No, and yes.
I doubt that bankruptcy is much different for a business in Florida vs. any other state.
In a personal bankruptcy, a person can elect to take either the state or federal exemptions (assets that can be kept). Florida is famous for having an unlimited value exemption for a personal residence. Yes, it’s more complicated than that, but that’s the general concept.
so crew are being held against their will on board… call the police-FBI?
Since its the USCG that is unlawfully imprisoning them onboard insolvent vessels, perhaps they should get a lawyer to file a writ of habeas corpus in federal court seeking their immediate release.
I would like to see the alleged USCG letter that threatens the Mariners. It sounds very suspect. If the vessel is not operating or has a cargo onboard… tie it to a dock, contact the owner and walk off… the USCG would be hard pressed to accuse you of anything?
Yep, calling a lawyer is a viable solution but I wouldn’t waste time trying to get help to get off a boat. I’d call an ambulance & get a number from a personal injury lawyer from a billboard on the way to the hospital.
Agreed. Look at post 41 in this forum. Looks like they were rescinding the CotP orders over in New York, and it was all directed to the company - not the mariners. And 46 CFR 15.515 just says a vessel can’t be navigated unless it has the full crew. Does anchored count as “navigated?” Doubt it, otherwise skipper could not go ashore in Diego Garcia. I don’t really know what else Coast Guard can hold against crew here.
I can see them having concerns about safety of port if vessels are abandoned - bunch of fuel onboard, hazard to navigation, and all that. But I think USCG would be dumb to say, “Looks like your ship is out of fuel, food, and water, but you have to stay onboard.” They could direct the movement of the vessel using the Waterways Safety Act and direct it to a dock against Bouchard’s wishes. Probably piss the hell off Morty
If any threats against mariners, they are probably just covering their asses, but common sense will prevail…hopefully
Morty is not the best employer, I don’t care for his treatment of his employee’s, but hope he gets this worked out. Too many good mariners depend on it. He has a nice fleet, hate to see it go the way another great fleet went down in recent years.
Just did a class up in Delgado a captain once i asked when who he was with told me they owe him 12000$ and are 6 weeks late in paying him so he quit and is going to I am not going to list the company or say any more.
Once again the coast guard talks the talk. And that’s about it. I want to see more action and less words.
“We worked a week over” 
. Actually that’s kind Shitty if you haven’t been paid.
… wow… yeah it doesnt look good. Go on Marcon and see a bunch of the stuff for sale, I wonder what color paint it’s going to become ?
The USCG is dropping the ball here and is losing the respect of many mariners because of it.
How are the folks at USCG dropping the ball? What are your expectations for them?
Well if they are threatening the crews that are on board to stay even though they aren’t getting paid I would consider that dropping the ball.
You would rather they authorize them to leave the unit unmanned at anchor? They are just restating the law and reminded everyone its the responsibility on the owner, charter, managing operator etc to be safely manned and gave them 24 hours to get safe manning onboard or move the unit to the safe berth.
They are not threatening the crew but reminding them of their legal responsibility, how dare they!
The Coast Guard is responsible for maritime law enforcement and port security but in the case of a non-union company paying the mariners is entirely between employer and employee. At least that’s my understanding.
It’s been posted up-thread that it may require the use of lawyers and the legal system.
To be clear my sympathies are with the crew having to work without pay but I don’t see how the CG has any responsibility here…
The USCG should be making arrangements to safely berth the vessels in the care of an appropriate custodian (a shipyard) and get the crews off.
The USCG should NOT be imprisoning the crews onboard without pay, through threats and intimidation. The USCG should NOT be requiring the crew to be the custodians of the vessels without pay. That is involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment.
The crews need to get together and find a lawyer to represent them. Dozens of crewmen owed weeks of pay have large enough claims to attract a capable lawyer to take action on their behalf.
The first thing the Masters and Mates should do is call MOPS (license insurance) and report that the USCG is threatening action against their licenses. MOPS will get them good lawyers that know what to do.
If the USCG were requiring me to remain onboard and care for an insolvent vessel indefinitely without pay, I would have a lawyer filing a civil rights lawsuit against the USCG, and each of the responsible USCG officers, seeking millions of dollars in damages, and I would file a writ of habeas corpus asking a judge to order my release.
It makes me angry that an owner would do this to its crews. The owner should have shut down before it reached this point.
But it makes me much more angry that the USCG would do this to the crews.
This ^^^ all parts of this.
The coast guard should make arrangements… so should they storm the vessels take control and move them to a safe berth? Who is responsible if while operated by the coast guard an accident happens? Should they have the towed to a safe berth? Who will pay those bills?
Make the vessels be in the custody of a shipyard? Many shipyards are already stuck with a Bouchard unit taking up a berth that they can’t get paid for. You cannot find a single shipyard who wants another BTC unit.
Lawyers aren’t the solution, and I am confident, although MSB may be slow to pay many people payments to law firms are paid in full.
I don’t see how the coast guard is responsible. They have been consistently scrutinizing (rightfully) MSB over this last few years and they are only working under the legal framework they are allowed.