of limitation of liability. Id. at 541-42, 51 S.Ct. 243. When a state court is competent to afford relief, for a district court “[t]o retain the cause would be to preserve the right of the shipowner, but to destroy the right of the suitor in the state court to a commonlaw remedy; [whereas,] to remit the cause to the state court would be to preserve the rights of both parties.” Id. at 541, 51 S.Ct. 243. Additionally, in Lake Tankers Corp. v. Henn, 354 U.S. 147, 154, 77 S.Ct. 1269, 1 L.Ed.2d 1246 (1957), the Court articulated the “adequate fund exception.” In Lake Tankers, the value of the vessel and the pending freight — in other words, the possible amount of liability limited under the Act — exceeded the total claims made against the vessel owner. Id. at 152, 7 41, 644 (6th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). IMT makes much of Justice Frankfurter’s
holding that multiple convictions under  924c cannot be based on offenses forming a single unit of prosecution holding that because plaintiffs claims were presented as a single claim based on the same facts and based on the same alleged damages multiple awards would be duplicative holding that a single claimants stipulations and prioritization of her multiple claims created a single claim situation holding that a single transaction involving multiple obscene materials constitutes but one offense holding that there was a sufficient basis for joinder of seven defendants in a single trial where all the defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy