The case of the day is Receivers of Sabena SA v. Deutsche Bank AG (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Sabena, before it became insolvent, was Belgium’s national airline. It provided airplane maintenance services to Sudan Airways Ltd. In 1997, to pay for some services Sabena had provided for its planes, Sudan Airways initiated an electronic funds transfer for $360,000 with Sabena as the beneficiary. Sudan Airways’s bank was the National Bank of Abu Dhabi. Generale Bank was Sabena’s bank. Bankers Trust, in New York, was the intermediary bank. Its successor-in-interest was Deutsche Bank.
To understand the case, you need to know a little about electronic funds transfers, which are governed by Article 4-A of the UCC (or more precisely in this case, New York’s enactment of the UCC). Here is a brief description that the court quoted in its opinion:
Continue reading Case of the Day: Receivers of Sabena v. Deutsche Bank
The case of the day is Mutual Benefits Offshore Fund v. Zeltser (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Eagle-eyed reader Ira Matetsky of Ganfer & Shore in New York sent it along. The facts of the case were not reported. The holding: the First Department of the Appellate Division, which hears cases from Manhattan, reversed its earlier precedent and held, correctly, that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention permits service of process by mail in the absence of an objection from the state of destination. This decision resolves a split in the Appellate Division cases. So go to it, New York lawyers!
Continue reading Case of the Day: Mutual Benefits Offshore Fund v. Zeltser
The case of the day is Badawi v. Alesawy (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). This is the appeal of the case of the day from October 23, 2012. The parties were married civilly in New York in 1998, and they had an Islamic wedding ceremony thereafter. As part of the religious ceremony, they signed a mahr agreement that required the husband to make an advance payment to the wife of $5,000, with deferred payment of $250,000 in case of divorce. While living in Abu Dhabi, the wife obtained a divorce, custody of the children, and a judgment for the $250,000 payment due under the mahr. She then sought recognition and enforcement of the Abu Dhabi judgment in New York insofar as it related to the payment due under the mahr. The Supreme Court recognized the judgment, and the husband appealed.
Continue reading Badawi v. Alesawy