Seeker, if you happen to have a link concerning the Gairsoppa, I 'd be interested in seeing it. I guess I clumped them together because Odyssey worked the wrecks during the same seasons. The court documents here make clear that the Mantola contract expired September 30th, 2015.
Odyssey claims SS Mantola in Manhattan court...
- Thread starter Jolly Mon
- Start date
huntsman53
Gold Member
Sorry I forgot to welcome you to Treasure Net before being caught up in the discussion! I am glad you joined and look forward to many more posts and hopefully Threads from you!
Frank
Yes, they began with the Mantola, for about 3 weeks, then moved to the Gairsoppa. Odyssey did say that they were going back to the wreck, after the portion they claimed was on it was not found. It appears that the overpayment is a result of blending the Mantola recovery costs with the costs of the Gairsoppa costs, ie 'training' on one wreck for another, and "no cure, no pay" costs of searching for the wrecks.
Pretty interesting stuff in the FOIA emails, unfortunately, to read the article now requires a paid subscription to the website. https://seekingalpha.com/article/18...oppa-contract-facts-from-a-u-k-government-foi
Last edited:
On 8/8 the Court denied DfT's motion to dimiss Odyssey's Salvage claim against the Mantola. The Court says that from the facts presented so far, it appears that Odyssey has a valid claim to a maritime lien and a salvage award. While no decision was rendered, the Court indicates that the disclosure of the supposed silver salvor is an integral part of this case and barring other evidence, the Court will likely order the DfT to disclose this information in the future.
huntsman53
Gold Member
The DfT has withdrawn its claims to property salvaged by Odyssey in this case and withdrawn its statement of right or interest in the SS Mantola. Maybe someone with a better legal background could help explain what is going on here? It seems the UK is saying they will not challenge Odyssey's claim to the silk cloth they recovered or to the ship itself in an attempt to preclude Odyssey from any claims to or salvage award on the 526 bars of Silver. Additionally, this would prevent any discovery in this case whereby Odyssey could learn the silver salvor's identity. Is this correct? Will this be successful for the DfT? Why is the DfT working so hard to protect the silver salvor?
huntsman53
Gold Member
It sure seems they have taken the back door per se in trying to screw over Odyssey. They may have also done this to distance themselves against any Fines to the Court and Monetary awards to Odyssey and/or to force the case into the World Court where they may have a more favorable outcome. In any event, hopefully the Judge will see it for what it is and deny their motion or Odyssey can file to block them from doing so. I would bet that the Salvor that salvaged the Silver Bars from the Mantola is working on other projects for the DfT and they don't want to risk any problems with any current salvage projects.
Last edited:
Odyssey's lawyers have fired back at the DfT and sound pissed. They say the withdrawal is astonishing and that the DfT is cutting and running. They ask for a summary judgement for a salvage award and attorney's fees, and say the lawyers for the DfT are acting in bad faith. The Judge declined to rule on either partied motion but scheduled a conference for the end of August...more to come
huntsman53
Gold Member
PDY25,
Have you seen any new info on the Court proceedings regarding Odyssey, the DfT, the unnamed Salvor of the Silver and the SS Mantola?
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,062
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Here is a website with the Court Docket
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/N...the_coordinates_49_50_16.391N_13_06_11.767_W/
Seems like it is finally going to the right department, the ROW, where the recovery from the Mantola sits awaiting determination of ownership. The ROW knows exactly who brought in the recovery and when, not the DfT. In reality, the DfT had nothing to do with the recovery, but are simply the owners due to insurance. If they dont want to claim the wreck anymore, they dont have to.
Not sure why Odyssey Marine wants to sanction the DfT?
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/N...the_coordinates_49_50_16.391N_13_06_11.767_W/
Seems like it is finally going to the right department, the ROW, where the recovery from the Mantola sits awaiting determination of ownership. The ROW knows exactly who brought in the recovery and when, not the DfT. In reality, the DfT had nothing to do with the recovery, but are simply the owners due to insurance. If they dont want to claim the wreck anymore, they dont have to.
Not sure why Odyssey Marine wants to sanction the DfT?
Last edited:
Odyssey felt the Dft was acting in bad faith by relinquishing their claim to the wreck in an effort to avoid discovery the day before the judge was to set the schedule for the case.
The Judge scheduled a conference at which time the Dft was allowed to withdraw from the case and the Judge instructed Odyssey to file a request for information in accordance with the Hague Convention. Odyssey did this, and the Judge sent letters on September 21st to the ROW as well as the Dft asking for all information they had in this case. The Hague Convention sets terms for when foreign entities can be asked for information by the courts in their country for use in a civil or criminal proceeding in another country. In this case, the Royal Courts of Justice in the UK can compel the ROW and the Dft to comply with the Judge's request for information. I would expect them to do this, but it may take another month or more.
The Judge scheduled a conference at which time the Dft was allowed to withdraw from the case and the Judge instructed Odyssey to file a request for information in accordance with the Hague Convention. Odyssey did this, and the Judge sent letters on September 21st to the ROW as well as the Dft asking for all information they had in this case. The Hague Convention sets terms for when foreign entities can be asked for information by the courts in their country for use in a civil or criminal proceeding in another country. In this case, the Royal Courts of Justice in the UK can compel the ROW and the Dft to comply with the Judge's request for information. I would expect them to do this, but it may take another month or more.
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,062
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
So, since the recovery went to the ROW, why didnt Odyssey go to the ROW with a claim? The DfT had nothing to do with it.
Now citing the Hague Convention, and the Judge sent letters...oooh ahhhh....that is a bit laughable, and basically the US Court telling Odyssey to get over it. (we sent a letter)
Why on Earth would you expect them to comply, and on that timeframe? They may reply with, follow our process and contact the ROW per procedures set in place to determine ownership of recoveries, there is no need for a mandate, simply process.
As noted, the DfT is not a party in this, so has absolutely no reason to comply with any request for information, other than to state their ownership claim, and the Court determination that relinquishes ownership. One is certain that the DfT has already filed this in the appropriate places.
As the ROW is in charge of determining ownership of recoveries brought to them, it is very telling that Odyssey has done everything imaginable BUT go to the ROW.
Really, think about this, you have a contract to work a wreck from an owner. You stop working that wreck for 4 years and your contract expires. A year later, you file for ownership of that wreck, based on?
You find out someone else had worked the wreck, becuase a recovery was submitted to the ROW.
You compel the owner of the wreck, whos property you are trying to take away from them, to give details on anything to to with their property.
After a while, the owner wonders why these idiots are spending so much money and time, given the value, and simply say okay, good luck, keep your tin foil.
Now citing the Hague Convention, and the Judge sent letters...oooh ahhhh....that is a bit laughable, and basically the US Court telling Odyssey to get over it. (we sent a letter)
Why on Earth would you expect them to comply, and on that timeframe? They may reply with, follow our process and contact the ROW per procedures set in place to determine ownership of recoveries, there is no need for a mandate, simply process.
As noted, the DfT is not a party in this, so has absolutely no reason to comply with any request for information, other than to state their ownership claim, and the Court determination that relinquishes ownership. One is certain that the DfT has already filed this in the appropriate places.
As the ROW is in charge of determining ownership of recoveries brought to them, it is very telling that Odyssey has done everything imaginable BUT go to the ROW.
Really, think about this, you have a contract to work a wreck from an owner. You stop working that wreck for 4 years and your contract expires. A year later, you file for ownership of that wreck, based on?
You find out someone else had worked the wreck, becuase a recovery was submitted to the ROW.
You compel the owner of the wreck, whos property you are trying to take away from them, to give details on anything to to with their property.
After a while, the owner wonders why these idiots are spending so much money and time, given the value, and simply say okay, good luck, keep your tin foil.
Last edited:
huntsman53
Gold Member
Edited:
I am not going to get into another long drawn out debate over this but I believe you are wrong!
1) The DfT is a party to all of the Court proceedings as they are the entity that issued the Salvage Contract to Odyssey which gave Odyssey the rights to salvage the SS Mantola. Even if the ROW has possession of the salvaged Silver from the Mantola, the DfT was surely aware of who salvaged the Silver and violated Odyssey's Salvage Contract.
2) Odyssey had a legal and binding Salvage Contract with the Dft to salvage the cargo from the SS Mantola but the other Salvor salvaged the Silver Bars off of the Mantola long before Odyssey's Salvage Contract expired which is a clear violation of Odyssey's Salvage Contract. It matters not that Odyssey did not work the wreck for 4 years as you state or whatever time period as the other Salvor again was in clear violation of Odyssey's Salvage Contract. If the Dft knew before hand, during and after that the unknown Salvor was going salvage the Silver Bars from the Mantola and that the said unknown Salvor did so, then this is more reason that they are a Party to the Court Proceedings. Now, if they authorized the said unknown Salvor to salvage the Silver Bars from the Mantola, then they committed a serious Breach of Contract.
Last edited:
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,062
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Of course you wont!
The facts are simple, Odyssey filed an Admiralty Arrest for an abandoned wreck in a US Court to claim ownership of the wreck, which has a known owner that has not abandoned it. (they did have a contract as you are aware)
That owner claimed ownership, and asked for it to be dismissed.
Odyssey found out someone had salvaged it, and turned the recovery over to the UK ROW, and was compelling the DfT in Court to answer who it was.
The DfT did not give the rights to salvage the Mantola as you claim, it was a contract under the Commodity Wreck program. (Thanks to Odyssey, that program has now been shut down.)
Where is the proof that it was recovered while it was under contract with Odyssey? If Odyssey had proof, they would have submitted it to the Court, but they did not, they were searching for information, using the Court to do so. That is not what the Courts are for. You cannot file a baseless claim, and use the Court to produce the evidence for you.
Other than a guess, what evidence does Odyssey have that there was a violation?
You can buy historical AIS information from many of the companies, did they have that to see what vessel was over the site?
Where is any proof the DfT had anything to do with it? How or why would the DfT surely be aware as you claim? The location of the wreck is in the public domain, and the AIS location was watched on many websites. Once the contract between Odyssey and DfT expired, it was an open target.
So, after all this trouble, the UK DfT decides to give up ownership, and let the Court decide on the Admiralty Arrest. Why are you and Odyssey so upset, they got what they wanted?
If Odyssey wants to claim ownership of the recovery, they simply state their claim to the ROW, who is in the process of determining ownership. One is not certain what details the ROW has, but the location and timeframe of the recovery should be available. Would not the UK Courts be the place to compel the ROW or the recovery team for evidence? Why were the US Courts used?
So, whoever the salvor was, did exactly what many people on this website have claimed they would do, take any recovery to the ROW. There you go.
The facts are simple, Odyssey filed an Admiralty Arrest for an abandoned wreck in a US Court to claim ownership of the wreck, which has a known owner that has not abandoned it. (they did have a contract as you are aware)
That owner claimed ownership, and asked for it to be dismissed.
Odyssey found out someone had salvaged it, and turned the recovery over to the UK ROW, and was compelling the DfT in Court to answer who it was.
The DfT did not give the rights to salvage the Mantola as you claim, it was a contract under the Commodity Wreck program. (Thanks to Odyssey, that program has now been shut down.)
Where is the proof that it was recovered while it was under contract with Odyssey? If Odyssey had proof, they would have submitted it to the Court, but they did not, they were searching for information, using the Court to do so. That is not what the Courts are for. You cannot file a baseless claim, and use the Court to produce the evidence for you.
Other than a guess, what evidence does Odyssey have that there was a violation?
You can buy historical AIS information from many of the companies, did they have that to see what vessel was over the site?
Where is any proof the DfT had anything to do with it? How or why would the DfT surely be aware as you claim? The location of the wreck is in the public domain, and the AIS location was watched on many websites. Once the contract between Odyssey and DfT expired, it was an open target.
So, after all this trouble, the UK DfT decides to give up ownership, and let the Court decide on the Admiralty Arrest. Why are you and Odyssey so upset, they got what they wanted?
If Odyssey wants to claim ownership of the recovery, they simply state their claim to the ROW, who is in the process of determining ownership. One is not certain what details the ROW has, but the location and timeframe of the recovery should be available. Would not the UK Courts be the place to compel the ROW or the recovery team for evidence? Why were the US Courts used?
So, whoever the salvor was, did exactly what many people on this website have claimed they would do, take any recovery to the ROW. There you go.
Odyssey did submit to the court that they had reviewed historical AIS data and found that the Swire Seabed Worker had been over the site of the Mantola wreck from May-September of 2015. They didn't see any other ship capable of performing this salvage in the general vicinity of the wreck until April 2017 when the Swire Seabed Explorer, the same ship Odyssey had contracted to perform the salvage, visited the area for a couple of days before heading to England only days before the silver was turned in. Odyssey had the exclusive contract to perform salvage on the Mantola until Sept 30th 2015 and had a non disclosure agreement with Swire.
This case is a Maritime Lien case, and as such, the Dft became party to the case as owner of the vessel. As part of discovery in the case, Odyssey asked the Dft for certain information which included the name of the other salvor. The Dft cited confidentiality laws in the UK as the reason they would not provide this information and withdrew from the case before the Judge could order them to comply. Odyssey had also reached out to the ROW, but they too said this information was confidential. While allowing the Dft to withdraw from the case, the Judge instructed Odyssey that they should proceed in accordance with the Hague Convention which is a treaty through which US Courts can ask Foreign Courts to enforce US judicial decisions. The Judge agreed with Odyssey that the Dft and the ROW had information pertinent to Odyssey's Maritime Lien claim and he issued letters requesting the UK Courts obtain this information. While they can take some time, these requests are usually honored.
"The Court agrees with Odyssey, however, that Odyssey's actions to date already give rise to a plausible claim for a salvage award, and thus a plausible claim for a maritime lien."
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,062
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Here is the Order summary. The Court allowed the DfT to give up rights to the wreck, and issued an order for a LETTER to be written to the ROW asking them some questions.
ORDER: The Court has accepted the withdrawal of the claim of the United Kingdom Department of Transport (the "Dft"). See Dkt. 52. The Court has also directed that plaintiff Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. submit to this Court a request, pursuant to the Hague Convention, for propounding of discovery on the DfT in the United Kingdom, including a memorandum of law in support of that request. Teh deadline for that submission is Wednesday, September 12, 2018.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS granting [58] Motion. It is hereby ordered as follows: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b) and 28 U.S.C. � 1781(b)(2), the Clerk of this Court shall cause a Letter of Request to be transmitted to the Senior Master of the Royal Courts of Justice, which is the Central Authority designated by the United Kingdom to receive requests made pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention, to obtain discovery from and take the testimony of the United Kingdom Receiver of Wreck, Bay 2/07 Spring Place, 105 Commercial Road, Southampton, S015 1EG, United Kingdom; and as further set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED.
No award of attorney fees or court costs.
If Odyssey Marine had that information on the Swire Seabed, why did they not make them a party in the action?
Seems to me that the location was well known, and someone recovered it. In reality, it does not matter that Odyssey had a contract with the DfT, The ROW would be the ones to sort that out, as we can see by the order, not the US Court.
If Odyssey Marine wants to ask questions to the ROW, why did they file in a US Court which does not have jurisdiction to compel the UK Govt to do anything? Why not a UK Court? I have to wonder, given that the ROW job is to determine ownership, if Odyssey Marine should not have simply filed a claim for ownership with them? If Odyssey Marine had filed a claim, the information may not have been confidential, then again, what does the name of the salvor get them? If the ROW and DfT rules state that the information is confidential, then you go to a UK Court to get the information, right?
ORDER: The Court has accepted the withdrawal of the claim of the United Kingdom Department of Transport (the "Dft"). See Dkt. 52. The Court has also directed that plaintiff Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. submit to this Court a request, pursuant to the Hague Convention, for propounding of discovery on the DfT in the United Kingdom, including a memorandum of law in support of that request. Teh deadline for that submission is Wednesday, September 12, 2018.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS granting [58] Motion. It is hereby ordered as follows: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b) and 28 U.S.C. � 1781(b)(2), the Clerk of this Court shall cause a Letter of Request to be transmitted to the Senior Master of the Royal Courts of Justice, which is the Central Authority designated by the United Kingdom to receive requests made pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention, to obtain discovery from and take the testimony of the United Kingdom Receiver of Wreck, Bay 2/07 Spring Place, 105 Commercial Road, Southampton, S015 1EG, United Kingdom; and as further set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED.
No award of attorney fees or court costs.
If Odyssey Marine had that information on the Swire Seabed, why did they not make them a party in the action?
Seems to me that the location was well known, and someone recovered it. In reality, it does not matter that Odyssey had a contract with the DfT, The ROW would be the ones to sort that out, as we can see by the order, not the US Court.
If Odyssey Marine wants to ask questions to the ROW, why did they file in a US Court which does not have jurisdiction to compel the UK Govt to do anything? Why not a UK Court? I have to wonder, given that the ROW job is to determine ownership, if Odyssey Marine should not have simply filed a claim for ownership with them? If Odyssey Marine had filed a claim, the information may not have been confidential, then again, what does the name of the salvor get them? If the ROW and DfT rules state that the information is confidential, then you go to a UK Court to get the information, right?
Last edited:
This is a maritime lien case that Odyssey began before knowing the remaining silver on the Mantola had been salvaged. I suppose there are many reasons why a US based company would want to file an admiralty case in US Courts as opposed to UK Courts, and the US Court has already ruled that they have the proper admiralty jurisdiction for this case. Odyssey is seeking information about the other salvor because they believe it is pertinent to this case filed properly in US Courts, and the Judge has agreed with them. It is not known whether or not Odyssey has additionally filed a claim with the ROW. I imagine that when Odyssey obtains the name of the other salvor that they will use this information for a potential breach of contract suit against Swire. Odyssey did not make anyone party to this maritime lien case apart from the ship and its cargo. That is how maritime lien cases work. If it had wanted to, Swire could have joined the case as an alternative claimant as the Dft did, though I would suspect that the contracts they sign with the salvors who hire them preclude them from doing that,
xaos
Bronze Member
- Jul 3, 2018
- 1,062
- 2,302
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Sorry, but that is not correct. If you look at the initial filing, Odyssey was asking for the identification of the salvor. In asking for the salvor, Odyssey also claimed they have AIS data that showed the Swire Seabed over the wreck, they could have added them as a party or witness. Odyssey did not.
Well, if you mean by agreement, he ordered that a letter be written to the ROW, well. Why should the ROW even bother to respond to a letter from a US Court. I suspect that they will simply say file with the UK Court.
I am sorry, but it really does not appear that you read the Court documents. Odyssey did state that the Contacted the DfT and the ROW, and were told the information was confidential.
I would really suggest that you read the documents before suggesting any opinions or solutions on this matter, especially when talking about breach of contract for Swire, as you dont know what the contract details are between Swire and Odyssey Marine.
In some respects you are correct, the was an Admiralty Arrest, not the far reaching, unexplored allegations that Odyssey expected the Court to adjudicate. Afterall, it was a known wreck, with a known owner, who at that point in time, who specifically had not abandoned the wreck as stated in the Arrest claim. (it was part of the Commodity Wreck Program)
As a result of the Arrest, Odyssey did get the wreck, and a letter to the ROW. How much money and effort was, or will be spent, to claim a finders fee, which all told, was entire recovery was probably worth about $300,000 if they found it all?
To be honest, I dont think Swire did the recovery, the amount of silver was known, and it simply would not be worth it for them...or worth it for anyone to hire them for the recovery.
Last edited:
Top Member Reactions
-
3053 -
1954 -
1704 -
1488 -
1186 -
1111 -
988 -
953 -
880 -
799 -
759 -
664 -
584 -
579 -
517 -
516 -
435 -
411 -
384 -
358
