집wow_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

MoccaTB
2021-09-29

집wow

Citi’s $500 Million Blunder Back in Court as Bank Argues Appeal

Citibank accidentally sent Revlon creditors giant overpayment Now it asks judges to overturn ruling

Citi’s $500 Million Blunder Back in Court as Bank Argues Appeal

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

关于我们·老虎社区守则·老虎社区账号管理规范·老虎社区服务协议·老虎社区隐私政策

公司名称：北京至简风宜信息技术有限公司

违法和不良信息投诉：010-5681-3562（工作时间9:30-18:30）

邮箱：service@laohu8.com

营业执照：91110105MA01A4U55R

ICP备：京ICP备18016422号

网安备：京公网安备11010502036490

关注我们

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":865091102,"tweetId":"865091102","gmtCreate":1632922394852,"gmtModify":1632922395115,"author":{"id":3580696609412947,"authorId":3580696609412947,"authorIdStr":"3580696609412947","name":"MoccaTB","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/06bb70f2fd1d34bedd4d0aa721d27bb9","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":7,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>집wow</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>집wow</p></body></html>","text":"집wow","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/865091102","repostId":1139423922,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1139423922","pubTimestamp":1632920710,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1139423922?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-29 21:05","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Citi’s $500 Million Blunder Back in Court as Bank Argues Appeal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1139423922","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"Citibank accidentally sent Revlon creditors giant overpayment\nNow it asks judges to overturn ruling ","content":"<ul>\n <li>Citibank accidentally sent Revlon creditors giant overpayment</li>\n <li>Now it asks judges to overturn ruling that let lenders keep it</li>\n</ul>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2d6c4184ba6e5db75d89c7de1dee558d\" tg-width=\"2000\" tg-height=\"1334\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><span>Automated teller machines at a Citibank branch in Washington, D.C. Photographer: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg</span></p>\n<p>Citigroup Inc.&nbsp;faces tough odds as it tries to persuade an appeals court that disgruntled&nbsp;Revlon Inc.&nbsp;creditors should give back more than half a billion dollars the bank accidentally sent them last year.</p>\n<p>A trio of federal judges in Manhattan will hear arguments from both sides on Wednesday as it weighs a lower court’s surprise decision that the lenders can keep the money -- a decision Citigroup’s main banking unit calls a misapplication of the law that sent “shockwaves through the markets.”</p>\n<p>Citibank, which sued the lenders for the money last year, could get the decision overturned, but it won’t be easy, said Bloomberg Intelligence senior litigation analyst Elliott Stein. It would require the appeals panel to dial back the lenders’ key legal defense “in a way that undermines finality in business transactions and shifts responsibility for catching errors to creditors,” he said.</p>\n<p>Stein noted that the federal judges could also kick the case over to New York’s highest court for its views.</p>\n<p><b>‘Discharge for Value’</b></p>\n<p>The dispute turns on the “discharge for value” defense, established by a 1991 New York court ruling that creditors can keep money sent to them in error if they didn’t realize the payment was a mistake. In the Citibank case, the bank was trying to make an interest payment to one of the cosmetics company’s creditors in August 2020 -- acting as administrative agent on the loan -- when a series of employee errors led to a mistaken transfer of more than $900 million to other lenders.</p>\n<p>Some returned the money, but a group including&nbsp;Brigade Capital Management LP,HPS Investment Partners LLC&nbsp;and&nbsp;Symphony Asset Management&nbsp;refused, saying Revlon had already defaulted on its obligations under a 2016 term loan and should have repaid them by that point. Citibank sued the lenders for the $504 million it hadn’t recovered. Following a two-week trial in December, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled for the Revlon lenders in February, saying they shouldn’t have been expected to know the transfer was in error.</p>\n<p>Furman’s decision was a windfall for the creditors, which had been battling Revlon, controlled by billionaire investor Ron Perelman, over its May 2020 restructuring. It was a black eye for Citibank, which was forced to explain the embarrassing blunder to regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve. Chief Exeuctive Officer&nbsp;Jane Fraser&nbsp;in June called it a&nbsp;“massive unforced error”&nbsp;and showed examples of manual processes that need to be automated.</p>\n<p>Citigroup said in a statement Tuesday that its appeal is grounded in “strong legal precedent and deep ethical principles.”</p>\n<p><b>‘Mistakes Do Happen’</b></p>\n<p>“The lenders who tried to keep the money were not entitled to the funds at the time, did not expect to receive them at the time, and should have known they were transferred accidentally,” spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos said in a statement. “A decision requiring the return of the money is supported by a tremendous number of major industry voices, and would also uphold the spirit of cooperation necessary for a well-functioning syndicated lending market, providing needed stability, clarity, and certainty.”</p>\n<p>Lawyers for the Revlon lenders declined to comment.</p>\n<p>A number of law professors, advocacy groups and industry associations have sided with Citibank, saying Furman’s decision has already disrupted the way the market works and changed the expectations of its participants. One of the briefs in support of the bank’s position was filed by the&nbsp;Loan Syndications and Trading Association, a not-for-profit group that represents more than 500 firms involved in the origination, syndication and trading of commercial loans, including both Citigroup and most of the creditors in the case.</p>\n<p>The group said that while the syndicated loan market is largely automated, “mistakes do happen” and participants routinely return incorrect payments.</p>\n<p>The creditors say that courts have placed the burden of reconciling mistaken transfers on the banks, rather than the recipients. They say Citibank’s arguments ignore the fact that there had never been a mistaken payment of the exact amount of an outstanding loan like the one in the case.</p>\n<p>The appeal is Citibank NA v. Brigade Capital Management LP, 21-487, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Manhattan). The lower-court case is Citibank NA v. Brigade Capital Management, 20-cv-6539, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Citi’s $500 Million Blunder Back in Court as Bank Argues Appeal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nCiti’s $500 Million Blunder Back in Court as Bank Argues Appeal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-09-29 21:05 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-29/citi-s-500-million-blunder-back-in-court-as-bank-argues-appeal?srnd=markets-vp><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Citibank accidentally sent Revlon creditors giant overpayment\nNow it asks judges to overturn ruling that let lenders keep it\n\nAutomated teller machines at a Citibank branch in Washington, D.C. ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-29/citi-s-500-million-blunder-back-in-court-as-bank-argues-appeal?srnd=markets-vp\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"C":"花旗"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-29/citi-s-500-million-blunder-back-in-court-as-bank-argues-appeal?srnd=markets-vp","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1139423922","content_text":"Citibank accidentally sent Revlon creditors giant overpayment\nNow it asks judges to overturn ruling that let lenders keep it\n\nAutomated teller machines at a Citibank branch in Washington, D.C. Photographer: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg\nCitigroup Inc. faces tough odds as it tries to persuade an appeals court that disgruntled Revlon Inc. creditors should give back more than half a billion dollars the bank accidentally sent them last year.\nA trio of federal judges in Manhattan will hear arguments from both sides on Wednesday as it weighs a lower court’s surprise decision that the lenders can keep the money -- a decision Citigroup’s main banking unit calls a misapplication of the law that sent “shockwaves through the markets.”\nCitibank, which sued the lenders for the money last year, could get the decision overturned, but it won’t be easy, said Bloomberg Intelligence senior litigation analyst Elliott Stein. It would require the appeals panel to dial back the lenders’ key legal defense “in a way that undermines finality in business transactions and shifts responsibility for catching errors to creditors,” he said.\nStein noted that the federal judges could also kick the case over to New York’s highest court for its views.\n‘Discharge for Value’\nThe dispute turns on the “discharge for value” defense, established by a 1991 New York court ruling that creditors can keep money sent to them in error if they didn’t realize the payment was a mistake. In the Citibank case, the bank was trying to make an interest payment to one of the cosmetics company’s creditors in August 2020 -- acting as administrative agent on the loan -- when a series of employee errors led to a mistaken transfer of more than $900 million to other lenders.\nSome returned the money, but a group including Brigade Capital Management LP,HPS Investment Partners LLC and Symphony Asset Management refused, saying Revlon had already defaulted on its obligations under a 2016 term loan and should have repaid them by that point. Citibank sued the lenders for the $504 million it hadn’t recovered. Following a two-week trial in December, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled for the Revlon lenders in February, saying they shouldn’t have been expected to know the transfer was in error.\nFurman’s decision was a windfall for the creditors, which had been battling Revlon, controlled by billionaire investor Ron Perelman, over its May 2020 restructuring. It was a black eye for Citibank, which was forced to explain the embarrassing blunder to regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve. Chief Exeuctive Officer Jane Fraser in June called it a “massive unforced error” and showed examples of manual processes that need to be automated.\nCitigroup said in a statement Tuesday that its appeal is grounded in “strong legal precedent and deep ethical principles.”\n‘Mistakes Do Happen’\n“The lenders who tried to keep the money were not entitled to the funds at the time, did not expect to receive them at the time, and should have known they were transferred accidentally,” spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos said in a statement. “A decision requiring the return of the money is supported by a tremendous number of major industry voices, and would also uphold the spirit of cooperation necessary for a well-functioning syndicated lending market, providing needed stability, clarity, and certainty.”\nLawyers for the Revlon lenders declined to comment.\nA number of law professors, advocacy groups and industry associations have sided with Citibank, saying Furman’s decision has already disrupted the way the market works and changed the expectations of its participants. One of the briefs in support of the bank’s position was filed by the Loan Syndications and Trading Association, a not-for-profit group that represents more than 500 firms involved in the origination, syndication and trading of commercial loans, including both Citigroup and most of the creditors in the case.\nThe group said that while the syndicated loan market is largely automated, “mistakes do happen” and participants routinely return incorrect payments.\nThe creditors say that courts have placed the burden of reconciling mistaken transfers on the banks, rather than the recipients. They say Citibank’s arguments ignore the fact that there had never been a mistaken payment of the exact amount of an outstanding loan like the one in the case.\nThe appeal is Citibank NA v. Brigade Capital Management LP, 21-487, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Manhattan). The lower-court case is Citibank NA v. Brigade Capital Management, 20-cv-6539, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":323,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":4,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}

Citi’s $500 Million Blunder Back in Court as Bank Argues Appeal

评论（1）

热议股票