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 )
2011 LC CASE SUMMARIES No. 2:10-CV-01833-PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 772522 (D. Ariz., Feb. 28, 2011)
Topics: Cancellation; Issuer's duty to Customer
Article
Note: The Van Weelden Family Trust (Trust) purchased an unfinished lot (the Property) from the Quintero Golf and Country Club (the Club). The State of Arizona Department of Real Estate required that the Club finish paving on public and private streets on the Property. Hillcrest Bank (Bank) extended US $31,134,000 in credit to the Club, in part to finance the Club's development projects, including the completion of the paving on the Property. After the Club defaulted, Bank refused to release funds for the Club's development projects and cancelled standby letters of credit related to the Club's various projects; however, the standby relating to the Property had already expired without any action by Bank.
Trust sued Bank for injunctive relief, intentional interference with contract, aiding and abetting the Club's negligence, aiding and abetting the Club's fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. Bank moved to dismiss all claims.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Treilborg, J., granted the motion, but gave Trust leave to amend its complaints for intentional interference with contract, aiding and abetting the Club's fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. Regarding the intentional interference with contract claim, the court found that Trust failed to plead facts showing that completion of the paving on the Property was part of the agreement between Trust and the Club, and that, because the standbys cancelled by Bank did not relate to the Property, Trust failed to show that Bank intentionally interfered with the completion of the paving on the Property.
[JEB/pbl]
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.