Shell Offshore Inc and Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc (the plaintiffs) intended to conduct an exploratory drilling operation on the Outer Continental Shelf during the 2015 drilling season. The plaintiffs alleged that Greenpeace Inc (the defendant) interfered and threatened to continue to interfere with their drilling operation. The plaintiffs alleged a claim for intentional tortious interference with maritime navigation and argued that the defendant's interference with the vessels of the plaintiffs violated the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions 1972 (COLREGs) and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988 (SUA Convention 1988).

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over extraterritorial events between foreign-flagged vessels on the high seas. In addition, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action because the plaintiffs had not alleged that anyone from the plaintiffs was actually navigating the vessels.

Held: Motion denied.

It has been established that the high seas shall be treated the same as foreign soil and Acts of Congress presumptively do not apply extraterritorially. However, piracy is an exception to this presumption against the extraterritorial application of US laws. Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) defines piracy as 'illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew of the passengers of a private ship ... and directed ... on the high seas, against another ship ... or against persons or property on board such ship'.

Although the plaintiffs' complaint did not use the term 'piracy' to describe the conduct of the defendant, they pleaded intentional tortious interference with maritime navigation, trespass and trespass to chattels, private nuisance and civil conspiracy deriving from each of the other three claims. The Court found that the alleged conduct in the plaintiffs' complaint was sufficiently akin to piracy so as to fall within the exception to the presumption against extraterritoriality, particularly when the extraterritorial scope of the Court's jurisdiction was extended only to the high seas.

In addition, the plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim for intentional interference with navigation in violation of the COLREGs and the SUA Convention 1988. After reviewing the COLREGs and the SUA Convention 1988, the Court did not find that such a claim could only be asserted by one who was actually navigating a vessel.