Fuel for Thought: How Three Fifty Markets Secured Its Maritime Lien
In February 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a major decision that caught the attention of shipowners, bunker suppliers, charterers, and maritime lawyers around the world. The case – Three Fifty Markets, Ltd. v. M/V ARGOS M, et al. – is a masterclass in how maritime liens, bunker supply chains, and “no lien” clauses collide in modern shipping commerce, often in disputes where fuel is delivered, used, and never paid for.
At its core, the dispute reflects the complexity of today’s bunker supply chains. Three Fifty Markets, Ltd., a UK based bunker trading company, supplied 800 metric tons of Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil to the M/V ARGOS M at Las Palmas, Spain, 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 without incident. Payment, however, never followed. Neither AUM, Shimsupa, the owner Argos Bulkers, nor the vessel manager Pontos Marine satisfied the invoice.
Three Fifty responded with the most powerful legal tool available to an unpaid bunker supplier: it filed for a maritime lien, and had the vessel arrested in New Orleans.
The legal question before the Fifth Circuit was straightforward in form but complex in application. Under U.S. law – specifically the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act (CIMLA) – a supplier of “necessaries” (like bunkers) can obtain a maritime lien if the order is placed by someone with actual or apparent authority from the vessel or charterer.
The court focused on one issue, namely, did AUM have apparent authority to bind Shimsupa (the charterer), thereby allowing Three Fifty to claim a lien? In answering that question, the court relied on evidence that AUM had a history of procuring bunkers for vessels associated with the charterer, maintained operational ties with it, and acted through overlapping communication channels.
Just as importantly, the vessel’s manager received advance notice of the transaction and did not object. No party raised concerns when the order confirmation and terms were circulated. Against that backdrop, the court concluded that it was reasonable for the supplier to rely on apparent authority.
The court also emphasized industry practice, noting that bunker deals often happen rapidly and are based on verbal confirmations and broker assurances.
Although the charterparty included strict no lien clauses, the court further held that such clauses only defeat liens if the supplier knows about them. Since Three Fifty had no such knowledge and the evidence suggested that even the vessel’s commercial actors treated AUM as authorized to buy bunkers, CIMLA’s protections still applied.
Additionally, Argos argued the bunker price contained an excessive markup. The court disagreed, stating that the price reflected ordinary commercial considerations, such as market volatility, short turnaround time, credit risk, broker fees, and typical industry margins.
Key Takeaways for Maritime
The decision underscores several important lessons for industry participants. For vessel owners, it makes clear that simply including a no lien clause in a charterparty is not enough; owners must take active steps to enforce those provisions, either by providing direct notice to suppliers or ensuring that charterers communicate the prohibition clearly in writing. Otherwise, courts are likely to uphold a supplier’s lien.
For suppliers, the ruling affirms that they can rely on brokers and established industry practices. The court recognized that the realities of bunker trading include deals happening quickly, with brokers acting as intermediaries and phone calls and emails often substituting for formal vetting. This decision strengthens the legal footing for bunker traders who rely on apparent authority.
Finally, the case highlights the importance of choice of law provisions. By incorporating a U.S. maritime lien framework into its general terms and conditions, Three Fifty secured the application of U.S. law, enabling the arrest of the vessel in New Orleans and ultimately protecting its right to a lien. Taken together, these points illustrate the critical role that careful risk management and well-crafted contractual terms play in global bunkering transactions.
The Dissent: A Warning Shot
Judge Andrew Oldham issued a lengthy dissent, arguing that the court skipped essential choice-of-law questions and should have first considered whether the charterparty between Argos and Shimsupa governed the dispute. He suggested that the no lien provisions could have rendered the bunker contract unenforceable and that the majority’s analysis was incomplete without first addressing the vessel owner’s contractual framework. This dissent signals possible future debate in U.S. maritime lien jurisprudence.
This ruling reinforces the predictability and strength of U.S. maritime lien law, especially for bunker suppliers. It underscores the reality that a supplier delivering fuel in good faith and without knowledge of a no lien clause can place the vessel at risk – no matter what the charterparty says.
We expect this case to be cited frequently in Bunkering disputes, Maritime lien enforcement, charterparty drafting and broker and supplier risk assessments
The Three Fifty Markets v. M/V ARGOS M decision is a powerful reminder of how layered and high stakes maritime transactions can be. It strengthens the rights of bunker suppliers, clarifies the role of apparent authority, and underscores the importance of proactive risk mitigation by vessel owners.
If you operate in the maritime, bunkering, or commodity trading space, this is a case you can’t afford to ignore.
About the Author: Amy Mitchell is an attorney at Spencer Fane. She represents clients through a wide range of litigation matters, including personal injury, construction, oil and gas, commercial disputes, and appeals, having handled over 3,000 cases with strong advocacy and arbitration skills.
