Two Singaporean Boats Detained by Indonesia
Two Singapore-registered vessels have been detained in Indonesia the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) said. The sole Singaporean who was caught along with those ships is a marine surveyor and he returned to Singapore on March 16. MPA also said it was assisting Indonesia in the investigations of the two separate incidents. Recent media reports had quoted that four Singapore-registered vessels and four Singaporeans were detained. Indonesia said it had detained a total of four Singapore-registered ships in two incidents in early March, each of which involved boats that allegedly did not have proper papers. MPA clarified that only two vessels are Singapore-registered and only one person detained is a Singaporean marine surveyor.
Tankship, Bulkship Owner's, Shares Below Par
Greece's NewLead Holdings Ltd. receives NASDAQ notification letter regarding minimum bid price requirement. NewLead Holdings Ltd announce they have received a written notification from the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC ("NASDAQ") indicating that they are not in compliance with the NASDAQ Listing Rule 5450(a)(1) because the minimum bid price of its common shares was below $1.00 per share for the previous 30 consecutive business days (the "minimum bid price requirement"). Pursuant to the NASDAQ Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), the Company has been granted a 180-day compliance period, ending on March 12, 2013, to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement. During this compliance period, NewLead's common stock will continue to be listed and traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.
Citizen Suits Under the U.S. Clean Water Act
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld the right of citizens to bring suit for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). In the instant case, plaintiff environmental advocacy group brought suit against the owner of an oil refinery for alleged discharges of petroleum coke into U.S waters, after notifying the owner of the alleged violations. The defendant contended that the notification letter was deficient because the letter failed to identify the specific dates of the alleged violations and because it had sold the refinery to a third party between the time it received the notification letter and the time suit was brought.
