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.
The lack of a common nomenclature for counter undertakings invites problems for practice and has plagued the industry for decades.
It doesn't have to be this way.
