ERA Capital L.P. v. Soleil Chartered Bank [2024]

Bench trial for negligent misrepresentation claim by beneficiary against advising bank.

💡
ERA Capital L.P. v. Soleil Chartered Bank
No. 651984/2019, slip op. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 23, 2024) [USA]

Type of Lawsuit: Bench trial for negligent misrepresentation claim by beneficiary against advising bank.

Topics: Advising Bank; Bench Trial; Fraud; Negligent Misrepresentation; Standby Letters of Credit; Wrongful Dishonor

Parties:
• Plaintiff/Creditor/Beneficiary – ERA Capital L.P.
• Defendant/Issuer – Soleil Chartered Bank
• Second Defendant/Parent – Soleil Capitale Corporation
• Third Defendant/Advising Bank – Regions Bank
• Non-party/Applicant – IR Real Investments GMBH
• Non-party/Debtor – IR Right Investment GMBH
• Non-party/Fraudster – Amir Bramly

Underlying Transaction: Loans ostensibly for real estate deal outside US.

LCs: Two letters of credit, one for USD 900,000 (and subject to UCP600), another for USD 1.8 million (no rules mentioned). Silent as to choice of law.

Decision: The Supreme Court of N.Y., Crane, J., granted judgment in favor of advising bank and dismissed the case.

Rationale: Burden of proof regarding negligent misrepresentation claim unmet where beneficiary failed to demonstrate existence of special relationship with advising bank, bank expressly disclaimed all liability apart from role as adviser, no basis of reasonable reliance on incorrect information, nor was advising bank proximate cause of losses.

Factual Summary:

To allegedly support loans tendered to IR Right Investment GMBH (Debtor) for an underlying real estate deal, ERA Capital L.P. (Creditor)[[1]] approached Regions Bank (Advising Bank), for advice on letters of credit as Creditor was inexperienced with LCs. Advising Bank acknowledged having expertise and proceeded to assist Creditor with standard LC practice. As revealed at trial, however, Creditor extended funds to Debtor while the ultimate LC account party was IR Real Investments GMBH (Applicant). While exclusively negotiating with Applicant (namely, the assumed owner Amir Bramly (Fraudster)), Creditor transferred funds to Fraudster’s brother-in-law and Debtor. The reason for obfuscation was due to Fraudster being “under indictment [in Israel] and his assets frozen at the time the events in this case took place.”[[2]]

Great! You’ve successfully signed up.

Welcome back! You've successfully signed in.

You've successfully subscribed to Documentary Credit World.

Success! Check your email for magic link to sign-in.

Success! Your billing info has been updated.

Your billing was not updated.