Odyssey claims SS Mantola in Manhattan court...

[PDY25]

It is certainly interesting that according to Odyssey, AIS shows the Seabed Worker over the site of the Mantola from May-Sept of 2015 when Odyssey still had exclusive salvage rights. They didn't see any other ship capable of salvage in the general vicinity until April 2017 when another Swire ship visited the area for a couple days before heading to England only days before the silver was turned in. Would be quite the series of coincidences wouldn't it?

Its also quite coincidental that Odyssey began this Admiralty action only days before the silver was turned in. Could they have had some inkling that something was afoot and rushed to arrest the wreck in advance of it?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[seekerGH]

interesting yes. I remember when Odyssey dove on 2 wrecks being worked under DfT contract, took artefacts, and used these to file Admiralty Arrests in the US Courts.

Its also quite coincidental that Odyssey began this Admiralty action only days before the silver was turned in. Could they have had some inkling that something was afoot and rushed to arrest the wreck in advance of it?

Filing the Arrest would have what bearing on a past recovery?

Many thoughts on this, especially the 'exclusive' claim regarding the UK DfT contract..lack of "salvor in possession", and needing an Arrest to do a recovery...


Then again, Mearns got paid $25 million....

 

[PDY25]

Thanks for your thoughts on the topic Seeker. Will be interested to see how it all plays out.

 

[seekerGH]

the Motion to Strike, was that for the Discovery request regarding the other Salvor?

 

[PDY25]

I'm not positive what you're asking about Seeker. There is a motion to dismiss and and an objection to disclosure of information filed by the DfT. In the motion to dismiss, the DfT argues that Odyssey can't have a maritime lien on the Mantola because they don't have any salvaged property from the wreck, the wreck has been mostly salvaged, and Odyssey has no plans to return to the wreck. That is the underlying issue in the case, but in this Motion the DfT argues that Odyssey is just using this as a pretext to discover the identity of the other Salvor, and they object to having to give this information to Odyssey because they say it isn't relevant to the maritime lien claim.

 

[huntsman53]

IMHO, I believe that Odyssey has every right to find out the name of the Salvor since they had exclusive Salvage rights to salvage the cargo off the Mantola. Appearances point to a high possibility that the Seabed Worker salvaged the Silver from the wreck using prior knowledge of it's location from working with Odyssey and may have used this for their own gain or to show certain government entities and others that they can salvage valuable cargoes on their own without the likes of Salvors such as Odyssey and others. The real mystery is what was the motive in salvaging the Silver somewhere between May and September of 2015 but waiting until April 2017 to turn the Silver over to the ROW!!?? With the identity of the unknown Salvor of the Silver from the Mantola disclosed in court documents, this would likely give Odyssey what they need to file proceedings against the offending party or parties. It should matter not whether the DfT knew or did not know that the Silver Bars were salvaged from the Mantola and who the Salvor was but once the Silver Bars were turned over to the ROW, then they should have specific knowledge of who the Salvor was and should be ordered by the Court to disclose that information.

 

[PDY25]

During May-Sept 2015, Odyssey still had the contract with the Dft to salvage the wreck. I guess the thinking is that the Salvor knew this and figured if they waited long enough to turn the silver in they could hide the fact that they had jumped someone's claim so to speak.

 

[seekerGH]

IMHO, I believe that Odyssey has every right to find out the name of the Salvor since they had exclusive Salvage rights to salvage the cargo off the Mantola.

That is paraphrasing the Contract. If they did have this right, they could simply go to the DfT and/or the ROW. Since they could not, they made up an Admiralty Arrest claim in the US Courts. What they had was a contract with the DfT to which they would get 80% of the value of the recovery.

I believe that the DfT halted the Commodity Wreck program in 2013, thus the contract was null and void.

 

[PDY25]

Odyssey's contract with the DfT expired Sept 30th 2015.

 

[huntsman53]

Unless the DfT officially declared Odyssey's Salvage Contract null and void, it matters not whether they did or did not end the Commodity Wreck Program as Odyssey's Salvage Contract was likely grandfathered in as it was issued on September 29th, 2011 and was due to expire on September 30th, 2015 as noted by PDY25. There has been no evidence or claims that the DfT made the Salvage Contract with Odyssey null and void, therefore it was likely fully intact and Odyssey had the rights to salvage the Silver from that Mantola and no one else or Salvor had the rights to do so. Therefore, all indications are that the unknown Salvor or Salvors did salvage the Silver illegally without the knowledge and consent of Odyssey and even if the DfT was also unaware of the illegal salvage, Odyssey still has a legal right to an award. It is hard to say what punishment the unknown Salvor or Salvors will receive if ever brought to court for the illegal act but IMHO, it should be swift and severe!

 

[enrada]

Did Odyssey lack the skill set to recover the silver when they had a full and legal contract with the DfT? Or maybe they didn't find it or lacked the research to find it where the new salvor did.

 

[huntsman53]

Did Odyssey lack the skill set to recover the silver when they had a full and legal contract with the DfT? Or maybe they didn't find it or lacked the research to find it where the new salvor did.

I doubt that! If I am not mistaken, they had the Seabed Worker and crew leased and on site early on and maybe other contractual obligations, weather and sea conditions got in the way. Odyssey is likely the ones needed to answer that question.

 

[seekerGH]

Did Odyssey lack the skill set to recover the silver when they had a full and legal contract with the DfT? Or maybe they didn't find it or lacked the research to find it where the new salvor did.

Odyssey worked the Mantola for quite some time. They worked it before and after working the Gairsoppa. They did not find the silver.

Seabed has the experience for deep recoveries, not Odyssey, they have been working on Paul Allens recoveries with Mearns for years.

I believe it was when the issue with overcharging on the Gairsoppa came up, both contracts were rescinded, cant remember.

 

[huntsman53]

Odyssey worked the Mantola for quite some time. They worked it before and after working the Gairsoppa. They did not find the silver.

Seabed has the experience for deep recoveries, not Odyssey, they have been working on Paul Allens recoveries with Mearns for years.

I believe it was when the issue with overcharging on the Gairsoppa came up, both contracts were rescinded, cant remember.

Show the facts (i.e. the Proof) of what you are stating. It is common knowledge that you try to discredit anything Odyssey Marine Exploration and Global Marine Exploration does or states and likely any other Salvor entity that gets attention in the news. As a person that has a profession related to what Treasure Salvors do, don't you think that your attempts to discredit and possibly destroy these businesses, might just come back to bite you in your' a&* when it comes to getting future jobs in the same line of work and especially so, if these and other Salvors are run out of business and the money for research and salvage totally dries up??!! The old saying holds true today, the same as in the old days, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"!

 

[seekerGH]

The information speaks for itself.

Question:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the total underpayment is to the Government by Odyssey Marine Exploration under the terms of the salvage contract issued for SS Gairsoppa."

Answer:
"The question as to whether or not Odyssey Marine Exploration underpaid funds due to the Government under the contract, which was awarded in January 2010, is disputed by the parties, and would accordingly need to be the subject of legal proceedings in the United Kingdom and possibly also in the United States of America to resolve. The issue is being kept under review."

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-06-30.2326.h&s=odyssey+marine#g2326.q0

 

[huntsman53]

[FONT=&]The information speaks for itself.

[/FONT][FONT=&]Question:
"To ask the [/FONT]Secretary of State[FONT=&] for Transport, what the total underpayment is to the Government by [/FONT][FONT=&]Odyssey Marine[/FONT][FONT=&] Exploration under the terms of the salvage contract issued for [/FONT]SS Gairsoppa[FONT=&]."[/FONT][FONT=&]

Answer:
"The question as to whether or not [/FONT][FONT=&]Odyssey Marine[/FONT][FONT=&] Exploration underpaid funds due to the Government under the contract, which was awarded in [/FONT]January 2010[FONT=&], is disputed by the parties, and would accordingly need to be the subject of legal proceedings in the United Kingdom and possibly also in the United States of America to resolve. The issue is being kept under review."

[/FONT]https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-06-30.2326.h&s=odyssey+marine#g2326.q0

Still no proof that the Salvage Contracts for the SS Gairsoppa and the SS Mantola were rescinded. Besides, this information was specifically about the payments to the UK over the SS Gairsoppa salvage and has not been resolved and I don't believe there are court proceedings concerning this matter either.

 

[PDY25]

The Salvage Contracts for the SS Gairsoppa and the SS Mantola were not rescinded. The Court documents in this case from both sides point to the contract lapsing in September 2015. The contract was not renewed as the Dft cancelled their commodity shipwreck program, likely over how they handled the Gairsoppa contract bidding process. Officials from the DfT were blamed for this though, not Odyssey. There have been questions as to whether Odyssey underpaid the UK for some of its recoveries, but as huntsman said, this has not been formally challenged or adjudicated.

 

[sphillips]

The Salvage Contracts for the SS Gairsoppa and the SS Mantola were not rescinded. The Court documents in this case from both sides point to the contract lapsing in September 2015. The contract was not renewed as the Dft cancelled their commodity shipwreck program, likely over how they handled the Gairsoppa contract bidding process. Officials from the DfT were blamed for this though, not Odyssey. There have been questions as to whether Odyssey underpaid the UK for some of its recoveries, but as huntsman said, this has not been formally challenged or adjudicated.

welcome to the forum!

 

[PDY25]

welcome to the forum!

Thank You!

 

[seekerGH]

The Salvage Contracts for the SS Gairsoppa and the SS Mantola were not rescinded. The Court documents in this case from both sides point to the contract lapsing in September 2015. The contract was not renewed as the Dft cancelled their commodity shipwreck program, likely over how they handled the Gairsoppa contract bidding process.

Yes, I was asking if the Mantola contract had been rescinded or not. The Gairsoppa contract was rescinded with the dispute, that is known from FOI requests detailed on a British website