Talk:American Bureau of Shipping

Prestige Incident
The comments on the Prestige incident, at current, are highly one-sided, of a smear nature, and do not include evidence from later in the case. See the ABS Prestige press release page for updates. From the steel recovery, and other information, it appears to me that the Spanish government is desperately trying to lay the blame of their foulup on someone else. There are also court files relating to the government of Spain having trouble keeping adequate records, and not trying very hard to find documents when asked. See here. This section needs to be improved. Its removal by anonymous reflects this. --Dj245 04:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding balance. Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposing a new draft for this article
The cited article for section 5 does not criticize the business practices of the American Bureau of Shipping. The more appropriate title for the section would be “Status as a Not for Profit”. Additionally the article cited does not “draw attention to dubious business practices” as at no point does that characterization appear in the article, this is editorializing by the contributor who wrote the section.

Additionally, the article cited does point out that the not-for-profit status has been in place for more than 150 years and no complaints have been filed regarding this status. The American Bureau of Shipping is organized as a not-for-profit due to requirements of U.S. law under 46 USC 3316. This should also be included in the section to provide an accurate representation of the organizations status and history as a not-for-profit.

Alternative language that could be considered would be:

- Status as a Not-for-Profit

ABS has been organized as a not-for-profit since its founding in 1862. Today, ABS is required under US law to maintain its status as a not-for-profit organization in order to maintain its role as the agent of the US government on matters of government vessel classification.

An article published by Bloomberg in November 2012 draws attention to the non-profit status of ABS. The article highlights that ABS has been registered as a non-profit company for 150 years and states in its annual filing with the IRS that the company’s non-profit status is to facilitate its mission “to promote the security of life & property on the seas.” The article also notes: ABS'  particularly close relationship with the US Coast Guard and its Admirals (hiring four former USCG Admirals since 1998) which ABS defends on the basis that the company and the U.S. Coast Guard “share a common mission to promote maritime safety.”; ABS' non-profit status in the USA, despite earnings of $600 million on $3.17 billion in revenue from 2004 to 2010, and paying no US income taxes ( many other countries don’t recognize ABS’s tax exempt status); lavish compensation including first-class and charter air service, travel for companions, health and/or social club dues, and personal services including chauffeurs, chefs and maids. In 2010, the company transferred $61.8 million in profit to a Cayman Islands-based hedge fund. At the end of 2010, ABS' net assets reached $787.3 million, which an ABS spokesperson justified as "prudent given ABS' is subject to unlimited liability". -

Regarding section 4 on the Prestige-- On August 29, 2012 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

RWhitneyJr (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the obvious POV and weight issues. However, the article also contains vast amount of unsourced or poorly-sourced information most likely added by the company. The entire Services section is prone to deletion given it is completely devoid of sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Maritime Electric
The sinking of the Maritime Electric should probably be listed as a controversy. The Coast Guard investigation that followed the sinking found problems with ABS's seaworthiness inspection of the vessel. The investigation also found problems with Coast Guard's inspection program. For example, a rainwater test was not performed by ABS on the watertight hatches. The hatches were so eroded after 40 years they could not keep out rainwater, let alone heavy seas. In fact, the crew marked the deck and hatches with chalk denoting areas where someone should not step to avoid failing through a hatch or deck. The inspectors walked past the markings (avoiding the area lest they fall through) without even a write-up.

The Coast Guard found the ABS was negligent and had heavy conflicts of interest since the ship owners pay ABS for the inspection. The Coast Guard also found it may not have authority to delegate inspections to ABS.

Also see Disasters at Sea, Season 1, Episode 2. (Disasters at Sea should probably have a wiki article).

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)