are insufficient in that Davis does not concede the sufficiency of the $25,000 surety, nor does he agree not to enforce any judgment up to this amount before the limitation issues have been decided by this court. We disagree. 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. 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>). Here, Davis stipulates that he will not seek
holding that even in a multiple claimant situation a court can lift the stay and allow state court suits if the claimants enter a stipulation that the court determines will adequately protect the limitation plaintiff under the limitation act including a stipulation that will protect the limitation plaintiff against third party indemnification claims holding imposition of a further sum for excess of value of imported goods over declared value to be a penalty within jurisdiction of the federal district court though not expressly so declared recognizing that a principal may limit the authority of its agent and such limitation will be binding on a third party who is aware of the limitation holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant holding that to be sufficient stipulations must state than no judgment will be asserted in excess of the value of the limitation fund