As the district court recognized, ample precedent reflects that Supplemental Rule B has been used to attach admiralty defendants' property in actions to enforce a foreign admiralty judgment. See, e.g., Campeche, 566 F.2d at 483 (finding admiralty jurisdiction where Supplemental Rule B used to garnish judgment debtor's proceeds in district); Good Challenger Navagante S.A. v. Metalexportimport S.A., No. 06–cv1847 (KMK), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97920, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2006) (upholding Supplemental Rule B attachment in action to enforce the judgment of English Commercial Court); Pink Goose (Cayman) Ltd. v. Sunway Traders LLC, No. 08–cv–2351 (HB), 2008 WL 4619880, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008) (upholding Supplemental Rule B attachment in action to enforce foreign arbitration award).

However, "alter-ego theories of liability are prima facie admiralty claims so long as the underlying claim arose in admiralty." Pink Goose (Cayman) Ltd. v. Sunway Traders LLC , No. 08 Civ. 2351 (HB), 2008 WL 4619880, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008). As already discussed, there is no question that Plaintiff's wrongful arrest claim, at minimum, arises in admiralty.

Finally, alter ego determinations plainly fall within an admiralty court's jurisdiction. See Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S.A., 339 U.S. 684, 689 n.4, 70 S.Ct. 861, 94 L.Ed. 1206 (1950) ("The jurisdiction of a court of admiralty to determine the question of alter ego is undoubted."); Ost-W.-Handel Bruno Bischoff GmbH v. Project Asia Line, Inc., 160 F.3d 170, 174 (4th Cir. 1998) ("It is well established that an admiralty court can review questions of fraud and alter ego."); Pink Goose (Cayman) Ltd. v. Sunway Traders LLC, 2008 WL 4619880, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008) ("alter-ego theories of liability are prima facie admiralty claims so long as the underlying claim arose in admiralty."). For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes subject matter jurisdiction is present.

Lois Dreyfus's alter ego allegations are, in principle, sufficient to support a valid prima facie admiralty claim against Steels. See Pink Goose (Cayman) Ltd. v. Sunway Traders LLC, No. 08-cv-2351 (HB), 2008 WL 4619880, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008) ("[A]lter–ego theories of liability are prima facie admiralty claims so long as the underlying claim arose in admiralty."); Calchem Corp. v. Activsea USA LLC, No. 06-cv-1585 (CPS), 2007 WL 2127188, at *2 n.10 (E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2007) ("Maritime jurisdiction extends, among other things, to contracts of affreightment .... (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The fact that Plaintiffs asserted claims against Fulcrum as an alter ego of Biodiesel does nothing to undermine that fact or vitiate the Court's maritime jurisdiction in this action. Cf. Pink Goose (Cayman) Ltd. v. Sunway Traders LLC, No. 08 Civ. 2351(HB), 2008 WL 4619880, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008) (“[A]lter-ego theories of liability are prima facie admiralty claims so long as the underlying claim arose in admiralty.”); United States v. Afram Lines (Int'l), Inc., No. 91 Civ. 1062(JSM), 1997 WL 423063, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 1997) (applying federal common law to an alter ego claim when the underlying contract at issue was a maritime contract); In the Matter of the Arbitration between Holborn Oil Trading Ltd. and Interpetrol Bermuda Ltd., 774 F.Supp. 840, 844 n. 4 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (noting that the court “clearly ha[d] the power to pierce the corporate veil when sitting in admiralty”).

Veil piercing is a means to hold a second person or entity responsible for the maritime tort or breach of contract of another entity. See Pink Goose (Cayman) Ltd. v. Sunway Traders LLC, 08 Civ. 2351, 2008 WL 4619880, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008); Wajilam Exps. (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. ATL Shipping Ltd., 475 F. Supp. 2d 275, 282-83 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

See Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 395-97 (2004) ("Article III's grant of admiralty jurisdiction must have referred to a system of law coextensive with, and operating uniformly in, the whole country. It certainly could not have been the intention to place the rules and limits of maritime law under the disposal and regulation of the several States, as that would have defeated the uniformity and consistency at which the Constitution aimed on all subjects of a commercial character affecting the intercourse of the States with each other or with foreign states." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pink Goose (Cayman) Ltd. v. Sunway Traders LLC, 08 Civ. 2351, 2008 WL 4619880, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008) ("[A]lter-ego theories of liability are prima facie admiralty claims so long as the underlying claim arose in admiralty."). Particularly in light of the unique corporate arrangements that exist in the maritime industry and the need for uniformity of maritime laws, the federal maritime common law has adopted rules governing corporate liability, irrespective of whether corporate entities expected,ex ante, that their corporate relationship would eventually be scrutinized in the context of a maritime action.

In addition, "[i]t is settled law in this Circuit that an attachment sought to secure an ultimate judgment confirming [an arbitration] award is a valid prima facie claim in admiralty."Pink Goose (Cayman) Ltd. v. Sunway Traders LLC, No. 08 Civ. 2351, 2008 WL 4619880, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008) (citing Victrix S.S. Co. S.A. v. Salen Dry Cargo A.B., 825 F.2d 709, 713 (2d Cir. 1987)). 2.

Accordingly, courts in this and other districts have upheld Rule B attachments whose sole purpose was to provide security for the enforcement of foreign judgments or arbitration awards. See, e.g., Polar Shipping Ltd. v. Oriental Shipping Corp., 680 F.2d 627, 633 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding in the context of a forum selection clause that rather than dismissing an action unconditionally, a district court is not precluded "from ensuring the availability of adequate security in the selected court before dismissing the action"); Pink Goose (Cayman) Ltd. v. Sunway Traders LLC, No. 08 Civ. 2351, 2008 WL 4619880, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008) ("When a party's primary interest in seeking the attachment is obtaining security to satisfy a judgment, rather than simply to obtain in personam jurisdiction, the claim is not premature and the requirements of Rule B(l) are satisfied."); Sea Transport Contractors, Ltd. v. Indus. Chemiques du Senegal, 411 F. Supp. 2d 386, 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (adoptingPolar Shipping holding and allowing Rule B attachment in aid of foreign litigation and arbitration); Staronsett Shipping Ltd. v. North Star Nav. Inc., 659 F. Supp. 189, 190-91 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (adopting the Polar Shipping holding and allowing Rule B attachment to satisfy judgment in action that was transferred on consent to neighboring district); cf. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994) (holding, in context of non-maritime case, that a court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement contract by explicitly reserving such authority in its order of dismissal);but see SMT Shipmanagement