Given the success of practice rules and banks’ ability to more readily find resources for the proper interpretation of the rule sets, does it not make sense to avoid inclusion of a governing law or jurisdiction clause?
The recent case of Illinois DNR v. Regions Bank illustrates the importance of clear wording of automatic extension clauses and issuing banks including a final expiration date in their standbys.
Given the success of practice rules and banks’ ability to more readily find resources for the proper interpretation of the rule sets, does it not make sense to avoid inclusion of a governing law or jurisdiction clause?
Fraud prevention is a crucial pursuit, but is an interim/hybrid solution requiring a beneficiary’s bank to vouch for the beneficiary the answer? Or does it introduce added risks?
