the hearing held by this Court to consider Plaintiffs motion for new or additional security, the Court was of the opinion that it lacked in rem jurisdiction in this matter. The parties disagreed, but were unable to provide authority or otherwise persuade this Court that it possessed such jurisdiction. In light of further research, however, it is now apparent that this Court does have in rem jurisdiction in this matter, and that it must consider Plaintiffs motion under Rule E(6). It is well established that “[ajttachment subjecting the res to the jurisdiction of the court is a prerequisite to a finding of in rem liability.” Dow Chem. Co., v. Barge UM-23B, 424 F.2d 807, 311 (5th Cir.1970); see also Cactus Pipe & Supply Co. v. M/V Montmartre, 756 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir.1985) (Brown, J.) (<HOLDING>). Once a vessel is arrested in rem, security
holding that a court had the power pursuant to  105a to compel a defendant to deliver her property which was the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding from outside the courts territorial jurisdiction holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state holding that a district courts power to exercise jurisdiction over a vessel depends upon the arrest of the vessel within the courts territorial jurisdiction holding that whether a vessel is subject to jurisdiction under section 955a is a question of fact holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts