[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23860-23861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11755]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 09-01]


Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. v. Global Link Logistics, Inc., Olympus 
Partners, L.P., Olympus Growth Fund III, L.P., Olympus Executive Fund, 
L.P., Louis J. Mischianti, David Cardenas, Keith Heffernan, CJR World 
Enterprises, Inc. and Chad J. Rosenberg; Notice of Filing of Complaint 
and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (``Commission'') by Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. 
(``MOL''), hereinafter ``Complainant.'' Complainant asserts that it is 
a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of Japan and 
is a vessel-operating common carrier in the U.S. foreign trades. 
Complainant alleges that Respondent Global Link Logistics, Inc. 
(``Global Link'') is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware 
that operates as a licensed non-vessel-operating common carrier; that 
Respondents Olympus Growth Fund III, L.P. (``OGF'') and Olympus 
Executive Fund, L.P. (``OEF'') are Delaware limited partnerships that 
were owners of Global Link; that Respondent Olympus Partners L.P. 
(``Olympus Partners'') is a Delaware limited partnership that is a 
private equity firm affiliated with OGF and

[[Page 23861]]

OEF; that Respondents Louis J. Mischianti, David Cardenas, and Keith 
Heffernan, are the partners in Olympus Partners, and were officers and 
directors of Global Link; that Respondent CJR World Enterprises, Inc. 
(``CJR''), is a Florida corporation that was an owner of Global Link; 
and that Respondent Chad Rosenberg is the owner of CJR and was an 
officer and director of Global Link.
    Complainant alleges that Respondents violated the Shipping Act of 
1984, as amended (``Shipping Act''), by: (1) Engaging in a deliberate 
scheme to obtain ocean transportation of property at rates lower than 
the applicable service contract or tariff rates; and (2) failing to 
establish, observe and enforce just and reasonable practices relating 
to or connected with receiving, handling, and delivering property. 46 
U.S.C. 41102(a), (c). Complainant also asserts that Respondents 
violated the Commission's regulations at 46 CFR 515.31(e) which 
prohibits preparation or filing of false or fraudulent claims or false 
information relative to an Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
transaction. Complainant claims that, as a direct result of 
Respondents' actions, Complainant suffered damages of no less than $4.5 
million.
    Specifically, Complainant MOL asserts that it provided 
transportation to Global Link subject to MOL's tariff rules; including 
rules related to the diversion of cargo, defined as a change in the 
original billed destination. Complainant maintains that its tariff 
rules require shippers to request diversion of cargo in writing and 
require payment of a diversion charge, as well as the difference in 
price between the original and new destination. Complainant alleges 
that Respondent Global Link booked cargo to false inland destinations 
while intending to deliver the cargo to different inland destinations, 
and diverted cargo without submitting a request to Complainant or 
paying Complainant the difference in rate and the applicable diversion 
changes. Complainant claims that Respondents referred to this practice 
as ``split routing,'' ``mis-booking,'' and re-routing.'' This practice, 
Complainant contends, resulted in lower rates paid to Complainant than 
the rates applicable to the actual destinations.
    Complainant requests that the Commission: (1) Require Respondents 
to answer the charges in this Complaint; (2) order Respondents to cease 
and desist from the violations of the Shipping Act; (3) establish and 
put in force such practices as the Commission determines lawful and 
reasonable; (3) order Respondents to pay to the Complainant reparations 
plus interests, costs and attorney's fees, and any other damages to be 
determined; and (4) take any other action or provide any other relief 
as the Commission determines to be proper, fair and just under the 
circumstances. Complainant also requests that a hearing be held in 
Washington, DC.
    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative 
Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence 
within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after 
consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer 
to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing 
shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of 
the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine 
issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn 
statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the 
nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-
examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. 
Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of 
the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by May 14, 
2010, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by 
September 13, 2010.

Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11755 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P