context: The first issued raised by the Vessel Owners as been resolved by the Fifth Circuit in Davis's favor. The Fifth Circuit has expressly held that a concession as to the sufficiency of the surety is not a prerequisite to the court imposing a stay of limitation of liability proceedings.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 964 F.2d 1575, 1575
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that to be sufficient, stipulations must state than no judgment will be asserted in excess of the value of the limitation fund
citation_a.sentence: See In re Two “R” Drilling Co., 943 F.2d 576, 578 (5th Cir.1991) (explaining that plaintiffs properly stipulated that no judgment would be enforced above the valuation of the vessel and freight contained in the complaint); See also, Magnolia Marine Transport, 964 F.2d at 1575 (holding that to be sufficient, stipulations must state than no judgment will be asserted in excess of the value of the limitation fund).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 943 F.2d 576, 578
citation_b.parenthetical: explaining that plaintiffs properly stipulated that no judgment would be enforced above the valuation of the vessel and freight contained in the complaint
citation_b.sentence: See In re Two “R” Drilling Co., 943 F.2d 576, 578 (5th Cir.1991) (explaining that plaintiffs properly stipulated that no judgment would be enforced above the valuation of the vessel and freight contained in the complaint); See also, Magnolia Marine Transport, 964 F.2d at 1575 (holding that to be sufficient, stipulations must state than no judgment will be asserted in excess of the value of the limitation fund).