DC Insight

In keeping with our mission to offer a variety of topics and viewpoints, we include a couple of unorthodox (for us) articles in this issue of Insight. The first is Expert commentary by N.D. George, one of our regular contributors. George was faced with a situation a number of knowledgeable trade finance professionals have had to deal with - how to find a new position after a certain age. His search led him naturally to the Internet and a headhunter's website. What followed was a dreadful series of events involving phantom companies, phantom job offers and a scam that very nearly succeeded. George’s advice to trade finance job seekers: "Beware; you might end up finding a 'job' where you pay the salary to the employer and not the other way around."

Another personal story is recounted by Glenn Ransier in our Point of view article. Glenn argues that knowledge of only the rules is insufficient and that there is a need for trade finance professionals to know local law in everyday practices and procedures. Most of our readers would probably disagree and argue that they are only called upon to make judgments based on the documents and the documents alone. If you hold that view, take a look at Glenn's reasoning. You may find food for thought in what he says".

In our UCP in court, Jim Barnes, one of our legal experts, examines the seminal case of Fortis Bank (Nederland) N.V. v. Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank, perhaps the first case to re-examine the controversial decision in Banco Santander SA v. Banque Paribas in light of UCP 600. The Banco Santander case ruled that a confirming bank that incurred and then discounted its own deferred payment undertaking bore the risk of beneficiary fraud established thereafter, but before the maturity date. Not so, said the judge in the Fortis case: Banco Santander was effectively undone by the revisions in UCP 600. Food for thought indeed.

Food for thought indeed.