• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.48
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2010

In letter of credit arrangements, the issuing bank nominate a reimbursing bank which serves as a source of funds payment to the beneficiary. The reimbursing bank could be 3rd party bank or the issuing bank itself. In view of working capital requirements, most beneficiary want to get export proceeds in advance through nominated banks and therefore letter of credit usually permit the beneficiary to negotiate drafts, accompanied by required documents, to nominated bank. If the credit is available with the nominated bank, there must be a reimbursement instruction in the credit, because in this method of availability the issuing bank is obliged to reimburse the nominated bank if that bank acts on its nomination There are legal relationship among issuing bank, nominated bank and reimbursing bank with regard to reimbursement activities. Related rules are UCP and URR and UCC (in case of USA). Korean exporters and bankers do not appear to know well the role of reimbursement and usage. 3 cases (court case + ICC Opinion + bad practices) were employed to study the reimbursement mechanism and suggest better usages. The beneficiary is strongly recommended to know the benefit of reimbursement claim from independent reimbursing bank. The benefits include speed payment (thereby saving finance costs) and safe funds (in case of stop payment by the issuing bank right after the proceeds are reimbursed). And further the beneficiary banks (being nominated or claim banks) are also recommended to take advantage of the 3rd party reimbursement in view of the cases illustrated.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.119-139
• /
• 2012

In the case of Banque Paribas V. Banco Santander in England for the reimbursement request of deferred payment credit by the nominated bank, the L/C-issuing bank refused to pay the proceeds at maturity because of a fraudulent transaction. The reason of refusal was that the nominated bank, Banco Santander, had no right of payment in deferred credit before its maturity if it made payment of proceeds without notice to the issuing bank, that is, payment not based upon a credit transaction but on its own account. However, in the case of ADIB V. Fortis Bank in America, the New York court made the decision that the deferred payment bank could not refuse to reimburse to the nominated bank, Fortis Bank, because of fraud. Its decision was based on the UCP600. We have analyzed and investigated the above two cases-one was an English court's decision and the other an American's. The English court's decision was made under UCP500, but the American court's was made under UCP600, which was revised in 2007. As a result, we can expect that from now on in deferred payment credit transactions, the power of the nominated bank will be greater than before, but the issuing bank will bear the risk of the beneficiary's fraud, so the issuing bank will be hesitant to issue deferred payment credit. Notwithstanding, we thought that the New York court decision would come into effect in the activation of deferred payment credit in practical trade transactions.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.107-130
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study is to provide the guideline for the loss of documents relating to the delivery of documents under Letter of Credits transactions. If the documents are lost while in transit from the nominated bank to the issuing bank neither the nominated bank nor the issuing bank is liable as Article. 35 of the UCP600. Normally such matters are settled amicably between banks and problems are only likely to give rise to litigation where this cannot be done and the applicants does not want the goods or take delivery or sell them on because of the loss of documents. UCP 2007 Revision stated that a presentation is complying and forwards the documents to the issuing bank, whether or not the nominated bank has honoured or negotiated, an issuing bank must honour or negotiate, or reimburse that nominated bank. Accordingly, the applicant liable to the issuing bank for any damage sustained as a result of the loss of document. In such circumstance it might be possible to obtain a second(duplicate) set of documents that were sufficient to satisfy the applicant that the document were compliant and enable the applicant to obtain deliver of documents or comply with the terms of a sub-sale. If the applicant does not want the documents presented, no the less, the bank might find it difficult to prove that complaint documents had been presented and, subject to the terms of arrangement with the buyer, could be liable for damage sustained by the applicant as a result the loss of the documents.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.519-551
• /
• 1999

When an issuing bank issues a documentary credit, it must decide if the reimbursement will be a direct or simple or a bank-to-bank reimbursement. This decision is based on the bank that is nominated to pay, incur a deferred payment undertaking, accept drafts or negotiate. If an issuing bank decided bank-to-bank reimbursement, it must include the information in the credit instructing the nominated bank on how to obtain reimbursement. This instruction includes the name of the reimbursing bank, an indication that the reimbursement is subject to the Uniform Rules for Bank-to-Bank Reimbursements Under Documentary Credits ('URR'), ICC Publication 525 and any additional information that affects the nominated bank's ability to receive reimbursement. Until recently, reimbursements were the subject of outline regulation by Article 19 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits ('UCP') and national law. Now, however, the International Chamber of Commerce has drafted URR, designed to emulate the harmonization of rules governing documentary credits achieved by the UCP. The URR are complementary to the UCP, which they are not intended to override or change. They became effective on July 1, 1996. The purpose of this study is to promote understanding on the Uniform Rules for Bank-to-Bank Reimbursements under Documentary Credits. In this paper, I studied the following subjects:(1) Bank-to-Bank Reimbursements tranaction under Documentary Credits, (2) Meaning of the URR's promulgation, (3) Analysis on the URR's Article. (1) General provisions and definitions, (2) Liabilities and responsibilities, (3) Form and notification of authorisations, amendments and claims, (4) Miscellaneous provisions.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.77-101
• /
• 2017

This article provides the definitions of the negotiation of credit, the negotiating bank and the negotiation credit. It further describes a number of legal status of negotiating banks by looking into the legal relations firstly between the beneficiary and the negotiating bank and secondly between the issuing bank and the negotiating bank. This study is in large part based on relevant provisions of UCP 600 and decisions of the Supreme court of South Korea. Under UCP 600 the definition of negotiation requires the purchase by the nominated negotiating bank of the required documents by advancing funds on or before the banking day on which reimbursement is due to the negotiating bank. A negotiation credit authorizes the negotiating bank who is a nominated bank to purchase from the beneficiary the documents required by the letter of credit and to present those documents to the issuing bank for reimbursement. If the credit is to be honoured at sight, reimbursement is due when the issuing bank determines that there has been a conforming presentation. Reimbursement under a letter of credit available by acceptance or by deferred payment is due at maturity of the credit. In particular, while the timing of advance by the nominated negotiating bank is up to the parties, a promise of the negotiating bank to advance the purchase price to a fraudulent beneficiary does not confer immunity from letter-of-credit fraud prior to its performance. This requires the negotiating bank who is notified of material fraud prior to making an advance to beneficiary to avoid a loss by using the fraud.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The UCP is recognized as the governing law for L/C transactions, but it covers only the general details of the transaction and does not cover all complex practices. In view of this limitation, this paper examines a negotiation transaction which is most actively utilized in L/C transactions via a thorough review of the UCP provisions, analyzes the problems of the negotiation clause in the UCP, and suggests appropriate countermeasures to deal with unnecessary litigation costs. By doing so, the parties involved in the negotiation transaction would be able to avoid financial costs such as having to pay for lawsuits. Design/methodology - The present study first differentiates the general types of L/Cs (e.g., sight payment L/C, deferred payment L/C, acceptance L/C, and negotiation L/C), explains and the Article 2 and Article 12(b) of the UCP 600 where the term 'negotiation' is used, digs into the drawbacks of 'negotiation' occurring under the UCP 600, and discusses solutions to the problems found by analyzing the drawbacks descriptively. Findings - After a review of the UCP provisions on negotiation in detail, several possible problems which may occur in practice were discovered. First, as the UCP stipulates, the negotiating bank will want to delay payment to the maximum extent possible and make payment on the banking day on which the issuing bank reimburses the amount. This may lead the beneficiary towards bankruptcy or put it in financial crisis. Second, when a fraudulent transaction occurs, the negotiating bank can neither request the issuing bank to reimburse nor can it exercise its recourse right against the beneficiary because it has obtained all the rights of the beneficiary by purchasing the documents. Third, there is a practice in which the beneficiary sells the documents to its transaction bank which is not the nominated bank if the nominated bank specified in the credit is located in a third country or the exporter has no relationship with the nominated bank in the credit. In this case, whether to accept this and reimburse the non-nominated negotiating bank entirely depends on the issuing bank's decision even though such practice frequently occurs in Korea. Originality/value - There has been little research effort pertaining to negotiation transactions in detail even though negotiation L/C transactions account for around 70% in world trade notwithstanding deferred payment L/Cs and acceptance L/Cs that are also negotiated in practice. Thus, if the negotiations clause under the UCP 600 provisions were reviewed and the drawbacks of the negotiation transactions most actively used in L/C transactions were identified and examined, specific countermeasures could ultimately help smoothen the operation of L/C transactions and prevent financial losses.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.287-309
• /
• 2009

There were many changes regarding Negotiation of document under UCP 600. First of all, the definition of Negotiation was changed. The UCP 500 stated "Negotiation means the giving of value for drafts and documents by the bank authorized to negotiation", but the UCP 600 defines "negotiation" as following "negotiation means the purchase by the nominated bank of drafts and/or documents under a complying presentation". Under the UCP 600 the meaning of negotiation was more clear than UCP 500. Second UCP 600 permits all deferred payment credits be discountable or negotiable. This amended rule equated the deferred payment credit with banker's acceptance credit which was contrary with the nature and the practice of former deferred payment credit transaction. Third, UCP 600 has also provided for reimbursement rights for nominated banks and a conceptual basis for protecting nominated banks against beneficiary fraud. In this paper, the problems regarding negotiation of document under UCP600 was studied and the solutions for the problems occurring in appling UCP 600 in practical field was provided.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.433-456
• /
• 2012

The confirming bank undertakes to make payment to the beneficiary, provided that a complying presentation is made and complies with its confirmation. In case L/C fraud is evident, though, the confirming bank as well as the issuing bank does not have the obligation to make payment. That is, the confirming bank does not take the risks involving documentary fraud. The confirming bank cannot exercise the right to recourse toward the beneficiary or the nominated bank when the issuing bank finds the discrepancies which the confirming bank has not noticed. This is because under UCP600, the issuing bank or the confirming bank cannot refuse to make payment with the cause of documentary discrepancy after 5 banking days following the presentation of documents. Even if the issuing bank accepts the discrepant documents following the confirming bank's request to do so, the confirming bank does not have the responsibility for the confirmation. When under Usance Negotiation Credit, the confirming bank acts as the nominated bank, the confirming bank should make payment in no time if the beneficiary presents complying documents. Therefore, unless the confirming bank intends to make immediate payment, they should consider using Deferred Payment or Acceptance L/C in Usance Credit. It is also safer for the beneficiary to have the reimbursing bank's undertaking to the reimbursement than just have confirmation of the credit because in the latter case they may not have full payment due to disputes regarding discrepancies of the documents even if they have confirmation of the credit.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.161-189
• /
• 2006

This paper is aiming at analyzing case law of India in relation with reasonable time to make decision whether to accept or to refuse the documents received from the presenter in credit transactions. As specified in UCP, the failure to refuse to accept the documents within a reasonable time precludes the Issuing Bank, Confirming Bank (if any) and Nominated Bank from asserting that they are discrepant. Compliance of the stipulated documents on their face with the terms and conditions of the credit shall be determined by international standard banking practice as reflected in this Articles of UCP 500. The Issuing bank is only to be held responsible for honoring the documents presented by beneficiary through the nominated banks if they are strictly in compliance with terms and conditions of the Credit. As any well experienced banker knows, however, a word-by-word, letter-by-letter correspondence between the documents and the credit terms means a practical impossibility. Thus the notion of reasonable care in conjunction with the doctrine of strict compliance mixed with International Standard Banking Practices has not played a right functional standard for checking the documents as stipulated in the credit and UCP 500. And so the rejection rate is highly estimated at approximately 50% in EU and 40 to 70% according to their geographical locations in the USA. As a result, it can possibly be inferred from this fact that the credit industry would be facing the functional failure as the international trade credit facility, if not supported with motive power as a relevant scheme in UCP 500. It is quite important to note that UCP 500 Article 13(b) which specify the time limit for the banks to notify the presenter their decision not to accept the documents within a reasonable time not to exceed seven banking days following the day of receipt of documents would be the motive engine to improve the negotiability of documents in international trade financial facility.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.563-579
• /
• 2000

Until July 1, 1996, no international rules, other than the simple practices contained in the UCP 500 have existed for the processing of bank-to-bank reimbursements. At last, ICC Uniform Rules for Bank-to-Bank Reimbursements under Documentary Credits(Pub. No. 525) have been published on July 1, 1996. Our country have adopted the URR 525 on August 1996. But in view of the present number of countries adopted the URR 525, I think our country is very impetuous. In order to comprehend the URR 525 correctly, this study is carrying out to clarify the legal principles on reimbursements among issuing banks, nominated banks, unauthorized banks. Secondly, this study is carrying out indicate the background of establishing, the main contents, the approval and the criticism of URR 525. Finally, this study is carrying out to point out the matters that demand special attention about the operation of URR 525