UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SIKOUSIS LEGACY, INC., No. 23-15245

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv- 03273-CRB BAHLA BEAUTY, INC.; K INVESTMENTS, INC., OPINION Intervenor-Plaintiffs- Appellants,

v. B-GAS LIMITED, AKA Bepalo LPG Shipping Ltd.; B-GAS A/S; BERGSHAV SHIPPING LTD.; B- GAS HOLDING LTD.; BERGSHAV AFRAMAX LTD.; BERGSHAV SHIPHOLDING A/S; BERGSHAV INVEST A/S; LPG INVEST A/S; ATLE BERGSHAVEN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding 2 SIKOUSIS LEGACY, INC. V. B-GAS LIMITED

Argued and Submitted February 13, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed March 25, 2024

Before: Carlos T. Bea, David F. Hamilton, * and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bea

SUMMARY **

Admiralty

The panel affirmed the district court’s order vacating plaintiffs’ quasi in rem attachment of a vessel owned by Bergshav Aframax Ltd., a defendant in an admiralty action seeking fulfillment of arbitration awards. The arbitration awards, arising from a contract dispute, were owed to plaintiffs by a different corporate entity, B-Gas Ltd., later renamed Bepalo. Plaintiffs sought to “pierce the corporate veil” of Bepalo and hold Aframax liable for the arbitration awards on a theory that Aframax and Bepalo were alter egos.

* The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. SIKOUSIS LEGACY, INC. V. B-GAS LIMITED 3

The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it vacated the pre-judgment attachment of the vessel. Adopting a probable cause standard, and applying federal common law, the panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable probability of success on their veil piercing theory.

COUNSEL George A. Gaitas (argued) and Jonathan M. Chalos, Gaitas & Chalos PC, Houston, Texas, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Keith B. Letourneau (argued) and Zachary R. Cain, Blank Rome LLP, Houston, Texas for Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION BEA, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant Sikousis Legacy, Inc. and Plaintiffs- in-Intervention Bahla Beauty, Inc. and K Investments, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court decision that vacated their quasi in rem maritime attachment of the vessel M/T Berica (“Berica”), which is owned by Defendant-Appellee Bergshav Aframax, Ltd. (“Aframax”). The vessel was attached pursuant to Rule B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions to fulfill arbitration awards, arising from a contract dispute, owed to Plaintiffs by a different corporate entity, B-Gas Ltd. (later renamed “Bepalo”). Plaintiffs sought to “pierce the corporate veil” of Bepalo and hold Aframax liable for the 4 SIKOUSIS LEGACY, INC. V. B-GAS LIMITED

arbitration awards owed to Plaintiffs by Bepalo on a theory that Aframax and Bepalo are alter egos. Under Plaintiffs’ theory, Aframax’s assets—including the Berica—were available to satisfy the awards. Aframax opposed Plaintiffs’ claims by making a restricted appearance under Rule E(8) 1 and moved to vacate the attachment under Rule E(4)(f). The district court found Plaintiffs failed to show probable cause that they would prevail on their theory of corporate veil piercing. The