The plaintiff was given judgment by the High Court of England and Wales on a claim for damages in relation to a forward freight agreement (“FFA”) concerning future ocean freight rates. The plaintiff then filed suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to enforce the judgment in its favour in the US court’s admiralty jurisdiction. The judgment debtor moved to dismiss the enforcement action on the ground that it did not fall within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the enforcement action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The judgment creditor appealed successfully to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held that the question whether the claim fell within the admiralty jurisdiction should be determined by US law, rather than English law. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for a consideration of the merits of the judgment creditor’s argument applying US law standards. On remand, the district court dismissed the case, concluding that the case lacked admiralty jurisdiction. The judgment creditor appealed again.

Decision: Reversed and remanded.

Held: (1) In order for an FFA to be a maritime contract it is not necessary that it refer to specific vessels. There were two uncontested facts: “First, [plaintiff], a shipping company, sold a freight derivative valued by reference to freight rates. And, second, the fluctuations of those rates was a risk inherent in [Plaintiff’s] shipping operations.” In determining whether or not a contract is a maritime contract, a court must determine whether “the principal objective” is “maritime commerce”. The identity of the parties as maritime