Three Fifty Markets decision affirmed the Eastern District of Louisiana’s decision in Three Fifty Mkts. Ltd. v Argos M, (ED La., Apr. 25, 2024, No. 23-595). The District Court decision further reaffirmed that “Under maritime law, the awarding of prejudgment interest is the rule rather than the exception, and, in practice, is well-nigh automatic.” The District Court further noted that “Admiralty courts enjoy broad discretion in setting prejudgment interest rates. They may look to the judgment creditor’s actual cost of borrowing money, to state law, or to other reasonable guideposts indicating a fair level of compensation.” and “To deny prejudgment interest, the court must find circumstances that would make it inequitable for the losing party to pay it.”
The District Court further found that the contractual interest rate of 2% per month is greater than necessary to compensate Three Fifty Markets for its loss stemming from its unpaid balance and held that it is more appropriate to use the statutory rate to ensure that Three Fifty is fairly compensated.
The case originated when UK bunker trader Three Fifty Markets, Ltd. supplied 800 metric tons of fuel to the M/V ARGOS M in October 2022. The bunker request originated from AUM Scrap and Metals Waste Trading LLC (AUM) in the UAE, which was purportedly acting on behalf of Shimsupa GmbH, the vessel’s time charterer, through the broker BunkerEx. The fuel was delivered, invoiced, but never paid for.
Three Fifty Markets, Ltd. enforced a maritime lien by arresting the vessel in New Orleans. On appeal, the Court found that AUM had apparent authority to bind Shimsupa (the charterer) because AUM routinely purchased bunkers for vessels chartered by Shimsupa and Shimsupa and AUM failure to object to the order confirmation or the General Terms and Conditions of Three Fifty Markets, Ltd., which incorporated a U.S. law clause and lien provision.
Although the charterparty included no‑lien clauses, the Court further found that the clauses only defeat liens if the supplier knows about them. Simply placing a no‑lien clause in a charterparty is not enough. Owners must either give direct notice to suppliers, or ensure their charterers communicate the no‑lien prohibition in writing.
The Three Fifty Markets decision explicitly recognized that bunker trading involves fast-paced transactions with brokers engaged as intermediaries through phone calls and emails. This ruling reinforces the predictability and strength of U.S. maritime lien law, especially for bunker suppliers and clarifies what must be done to effectively impose no-lien terms.
