82,882
edits
Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management: Difference between revisions
Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management (view source)
Revision as of 16:27, 9 September 2022
, 9 September 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
==The Appeal == | ==The Appeal == | ||
The | The appeals court interpreted the ''[[Banque Worms]]'' case narrowly, along the lines we suggested: | ||
{{Quote|We conclude that Citibank is entitled to prevail under the New York rule expressed in Banque Worms because (i) under the standards of New York law, ''the Defendants had [[constructive notice]] of Citibank’s error'', and (ii) ''the Defendants were not entitled to the money at the time of Citibank’s accidental payment'', as required by the ''[[Banque Worms]]'' ruling.}} | |||
===Real world effects=== | ===Real world effects=== | ||
Leaving the legal conundrums aside, this cleaves to a few interesting management observations, and themes dear to the JC’s heart: | Leaving the legal conundrums aside, this cleaves to a few interesting management observations, and themes dear to the JC’s heart: | ||