Banque Worms v BankAmerica International: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|casenote|[[File:Can of Banque Worms.png|450px|thumb|center|{{citer|Banque Worms|BankAmerica International|2d Cir. 1991|928 F.2d|538}} opening a can of [[Banque Worms]] yesterday.]]}}This case, fondly known to [[restitution]] fans and other obstreperous rascals of the financial services industry as ''[[Banque Worms]]'' involved a [[revolving credit facility]] between one Spedley, an Australian, and the Banque, who was, then, French.<Ref>And seems to have dissolved into history since.</ref>  
{{a|casenote|[[File:Can of Banque Worms.png|450px|thumb|center|{{citer|Banque Worms|BankAmerica International|2d Cir. 1991|928 F.2d|538}} opening a can of [[Banque Worms]] yesterday.]]}}This case, fondly known to [[restitution]] fans and other obstreperous rascals of the financial services industry as ''[[Banque Worms]]'' involved a [[revolving credit facility]] between one Spedley, an Australian, and the Banque, who was, then, French.<Ref>And seems to have dissolved into history since.</ref>  
===Facts===
===Facts===
In 1989, [[Banque Worms]] informed Spedley that it would not be renewing the [[revolver]] and demanded payment of the outstanding balance on April 10, 1989.
In 1989, [[Banque Worms]] informed Spedley that it would not be renewing the [[revolver]] and demanded payment of the outstanding balance on April 10, 1989.
Line 31: Line 30:


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[discharge-for-value defense]]
*[[Stupid banker cases]]
*[[Discharge-for-value defense]]
*[[Revolving credit facility]]
*[[Revolving credit facility]]
 
*{{casenote|Citigroup|Brigade Capital Management}}
*{{casenote|Barclays Bank Ltd|WJ Simms}}
{{Ref}}
{{Ref}}
{{c2|Stupid bankers|Restitution}}