Seawinds, Ltd. v. Nedlloyd Lines, B v. Royal Nedlloyd Group, N v. Knsm Lines, B v. American President Companies, Ltd. American President Lines, Ltd. Sea-Land Corporation Sea-Land Service, Inc. Dampskibsselskabet Af 1912 A/s A/s Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg A.P. Moller-Maersk Line Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft Intercontinental Transport (Ict) B.V.

Related Cases

846 F.2d 586

1988 A.M.C. 2704

SEAWINDS, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEDLLOYD LINES, B.V.; Royal Nedlloyd Group, N.V.; KNSM
Lines, B.V.; American President Companies, Ltd.; American
President Lines, Ltd. Sea-Land Corporation; Sea-Land
Service, Inc.; Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S; A/S
Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg; A.P. Moller-Maersk Line;
Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft; Intercontinental Transport
(ICT) B.V., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-2363.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 14, 1988.
Decided May 16, 1988.

Thomas R. Fahrner, Michele C. Jackson, Michael R. Hudson (Furth, Fahrner, Bluemle & Mason), San Francisco, Cal., for Seawinds, Ltd.

M. Laurence Popofsky, Peter A. Wald, Andrea G. Asaro (Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe) and Charles S. Donovan (Walsh, Donovan, Lindh & Keech), San Francisco, Cal., for Nedlloyd Lines, B.V., Royal Nedlloyd Group, N.V. and KNSM Lines, B.V.

William I. Edlund, Walter R. Allan, John F. McLean (Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro), San Francisco, Cal., for American President Companies, Ltd. and American President Lines, Ltd.

Terry M. Gordon (Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter), San Francisco, Cal., and Robert S. Zuckerman, for Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Stanley O. Sher, Marc J. Fink, Kelly A. Knight (Dow, Lohnes & Albertson), Washington, D.C., and Gary S. Anderson (Farella, Braun & Martel), San Francisco, Cal., for A.P. Moller-Maersk Line, Hapag-Lloyd A.G., Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S and A/S Dampskibsselskabet Svenborg.

Nathan Lane III, Ralph M. Pais, James B. Nebel (Graham & James), San Francisco, Cal., for Intercontinental Transport (ICT) B.V.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

The judgment of the district court is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in its opinion. See Seawinds Ltd. v. Nedlloyd Lines, B.V., 80 B.R. 181 (N.D.Cal.1987).