4 ms·

They just tatooed "Dear Banks please don't do business with us ever again" on their foreheads though. Edit: That is if it is a legitimate error-error not citib

• sudhirj 6y ago
  No, this is just business. Brigade has a duty to its investors to fight tooth and nail to keep this money, just like a defense lawyer has a duty to use every advantage for the client allowed under the law, acquired intentionally or otherwise.
  • lann 6y ago
    > Brigade has a duty to its investors to fight tooth and nail to keep this money What kind of duty? Not a legal one, I think.
    • dmix 6y ago
      Arguably they decided to let that be determined by the courts instead of their own good will. Sounds like something a lawyer would recommend doing... It's like a natural process to these companies. Most likely CITI is getting it back. But it's probably a worthy gamble on the lawyering fees.
  • salawat 6y ago
    No fiduciary duty justifies profit taking off of a mistake or mis-transaction. This is like saying that a hedge fund is justified keeping the proceeds of a check written to the wrong routing/account number. Nothing, and I mean nothing, fiduciary duty be damned, justifies undermining the implicit trust that underpins the banking and financial system. It's why there is such a thing as white collar crime in the first place. Frankly, the entire chunk of money should be considered legally tainted until legal action is resolved; which means escrow it somewhere and unleash the lawyers.
    • sudhirj 6y ago
      It’s already under litigation, so Brigade can’t withdraw and spend it. The case is interesting because they might have a chance at keeping the money. In other circumstances (if the money had randomly landed on their account from an unrelated party) they’d have to give it back and there wouldn’t be a story.
      • A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        The interesting side effect if they actually prevailed over Citi would be general improvement in wire transfer rooms across US. Right now they are mostly sweat shops with focus on speed ( and pleasing big customers ). All of a sudden, we may see some consideration given to proper verification ( not just quick rubber stamp ).
        • salawat 6y ago
          I think that may happen either way; Even if Revlon goes under because the courts pull what I'd call a derp, it should create the illustrative case that creates a business niche for higher reliability/risk financial transactions.
• harry8 6y ago
  You heard of this guy called something like "Don Trump" who had no issue continuing to get bank finance when you think they would have treated his business deals like toxic waste in a radiation dump that somone threw biohazrds all over? I used to think that this kind of repuational thing meant something. I pick Don as one of many examples just because he's literally gone on from that situation to become the president. Banks need to make big loans. If they make you a big loan, they owe you - go go broke it matters to them. You and me, nah. They'll burn us in a heartbeat when we're financially responsible without much reputation damage to the banks either. Reputation, it's not worth anything. And that is a sad, sad realisation and do not relish sharing it.
  • yellowstuff 6y ago
    That's not totally true. Don Trump had a lot of trouble borrowing money, eventually only Deutsche Bank would deal with him, because they were probably the least ethical bank on Wall Street at the time, and even for them there was a lot of internal controversy about working with him. Yes, ultimately he got the loans and was able to stay in business, but there are other shady operators who didn't and failed, you don't hear as much about them. Conversely, Warren Buffet famously has a "halo" which means he gets favorable terms because people know that doing business with him will reflect well on them. Different pockets of finance have different norms about who it's OK to screw and how, and even as an investment professional I don't understand the conventions in areas outside of my specialty. So it's very hard to judge as an outsider what is considered unethical and reputation-destroying, and what is considered aggressive business practices that happen to come at the expense of other sophisticated professionals.
    • harry8 6y ago
      With an utterly terrible reputation Don didn't have real trouble, Don got finance. Every single time. After how many bankruptcies? How many re-structurings where his creditors lost? You and me would have a lot of trouble getting that kind of financing without a hideous reputation. Don has one and got it. Now he's even the president. Bad reputations count for not all that much at all. And I hate that, fwiw. Buffet's reputation, now that's a whole nother discussion. Yes it deserves to be better than Don's. Coke, McDonalds and buying off-market at huge discounts to support management against shareholders. Obesity, diabetes and legal resdistribution of people's retirment savings to berkshire hathaway. Yes, a reputation too good to be true nonetheless. I agree.
• JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > They just tatooed "Dear Banks please don't do business with us ever again" on their foreheads So have George Soros and Carl Icahn.