726 Fed.Appx. 27 (2nd Cir. 2018), 17-2319-cv, Sejin Precision Industry Co., Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A.

Docket Nº:17-2319-cv
Citation:726 Fed.Appx. 27
Party Name:SEJIN PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.; Mtekvision Co., Ltd.; Sungjin Textile Industry Co. Ltd.; Samhwan Steel Co., Ltd.; Techno Electronics Co., Ltd.; and Il Shin Spinning Co. Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITIBANK, N.A.; Citigroup, Inc.; Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation; Citicorp Holdings Inc.; and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., ...
Attorney:For Appellants: Alan L. Poliner, Kim & Bae, P.C., Fort Lee, New Jersey. For Appellees: Daniel M. Perry, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (Jed M. Schwartz, Taryn J. Gallup, Daniel B. Kaplan, on the brief), New York, New York.
Judge Panel:PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., PETER W. HALL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 05, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 27

726 Fed.Appx. 27 (2nd Cir. 2018)

SEJIN PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.; Mtekvision Co., Ltd.; Sungjin Textile Industry Co. Ltd.; Samhwan Steel Co., Ltd.; Techno Electronics Co., Ltd.; and Il Shin Spinning Co. Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CITIBANK, N.A.; Citigroup, Inc.; Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation; Citicorp Holdings Inc.; and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2319-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

March 5, 2018

Editorial Note:

This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter and Not to be Cited as Precedent. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

Page 28

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J. ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on June 30, 2017, is AFFIRMED.

For Appellants: Alan L. Poliner, Kim & Bae, P.C., Fort Lee, New Jersey.

For Appellees: Daniel M. Perry, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (Jed M. Schwartz, Taryn J. Gallup, Daniel B. Kaplan, on the brief), New York, New York.

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., PETER W. HALL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs Sejin Precision Industry Co. Ltd., Mtekvision Co., Ltd., Sungjin Textile Industry Co., Ltd., Samhwan Steel Co., Ltd., Techno Electronics Co., Ltd., and Il Shin Spinning Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") are South Korean manufacturers that export their products. They receive payment for their goods in various

Page 29

currencies, including U.S. dollars ("USD"), and exchange those currencies for South Korean won ("KRW"). As a result, Plaintiffs bear the risk arising from fluctuations in the USD-KRW exchange rate.

To minimize their exposure to fluctuations in that exchange rate, Plaintiffs entered into contracts with non-party Citibank Korea, Inc. ("CKI"). These financial instruments were called "KIKOs," which stands for "knock-in, knock-out." Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Citigroup, Inc. and its subsidiaries Defendants Citibank, N.A., Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation, Citicorp Holdings Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") designed the KIKOs and marketed them to unsophisticated businesses in Asia through subsidiaries such as CKI.

Between November 2004 and March 2008, Plaintiffs entered into several KIKO contracts with CKI. Throughout 2008, the dollar...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP