In the initial weeks since the war against Iran began 28 February, trade finance operations in banks in Dubai have
Trade finance rarely sits at the center of money laundering discussions, but the US Treasury Department’s 2026 National Money
Even if a seller is responsible for an LC issuing bank’s failure or refusal to pay because it did
Paul Roder examines why the Court decision in Starr Indemnity is troubling both in its interpretation of the auto-extension clause and the practical effect it may have on the industry.
Many letters of credit contain an automatic extension (or “evergreen”) clause. Typically, such a clause provides that the expiration date of an LC automatically extends (without amendment) for set, successive periods of time (usually annually) unless the issuer provides notice to the beneficiary that the issuer will not further extend.
A recent case decided in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York highlights the risk to issuers, applicants, and beneficiaries alike in employing imprecise or potentially ambiguous language in an auto-extension clause.
In the initial weeks since the war against Iran began 28 February, trade finance operations in banks in Dubai have
Trade finance rarely sits at the center of money laundering discussions, but the US Treasury Department’s 2026 National Money
Even if a seller is responsible for an LC issuing bank’s failure or refusal to pay because it did
In Power Projects Sanayi Insaat Ticaret Ltd v. Star Assurance Co Ltd,[[1]] the English Commercial Court held that under
Gain full access to analysis, cases, eBooks and more with a DCW Free Trial
