DCW Monthly: August 2025
From courtrooms in Illinois to conference halls in Singapore, this issue unpacks the rulings, risks, and rule debates in today’
From courtrooms in Illinois to conference halls in Singapore, this issue unpacks the rulings, risks, and rule debates in today’
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.
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?
Fraud prevention is an ongoing goal. In the world of commercial LCs, standby LCs, and demand guarantees subject to either UCP 600, ISP98, or URDG758, banks/guarantors are not responsible for vetting or otherwise verifying any signatures on any of the drawing documents received. Additionally, the basic premise of the various rules is that banks are not responsible to vet any content or otherwise go beyond the four corners of any required document to determine whether any statement is true or false.
However, with the exception of UCP, these same rules indicate that when a non-paper or data demand is allowed, the bank receiving the data is expected to authenticate the sender of the data (data could be transmitted by a beneficiary, its forwarder, transportation carrier, chamber of commerce, etc.) in some manner, understanding that different systems/platforms employ different methods to ensure an authentication process. eUCP would be the applicable rules for data demands allowed by a commercial LC.
From courtrooms in Illinois to conference halls in Singapore, this issue unpacks the rulings, risks, and rule debates in today’
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.
CPBLs, governed by UCP600 Article 22 and addressed in several ISBP821 paragraphs, are required under credits for certain types of shipments. It is important to appreciate the operational aspects, risks, and risk mitigation techniques of CPBLs.
Gain full access to analysis, cases, eBooks and more with a DCW Free Trial