3 ms·
IANAL, but all of this probably depends on a tiny detail: did Revlon instruct Citibank to pay the $176.2 million to Brigade Capital? (1) If the answer is yes,
by Hermel 6y ago
IANAL, but all of this probably depends on a tiny detail: did Revlon instruct Citibank to pay the $176.2 million to Brigade Capital?
(1) If the answer is yes, then this qualifies as a payment instruction. In a payment instruction, a bank sends someone money on behalf of the payer and in return claims that amount from the payer. In that case, citibank would have to recover the 176.2 million from Revlon.
(2) If the answer is no and citibank sent out the money by mistake without having been instructed to do so, it should be able to reclaim it from Brigade Capital.
The article mentions that citibank never deducted the paid amount from Revlon's account. This would hint at option (2) being the case.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> this probably depends on a tiny detail: did Revlon instruct Citibank to pay the $176.2 million to Brigade Capital? This is not the lender’s problem. If the borrower’s bank pays the lender bank, the lender has some claim to the money. If the lender inappropriately deducted the funds from the borrower’s account, that’s a problem for them to sort out. In any case, good to get modern case law to this question.
- basseq 6y agoRevlon did not instruct Citibank to pay the $176.2M: > Their first line of defence is Revlon’s own statement — “Revlon did not pay down the loan or any part of the loan”. IANAL, but this seems pretty cut and dried in favor of Citibank. Citibank does not have any liability to Brigade, and they paid the money "from its own account". Combined with Citibank's role as an intermediary between Revlon (who, again, did not instruct or actually pay the money) and Brigade, I don't see how Brigade has any claim on Citibank's money.