Article

Note: Swift Aviation Group Inc., (Buyer) wished to buy oil from Kuwait Petroleum Corporation (Seller), but Seller was unwilling to enter into a long-term agreement unless Buyer demonstrated its ability to enter into short term "spot" contracts. On the recommendation of BNP Paribas SA (Issuer), Buyer partnered with Bronwen Energy Trading Ltd (Partner) in order to enter in to a spot contract with Seller. The spot contracts required Issuer to issue LCs to Buyer. In order to obtain LCs from Issuer for the contracts, Partner sought the assistance of Speedway Motorsports (Guarantor), who agreed to guarantee three of Issuer's LCs in relation to three contracts to purchase oil.

Guarantor maintained an account of USD 12,000,000 in BNP Paribas SA Suisse (Bank), and instructed Bank to issue a fourth guarantee directly to Issuer in the event Partner needed another guarantee for an oil contract. The fourth guarantee had provisions making it subject to Swiss law, and named Geneva as the place of jurisdiction. When Partner accrued losses of USD 17,000,000, Issuer maintained that the money on-hand in Guarantor's account was available to cover the losses and Bank paid USD 12,000,000 to Issuer.

Guarantor sued Issuer, Partner, and Bank for breach of demand guarantee, conversion, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive practices. Issuer had previously moved to dismiss on the grounds that the case had to be litigated in Geneva which was denied and affirmed on appeal, but the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the independence principle applicable to LCs meant that Issuer could not use the forum selection principle in the contracts because the LC cases are independent. The suit against Bank however, was dismissed on the grounds that the appeals court had no personal jurisdiction over it.

When Issuer subsequently moved for judgment in its favor on the pleadings, Issuer claimed that because Guarantor's claims are against Bank, there were no longer any remaining claims against Issuer. Citing the "independence principle", Issuer argued that the contracts between Guarantor and Bank, and between Bank and Issuer are separate contracts, and dropping Bank from the lawsuit should absolve Issuer.

The North Carolina Superior Court, Murphy, J., denied the motion. The Judge ruled that the impact of the court of appeals decision regarding Bank's jurisdiction does not defeat all remaining charges against Issuer because many of them are tort based charges, and are not affected by the independence principle.

[HK]

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.

This article represents the views of the author and not necessarily those of the ICC or any of the other partners in DC-PRO.