Dear Hatem & T.O.,
As I’m sure you appreciate by now, my concern -as a banker- is with what the law does & does not expect of me. In J.H. Rayner & Co Ltd v Hambros Bank Ltd [1943] Mackinnon LJ said:
“…… it is quite impossible to suggest that a banker is to be affected with knowledge of the customs and customary terms of every one of the thousands of trades for whose dealings he may issue letters of credit.”
So, under English law, it would seem that I do not have to have the slightest knowledge, for example, of the steel trade when examining documents for compliance that relate to a steel shipment.
I recognise that with Opinion R349 the Banking Commission consulted another ICC Commission. However, here my impression is that this was quite exceptional and was done with the intention of changing banking practice, previously established by Opinion R283, as (I imagine) it was felt that this might be a common problem. My opinion is that had a bank individually investigated the matter and taken a view that contradicted Opinion R283, it would have been in a most vulnerable position had its decision been challenged in a court of law, given the opinions seem to be regarded by legal commentators as a prima facie source of banking practice. Therefore, I do not see this example as supporting the view that bankers must have -or can apply- particular knowledge, other than that gained from their day to day operations, of transport, insurance and other matters.
Also, I fully accept that it makes sense for UCP500 to reflect practice in the insurance and transport sectors, so that such documents are likely -on their face- to appear to be facially compliant (to a non-expert). However, I believe a distinction must be made between the knowledge of those who draft UCP and those who have to apply it in determining facial compliance.
I believe my (and every other bankers?) approach of not applying non-banking knowledge is alluded to, for example, by Charles del Busto’s statement “…… there is a method for examination of documents …… which is peculiar to bankers.”
Finally, I must stress I have an open mind and if you can identify any case law or expert legal commentary, in/from a significant commercial jurisdiction, that justifies your positions I would be pleased to consider it. If you cannot, then I see little to be usefully gained by further discussion.
Apologies if I have missed any of the points you raised.
Yours amicably, Jeremy
P.S. Hatem, being the shy and retiring type, I don’t think I’ve ever had the opportunity of the particular form of ‘wrestling’ to which you referred.
[edited 4/22/02 3:36:26 PM]
Exclusions of certain risks to Institute Cargo Clause (A)/
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Exclusions of certain risks to Institute Cargo Clause (A)/
Jeremy,
I think you have expressed yourself crystal clear and I really understand your concerns because I share them with you. Throughout our discussion we wanted to understand the reasoning behind such ICC BC decision because, for me, it is not convincing. Perhaps I am missing a point or I might be correct (in both cases am a winner). In this endeavoure, one must not be narrowly confined with the knowledge of UCP but must really understand at least the basics of insurance to understand why such position was taken. In my opinion a banker understanding the underlying contract of his applicant with beneficiary is far better off the one who does not know what his applicant (customer) is trading in. did I suggest that bankers should deal with goods not documents? Of course no. A banker who knows that CIF requires minimum insurance coverage will be able to advise his applicant to stipulate in the credit that insurance coverage should be “all risks”. A banker who is more knowledgeable about insurance will replace the magic word “all risks” with ICC (A). Did I suggest that a banker go and study insurance? Of course not. I really do not care whether bankers really appreciate that or not. What I care for is that the train is moving, if you do not catch it in this station you may catch in the next, but if the train has gone far and you are not able to catch it then that’s your problem because we told you that train is moving.
Jeremy, you are a very talented person, and I want to use you as an example to defeat your approach in this issue. Look at yourself. You seem to be knowledgeable about legal issues, you have an elevated banking knowledge and a very good sense of risks. If you did not work at yourself you would not be able to participate actively in this forum. Would you suggest that bankers only read UCP and not anything else? i a sure not. (I hope so)
Further look at yourself and imagine your are requested to identify and mentor a successor for you as a part of a succession plan in your bank. You have two options whether to feel that this process is a threat or (a treat) an opportunity for somebody that you like as well as an opportunity for you to retire. Now, if you are for the first option you will “train” him to be ignorant, static, and narrow-minded. If you go for the second option I am sure you will recommend him not only for letters of credit workshops but also for management and supervision courses, problem solving and decision making, and other training solutions as applicable. A well-rounded banker is a scarce.
The question about the ICC BC decision is simple. We are trying to understand based on UCP500 why would you reject an insurance policy that states that its cover is under ICC (A) however in it exclusion clauses it indicates that “rust, … “ is not covered? If a banker merely taking ICC BC decision for granted and challenged by the court of law that this is not only a common practice under insurance but also has no grounds under UCP then he will be in hot water. Now do you think if the bank is challenged by this, would that bank appoint A defense panel, an attorney, or even nominate an expert witness who does not know what insurance is or what ICC (A) is all about? Would you tell me if I am a nominated bank under a credit that your bank has established that “I do not have to have the slightest knowledge of the steel trade when examining documents for compliance that relate to a steel shipment.” Knowledge is not bad, it would serve as a standby weapon whenever the need arise.
FEW TIPS
* 14 YRS EXPERINCE IN BANKING (TRADE SERVICES), A TRAINEE CONFESSED IN ONE OF MY RECENT COURSES THAT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME TO KNOW THAT COLLECTIONS HAS ICC RULES.
* WHEN WE WENT TO SEARPORT RECENTLY, WE WERE GIVEN A SUMMARY OF INCOTERMS 1953.
AS TRAINERS WE HAVE CONCERNS TOO.
P. S. Jeremy
Not American wrestling but the British one, which is very professional and focused. Please visualize beyond the literal meaning.
I think you have expressed yourself crystal clear and I really understand your concerns because I share them with you. Throughout our discussion we wanted to understand the reasoning behind such ICC BC decision because, for me, it is not convincing. Perhaps I am missing a point or I might be correct (in both cases am a winner). In this endeavoure, one must not be narrowly confined with the knowledge of UCP but must really understand at least the basics of insurance to understand why such position was taken. In my opinion a banker understanding the underlying contract of his applicant with beneficiary is far better off the one who does not know what his applicant (customer) is trading in. did I suggest that bankers should deal with goods not documents? Of course no. A banker who knows that CIF requires minimum insurance coverage will be able to advise his applicant to stipulate in the credit that insurance coverage should be “all risks”. A banker who is more knowledgeable about insurance will replace the magic word “all risks” with ICC (A). Did I suggest that a banker go and study insurance? Of course not. I really do not care whether bankers really appreciate that or not. What I care for is that the train is moving, if you do not catch it in this station you may catch in the next, but if the train has gone far and you are not able to catch it then that’s your problem because we told you that train is moving.
Jeremy, you are a very talented person, and I want to use you as an example to defeat your approach in this issue. Look at yourself. You seem to be knowledgeable about legal issues, you have an elevated banking knowledge and a very good sense of risks. If you did not work at yourself you would not be able to participate actively in this forum. Would you suggest that bankers only read UCP and not anything else? i a sure not. (I hope so)
Further look at yourself and imagine your are requested to identify and mentor a successor for you as a part of a succession plan in your bank. You have two options whether to feel that this process is a threat or (a treat) an opportunity for somebody that you like as well as an opportunity for you to retire. Now, if you are for the first option you will “train” him to be ignorant, static, and narrow-minded. If you go for the second option I am sure you will recommend him not only for letters of credit workshops but also for management and supervision courses, problem solving and decision making, and other training solutions as applicable. A well-rounded banker is a scarce.
The question about the ICC BC decision is simple. We are trying to understand based on UCP500 why would you reject an insurance policy that states that its cover is under ICC (A) however in it exclusion clauses it indicates that “rust, … “ is not covered? If a banker merely taking ICC BC decision for granted and challenged by the court of law that this is not only a common practice under insurance but also has no grounds under UCP then he will be in hot water. Now do you think if the bank is challenged by this, would that bank appoint A defense panel, an attorney, or even nominate an expert witness who does not know what insurance is or what ICC (A) is all about? Would you tell me if I am a nominated bank under a credit that your bank has established that “I do not have to have the slightest knowledge of the steel trade when examining documents for compliance that relate to a steel shipment.” Knowledge is not bad, it would serve as a standby weapon whenever the need arise.
FEW TIPS
* 14 YRS EXPERINCE IN BANKING (TRADE SERVICES), A TRAINEE CONFESSED IN ONE OF MY RECENT COURSES THAT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME TO KNOW THAT COLLECTIONS HAS ICC RULES.
* WHEN WE WENT TO SEARPORT RECENTLY, WE WERE GIVEN A SUMMARY OF INCOTERMS 1953.
AS TRAINERS WE HAVE CONCERNS TOO.
P. S. Jeremy
Not American wrestling but the British one, which is very professional and focused. Please visualize beyond the literal meaning.
Exclusions of certain risks to Institute Cargo Clause (A)/
Hatem,
I can only assume the Commission took the view that it did because, based on the information presented to it, it seemed that the insurance document did not APPEAR (from an insurance non-expert’s perspective) to offer the full cover stipulated in the credit. In the event of such a matter being contested in court, I would expect banking expert witnesses to be involved, not insurance (or steel trade) expert witnesses. This is because it is the appearance of a document to a banker that counts, not questions of actual fact/trade practice. Thus, should the insurance document appear to a banker not to offer the full stipulated cover, but in fact it does (or appears to do so to someone versed in insurance/steel trade matters), the insurance document is still discrepant.
I accept a banker, for what ever reason, may acquire knowledge above and beyond that required to determine facial compliance. However, I do not believe this should change significantly such a banker’s approach to determining facial compliance.
Lastly, on the subject of the lack of ‘solid wood packing material’; while it is interesting to know the reason for the blading clause, I would observe this knowledge is not needed to determine facial compliance.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 4/23/02 4:44:43 PM]
I can only assume the Commission took the view that it did because, based on the information presented to it, it seemed that the insurance document did not APPEAR (from an insurance non-expert’s perspective) to offer the full cover stipulated in the credit. In the event of such a matter being contested in court, I would expect banking expert witnesses to be involved, not insurance (or steel trade) expert witnesses. This is because it is the appearance of a document to a banker that counts, not questions of actual fact/trade practice. Thus, should the insurance document appear to a banker not to offer the full stipulated cover, but in fact it does (or appears to do so to someone versed in insurance/steel trade matters), the insurance document is still discrepant.
I accept a banker, for what ever reason, may acquire knowledge above and beyond that required to determine facial compliance. However, I do not believe this should change significantly such a banker’s approach to determining facial compliance.
Lastly, on the subject of the lack of ‘solid wood packing material’; while it is interesting to know the reason for the blading clause, I would observe this knowledge is not needed to determine facial compliance.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 4/23/02 4:44:43 PM]
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Exclusions of certain risks to Institute Cargo Clause (A)/
Just a quick note on the assumption that the insurance policy did not appear to have provided “full cover stipulated in the credit” is that policies with “all risks” cover contains exclusions (even more that the risks covered) so why this? If we agree that ICC (A) is a full cover, we should by default agree to the exclusions this policy contains, so in practice there is nothing called full cover.
Hence is our argument that it would be really naive to expect that an insurance policy will provide literally “full cover” and “all risks” with no exclusions, exactly as to expect that a letter of credit provide full protection to an honest buyer.
Based on your assumption, an ignorant document checker would even refuse an insurance policy that states it is covering ICC (A) but at the same time indicates some exclusions like “inherent vice”. This would seem an inconsistency in the document itself and therefore will provide grounds for rejection.
As I am traveling tomorrow to Jordan, I am not sure that I will be active in the discussion forum the coming week.
Regards
Hence is our argument that it would be really naive to expect that an insurance policy will provide literally “full cover” and “all risks” with no exclusions, exactly as to expect that a letter of credit provide full protection to an honest buyer.
Based on your assumption, an ignorant document checker would even refuse an insurance policy that states it is covering ICC (A) but at the same time indicates some exclusions like “inherent vice”. This would seem an inconsistency in the document itself and therefore will provide grounds for rejection.
As I am traveling tomorrow to Jordan, I am not sure that I will be active in the discussion forum the coming week.
Regards
Exclusions of certain risks to Institute Cargo Clause (A)/
Hatem,
I think the expression ‘full cover’, perhaps also ‘exclusion’, is causing some confusion.
When I use the expression ‘full cover’ I do not mean every possible risk that could arise is covered by the insurance (‘all risks’ in the literal sense). I mean all the risks stipulated in the credit are covered. Thus, if a credit stipulates ICC(A) the insurance document must not appear to offer less than ICC(A). (However, it may indicate what ICC(A) does not cover.) In the case of the ‘rust clause’ I assume the Commission took the view the insurance document seemed to offer less than ICC(A), i.e. there was not cover to the full extent stipulated in the credit.
The expression ‘exclusion’ seems -to me- open to at least two interpretations. One is that an ‘exclusion’ is a risk that the standard cover, e.g. ICC(A), does not automatically encompass (a ‘standard exclusion’). Another interpretation is that an ‘exclusion’ is a risk, that the standard cover automatically encompasses, but in a particular insurance contract it does not as it is ‘excluded’ (a ‘non-standard exclusion’). In the case of the ‘rust clause’ I assume the Commission took the view the ‘exclusion’ seemed to fall into the latter category, i.e. a ‘non-standard exclusion’. Incidentally, what is ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ in this context is wholly unconnected with the practices of a particular import-export trade.
I would not expect a document checker to reject an insurance document that covered ICC(A) which ‘excluded’, for example, ‘inherent vice’ (whatever that is) where that ‘exclusion’ appeared -from the document- to be a standard term of ICC(A). However, I would expect a document checker to reject such an insurance document where the ‘exclusion’ did not –from the document- appear to be a standard term of ICC(A).
Turning to ‘all risks’, banks are entitled to ignore exclusions of any kind for no other reason than that Article 36 expressly allows them to. If Article 36 did not exist, courts may well hold a bank was not entitled to ignore certain ‘exclusions’.
If you’re still not convinced, I suggest we correspond by e-mail.
Jeremy
I think the expression ‘full cover’, perhaps also ‘exclusion’, is causing some confusion.
When I use the expression ‘full cover’ I do not mean every possible risk that could arise is covered by the insurance (‘all risks’ in the literal sense). I mean all the risks stipulated in the credit are covered. Thus, if a credit stipulates ICC(A) the insurance document must not appear to offer less than ICC(A). (However, it may indicate what ICC(A) does not cover.) In the case of the ‘rust clause’ I assume the Commission took the view the insurance document seemed to offer less than ICC(A), i.e. there was not cover to the full extent stipulated in the credit.
The expression ‘exclusion’ seems -to me- open to at least two interpretations. One is that an ‘exclusion’ is a risk that the standard cover, e.g. ICC(A), does not automatically encompass (a ‘standard exclusion’). Another interpretation is that an ‘exclusion’ is a risk, that the standard cover automatically encompasses, but in a particular insurance contract it does not as it is ‘excluded’ (a ‘non-standard exclusion’). In the case of the ‘rust clause’ I assume the Commission took the view the ‘exclusion’ seemed to fall into the latter category, i.e. a ‘non-standard exclusion’. Incidentally, what is ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ in this context is wholly unconnected with the practices of a particular import-export trade.
I would not expect a document checker to reject an insurance document that covered ICC(A) which ‘excluded’, for example, ‘inherent vice’ (whatever that is) where that ‘exclusion’ appeared -from the document- to be a standard term of ICC(A). However, I would expect a document checker to reject such an insurance document where the ‘exclusion’ did not –from the document- appear to be a standard term of ICC(A).
Turning to ‘all risks’, banks are entitled to ignore exclusions of any kind for no other reason than that Article 36 expressly allows them to. If Article 36 did not exist, courts may well hold a bank was not entitled to ignore certain ‘exclusions’.
If you’re still not convinced, I suggest we correspond by e-mail.
Jeremy
Exclusions of certain risks to Institute Cargo Clause (A)/
Jeremy,
REASONS GIVEN ARE GROUNDLESS
I am now back from the Paris ICC BC meetings. We do not know how to respond to the reasons given by you to justify a banker to ignore the standard rust exclusions. We can only say that such reasons reflect a banker’s ignorance about the basics in cargo insurance. To convince that these reasons are groundless, we have to give a lecture. But the DC Pro is not an appropriate forum for this. Those who wish to find out why those reasons are wrong or groundless may approach their clients or friends in the steel goods trade or in the cargo insurance profession.
HOW A COURT WITNESS IS TO BE SELECTED
Now, from our experience in expert witness services, when an expert witness is to be picked up to give evidence in a dispute arising from a steel goods trade, the law firm or a court of law would select a DC expert, either a consultant or a banker. But both of them must be familiar with the steel goods trade.
An ordinary banker who does not deal with steel goods trade in his life would not be regarded as a suitable candidate because he knows not much more than the rest of the people in the courtroom. A court expert must be specialized in the subject matter he is called upon to give his opinions in the court to guide the Judge to understand the issues and to give judicial decisions taking into consideration of such practices. If all DC court cases are to be decided by a banker’s perspective solely based on the UCP 500, then we would not have cases like "Glencore" and "Banco Santander" from the UK.
For example, if the dispute is about a charter party bill of lading in DC operations, then the court expert, whether a consultant or a banker, must know about maritime chartering practice, at least to the extend related to DC operations. Otherwise he cannot be qualified as an expert on chartering practice related to DC operations. Not all bankers can be a court expert. That is also one of the many reasons why the CDCS is not named as CDCE.
MANY BANKERS KNOW ABOUT RUST EXCLUSIONS IN STEEL GOODS TRADE
Some bankers do know about the standard rust exclusions clause, since they do a lot of DC covering steel goods trades and learn from their clients/customers for such cargo insurance practice. Let us talk about the facts, bankers from Hong Kong, Macau, China, Malaysia, Singapore and Middle East etc. do come to our cargo insurance workshops and they do know about cargo insurance. They would certainly not regard rust exclusions as discrepancies.
STEEL GOODS TRADE FRAUD IS THE NO. 1 DC FRAUDS
On the other hand, in the steel goods trade, if an insurance policy does not show a rider for rust exclusions, this strange phenomenon would provide a good clue or “footprint” to indicate frauds. From our experience, steel goods trade fraud is the No. 1 in DC frauds.
To end this posting, it is only simple common sense that steel goods are always subject to rust attack. It does not need any specialised knowledge to find this out. A 15 years old child can tell us this fact.
www.tolee.com
[edited 4/29/02 9:58:53 PM]
REASONS GIVEN ARE GROUNDLESS
I am now back from the Paris ICC BC meetings. We do not know how to respond to the reasons given by you to justify a banker to ignore the standard rust exclusions. We can only say that such reasons reflect a banker’s ignorance about the basics in cargo insurance. To convince that these reasons are groundless, we have to give a lecture. But the DC Pro is not an appropriate forum for this. Those who wish to find out why those reasons are wrong or groundless may approach their clients or friends in the steel goods trade or in the cargo insurance profession.
HOW A COURT WITNESS IS TO BE SELECTED
Now, from our experience in expert witness services, when an expert witness is to be picked up to give evidence in a dispute arising from a steel goods trade, the law firm or a court of law would select a DC expert, either a consultant or a banker. But both of them must be familiar with the steel goods trade.
An ordinary banker who does not deal with steel goods trade in his life would not be regarded as a suitable candidate because he knows not much more than the rest of the people in the courtroom. A court expert must be specialized in the subject matter he is called upon to give his opinions in the court to guide the Judge to understand the issues and to give judicial decisions taking into consideration of such practices. If all DC court cases are to be decided by a banker’s perspective solely based on the UCP 500, then we would not have cases like "Glencore" and "Banco Santander" from the UK.
For example, if the dispute is about a charter party bill of lading in DC operations, then the court expert, whether a consultant or a banker, must know about maritime chartering practice, at least to the extend related to DC operations. Otherwise he cannot be qualified as an expert on chartering practice related to DC operations. Not all bankers can be a court expert. That is also one of the many reasons why the CDCS is not named as CDCE.
MANY BANKERS KNOW ABOUT RUST EXCLUSIONS IN STEEL GOODS TRADE
Some bankers do know about the standard rust exclusions clause, since they do a lot of DC covering steel goods trades and learn from their clients/customers for such cargo insurance practice. Let us talk about the facts, bankers from Hong Kong, Macau, China, Malaysia, Singapore and Middle East etc. do come to our cargo insurance workshops and they do know about cargo insurance. They would certainly not regard rust exclusions as discrepancies.
STEEL GOODS TRADE FRAUD IS THE NO. 1 DC FRAUDS
On the other hand, in the steel goods trade, if an insurance policy does not show a rider for rust exclusions, this strange phenomenon would provide a good clue or “footprint” to indicate frauds. From our experience, steel goods trade fraud is the No. 1 in DC frauds.
To end this posting, it is only simple common sense that steel goods are always subject to rust attack. It does not need any specialised knowledge to find this out. A 15 years old child can tell us this fact.
www.tolee.com
[edited 4/29/02 9:58:53 PM]
Exclusions of certain risks to Institute Cargo Clause (A)/
Hello T.O.,
Glad to see you're in good form.
I agree “A court expert must be specialized in the subject matter he is called upon to give his opinions”. However, in the case of credits, I disagree that they have to have any knowledge of the trade to which the underlying transaction relates and, I believe, a court (English at least) would not concern itself with such matters. See the Rayner case I quoted above. The only knowledge the expert witnesses need is that of credits.
I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make with regard to the Santander & Glencore cases. Suffice it to say both involved credit expert witnesses and the courts based their decision on how they (the courts) interpreted UCP500 and English law.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 4/30/02 11:24:13 AM]
Glad to see you're in good form.
I agree “A court expert must be specialized in the subject matter he is called upon to give his opinions”. However, in the case of credits, I disagree that they have to have any knowledge of the trade to which the underlying transaction relates and, I believe, a court (English at least) would not concern itself with such matters. See the Rayner case I quoted above. The only knowledge the expert witnesses need is that of credits.
I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make with regard to the Santander & Glencore cases. Suffice it to say both involved credit expert witnesses and the courts based their decision on how they (the courts) interpreted UCP500 and English law.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 4/30/02 11:24:13 AM]
Exclusions of certain risks to Institute Cargo Clause (A)/
Jeremy,
From your interest in law and skills in UCP you should have known that the judicial decisions of the UK court(s) on these two cases (Glencore and Banco Santander) have created a bombshell effect to the banking community worldwide. The consequences are so serious that ICC BC has to issue a Decision Paper on “Original Documents” to rectify the otherwise disturbing situation. Since you know the answer, then why ask?
www.tolee.com
From your interest in law and skills in UCP you should have known that the judicial decisions of the UK court(s) on these two cases (Glencore and Banco Santander) have created a bombshell effect to the banking community worldwide. The consequences are so serious that ICC BC has to issue a Decision Paper on “Original Documents” to rectify the otherwise disturbing situation. Since you know the answer, then why ask?
www.tolee.com
Exclusions of certain risks to Institute Cargo Clause (A)/
T.O.,
I did not realise I had 'asked' anything. I just could not (and still cannot) see what point you were trying to make regarding these cases.
As to the 'bombshells', they were the simple product of bankers failing to take account of what UCP500 actually said or did not say.
Jeremy
I did not realise I had 'asked' anything. I just could not (and still cannot) see what point you were trying to make regarding these cases.
As to the 'bombshells', they were the simple product of bankers failing to take account of what UCP500 actually said or did not say.
Jeremy
Exclusions of certain risks to Institute Cargo Clause (A)/
Jeremy,
Please don't try to put the blame on the bankers or the traders about the "Original Documents" issue. The real reason behind this problem is that this UCP 500 sub-Article 20 (b) is not clearly written and needs a revision badly.
Otherwise there would not be any major differences in interpretations by the court and the bankers or traders. If an article is clearly written, there should not be any need to make multi- pages Decision Paper to explain what it really means.
Some one told us that one of the Judges had once said "If the bankers write this Article 20 (b) in such an unclear manner, we (Common Law Judges) are going to interpret it verbatim. If the bankers who have written such an Article do not mean that, then they should have written it in the way it should be".
We also had an opportunity to meet one of the Judges that had been involved in the Glencore case (who might not be the main Judges) but he pulled a long face and refused to comment on this case or to continue the conversation. He just walked away coldly without giving a reason.
www.tolee.com
[edited 5/1/02 3:24:45 PM]
Please don't try to put the blame on the bankers or the traders about the "Original Documents" issue. The real reason behind this problem is that this UCP 500 sub-Article 20 (b) is not clearly written and needs a revision badly.
Otherwise there would not be any major differences in interpretations by the court and the bankers or traders. If an article is clearly written, there should not be any need to make multi- pages Decision Paper to explain what it really means.
Some one told us that one of the Judges had once said "If the bankers write this Article 20 (b) in such an unclear manner, we (Common Law Judges) are going to interpret it verbatim. If the bankers who have written such an Article do not mean that, then they should have written it in the way it should be".
We also had an opportunity to meet one of the Judges that had been involved in the Glencore case (who might not be the main Judges) but he pulled a long face and refused to comment on this case or to continue the conversation. He just walked away coldly without giving a reason.
www.tolee.com
[edited 5/1/02 3:24:45 PM]