Forgot your password?
Please enter your email & we will send your password to you:
My Account:
Copyright © International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). All rights reserved. ( Source of the document: ICC Digital Library )
2010 LC CASE SUMMARIES __ F. Supp 2d. __, No. 5:09-MC-0024 (GTS/GHL), 2009 WL 910042, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32022 (N.D.N.Y., 2009)
Topics: LC Fraud; Bankruptcy; Segregation of LC proceeds; Injunction; US Rev. UCC § 5-109.
Type of Lawsuit: Applicant sued Beneficiary and Issuer to enjoin honor and to segregate LC proceeds.
Parties: Plaintiff/Applicant/Contractor - Lurgi, Inc. (Counsel: David M. Capriotti, Esq., Wendy A. Kinsella, Esq., Donald J. Martin, Esq., of counsel, Harris Beach Pllc)
Defendant/Beneficiary/Manufacturer/Debtor - Northeast Biofuels, LP (NEB); and Wilmington Trust, FSB (a creditor of NEB who has the right to draw down on the LC).
(Counsel: Jeffrey A. Dove, Esq., of counsel, Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece, P.C. for Neb; J. Eric Charlton, Esq., of Counsel, Hiscock & Barclay, Llp, for Wilmington Trust, Fsb; Stephen A. Donato, Esq., Sara C. Temes, Esq., of counsel, Bond, Schoeneck & King, Pllc, for Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Syracuse, NY.)
Defendant/Issuer - BNP Paribas
Underlying Transaction: Engineering, Procurement, Construction (EPC) agreement.
LC: Standby LC in the amount of US$8,111,994.69. Silent as to governing rules.
Decision: The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Suddaby, J, denied in part and affirmed in part a motion to stay, pending appeal, the decision of U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Northern District of New York, Cangilos-Ruiz, J. that had denied Applicant/Contractor's motion for an injunction and other relief. While denying the stay and permitting Beneficiary to draw, the order required sequestration of any proceeds in excess of US$4,308,100.
Rationale: Even where there was insufficient evidence of fraud to enjoin honor, segregation of a portion of the amount of the LC was ordered because there were fair grounds for litigation, the amount was necessary to protect Applicant/Contractor from irreparable injury due to the insolvency of Manufacturer/Beneficiary, and the entire amount was not required by the estate, a result best assuring the social interest.
Article
Factual Summary: To assure repayment of installment payments in the event of default in connection with the construction of an ethanol plant, Contractor/Applicant obtained a standby LC in favor of Manufacturer/Beneficiary in an amount that was eventually increased to US$8,111,994.69. When Contractor/Applicant sought Beneficiary/ Manufacturer's approval of change orders that would add 44.5 days to the timetable due to "serious problems", Beneficiary/Manufacturer served Contractor/Applicant with a default notice and Contractor/Applicant filed liens, initiated allegation and sought protection under the US Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11 (Reorganization). When Beneficiary/ Manufacturer drew down the entire amount of the LC, Contractor/Applicant filed an adversary proceeding seeking injunctive relief, or in the alternative, special relief regarding disposition of the proceeds. The bankruptcy court denied Contractor/ Applicant's motions. On appeal, affirmed in part and denied in part.
Legal Analysis:
1. Injunction: The appellate court noted that to succeed in its appeal of the denial of injunctive relief, Contractor/Applicant would have to show a substantial possibility of success on the merits. The court cited with approval the conclusion of the bankruptcy court that "generally federal courts enjoin the drawing down of standby letters of credit only in narrow circumstances where fraud in the transaction has been shown". It noted that while Contractor/ Applicant had "alleged fraud obliquely", there was no proof of fraud. The court stated its conclusion that Manufacturer/Beneficiary "[was] attempting to draw down on the LOC based on a good faith (although perhaps ultimately mistaken) belief that it [was] entitled to do so under" the terms of the agreement.
2. Bankruptcy; Segregation of Proceeds: Contractor/Applicant argued that if the proceeds were disbursed and it prevailed in the arbitration, it would be unable to recover from Manufacturer/ Beneficiary due to its insolvency. The court, concluding that Manufacturer/Beneficiary would become insolvent were US$4.3 million not made available, ruled that there was no need for the balance and, accordingly, ordered segregation of this amount.
3. Segregation of Proceeds; Requirements: The appellate court ruled that in order to grant segregation, it must be proved that (1) the Applicant/ Contractor would suffer irreparable injury absent segregation; (2) the other party would not suffer substantial injury if segregation was allowed; (3) the Applicant/Contractor should demonstrate a substantial possibility (although less than a likelihood) of success on appeal; and (4) public interest weighed in favor of granting a brief segregation. The court then reasoned that as Beneficiary/Manufacturer's insolvency was Applicant/Contractor's irreparable harm, and there was no evidence that the Beneficiary/ Manufacturer has an immediate need for the $3.8 million, partial segregation of proceedings would be granted.
Comment:
1. The court's determination that there is no LC fraud sufficient to justify injunctive relief is correct. However, the relief granted, segregation of part of the proceeds, resembles the relief that would have been granted had an injunction been awarded and the analysis appears strikingly similar (with the exception of the request of LC fraud). The case must be classified as an instance of the unique impact of bankruptcy. The question must be asked whether the obligation of the issuer, the LC, or its proceeds were property of the estate.
2. While recognizing that LC fraud is "generally" required for granting injunctive relief in US federal bankruptcy courts, and correct in its conclusion that there was no LC fraud, the appellate opinion does not refer to Revised UCC Section 5- 109 (Fraud and Forgery).
[JEB\yn]
COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE
The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.