In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers

• Decision Date: 16 February 2021
• Docket Number: 20-CV-6539 (JMF)
• Citation: 520 F.Supp.3d 390
• Parties: IN RE CITIBANK AUGUST 11, 2020 WIRE TRANSFERS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

520 F.Supp.3d 390

IN RE CITIBANK AUGUST 11, 2020 WIRE TRANSFERS

20-CV-6539 (JMF)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed February 16, 2021

Alina Artunian, Anjanique Maria Watt, Luc W. M. Mitchell, Matthew D. Ingber, Allison Joan Zolot, Christopher James Houpt, Hannah Cherokee Banks, Michael Evan Rayfield, Richard A. Spehr, Mayer Brown LLP, Andrew Hunter Reynard, Nathaniel Ethan Marmon, John Frederick Baughman, The Law Offices of John F. Baughman, PLLC, New York, NY, Neal Kumar Katyal, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Nicole A. Saharsky, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for Citibank, N.A.

Michael Barry Carlinsky, Robert Scott Loigman, Adam Michael Abensohn, Alexandre J. Tschumi, Anil Makhijani, Mario O. Gazzola, Benjamin Isidore Finestone, Brendan Thomas Carroll, Sophia Qasir, Zachary Ryan Russell, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Judd Robert Spray, Law Office of Judd R. Spray, New York, NY, Bennett Murphy, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Brigade Capital Management, LP, HPS Investment Partners, LLC, Symphony Asset Management LLC, Bardin Hill Loan Management LLC, Greywolf Loan Management LP, ZAIS Group LLC, Allstate Investment Management Company, Medalist Partners Corporate Finance LLC, Tall Tree Investment Management LLC, New Generation Advisors LLC.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

INTRODUCTION...396

FACTUAL FINDINGS...397

A. The 2016 Term Loan...397

B. The May and June 2020 Transactions...399

C. The Events of August 11, 2020...400

D. Citibank's Response to the August 11th Wire Transfers...404

E. Defendants’ Responses to the August 11th Wire Transfers...405

F. The UMB Bank Lawsuit...409

G. Procedural History...409

SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION...410

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW...413

A. The Elements of the Discharge-for-Value Defense...415

1. Banque Worms ...415

2. Whether the Defense Applies Only When a Debt Is "Due"...419

3. Whether Notice Is Evaluated at the Time of Payment or When Payment Is Credited...421 4. Actual Notice vs. Constructive Notice...425

B. Application of the Discharge-for-Value Rule to the August 11th Wire Transfers...431

1. The Evidence Demonstrates that Defendants Did Not Have Notice of the Mistake...431

a. Defendants Credibly and Persuasively Testified that They Reasonably Believed the Payments Were Intentional Prepayments of the 2016 Term Loan...431

b. The Lack of Notice Is Corroborated by Citibank's Own Witnesses...435

c. The Lack of Notice Is Corroborated by the Documentary Record...435

2. Defendants Satisfied Any Duty of Inquiry...439

3. Citibank's Counterarguments Fail to Persuade...440

a. The Calculation Statements...440

b. The Lack of Prepayment Notice...443

c. The Size of the Overpayment...444

d. Revlon's Financial State and the UMB Bank Lawsuit...445

e. Equitable and Policy Considerations...448

CONCLUSION...451

INTRODUCTION

On August 11, 2020, Citibank N.A. ("Citibank"), acting in its capacity as Administrative Agent for a syndicated term loan taken out by Revlon, Inc. ("Revlon"), intended to wire approximately $7.8 million in interest payments to Revlon's lenders. Instead, it made one of the biggest blunders in banking history: It mistakenly wired, in addition to Revlon's $7.8 million, almost $900 million of its own money as well. The resulting payments equaled — to the penny — the amounts of principal and interest that Revlon owed on the loan to its lenders. The question in this case is whether Citibank is entitled to get the money back or whether the lenders are allowed to keep it.

The law generally treats a failure to return money that is wired by mistake as unjust enrichment or conversion and requires that the recipient return such money to its sender. Under New York law (which applies here), however, there is an exception to this rule: The recipient is allowed to keep the funds if they discharge a valid debt, the recipient made no misrepresentations to induce the payment, and the recipient did not have notice of the mistake. As the New York Court of Appeals explained the exception: "When a beneficiary receives money to which it is entitled and has no knowledge that the money was erroneously wired, the beneficiary should not have to wonder whether it may retain the funds; rather, such a beneficiary should be able to consider the transfer of funds as a final and complete transaction, not subject to revocation." Banque Worms v. BankAmerica Int'l , 77 N.Y.2d 362, 568 N.Y.S.2d 541, 570 N.E.2d 189, 196 (1991).

Defendants in this case — ten investment advisory firms managing entities that, collectively, received more than $500 million of the mistaken August 11th wire transfers from Citibank — contend that this exception to the general rule, known as the "discharge-for-value defense," applies here and that Citibank is therefore not entitled to the return of its money. In December 2020, the Court held a bench trial to decide whether Defendants are correct.

For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that Defendants are indeed correct. As the Court will explain, application of the discharge-for-value defense ultimately turns on whether Defendants (or, more precisely, their clients) were on constructive notice of Citibank's mistake at the moment they received the August 11th wire transfers. Based on the credible testimony of Defendants’ employees and the documentary record, the Court concludes that they were not. Taken together, the evidence shows that the entities believed — in good faith and with ample justification — that the payments they received were prepayments in full of the Revlon loan. The real explanation for the payments — a banking error of perhaps unprecedented nature and magnitude — understandably did not occur to them until, nearly a day later, Citibank itself realized the error and sent notices demanding the money back.

Because the discharge-for-value defense applies, the Court holds that Citibank is not entitled to its money back. Instead, Defendants’ clients are entitled to keep the money. Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

Many, if not most, of the facts relevant to the resolution of this case are not in dispute. In any event, pursuant to Rule 52(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court makes the following findings of fact based on the testimony and exhibits at trial.¹

A. The 2016 Term Loan

In 2016, Revlon took out a seven-year, $1.8 billion syndicated loan (the "2016 Term Loan") pursuant to a credit agreement (the "2016 Loan Agreement"). PX485; see also DX1044 (the 2016 Loan Agreement as amended in 2020, or the "Amended Loan Agreement"); ECF No. 144-1 ("Stipulation"), ¶¶ 1-2.² Citibank serves as the Administrative Agent for the loan. Among its duties, which are set forth in the Amended Loan Agreement, it receives payments from Revlon and passes them on to the 2016 Term Loan lenders ("the Lenders"), including payments of principal and interest. Amended Loan Agreement, § 2.8, at -103-04.³ Defendants are Brigade Capital Management, LP ("Brigade"), HPS Investment Partners, LLC ("HPS"), Symphony Asset Management LLC ("Symphony"), Bardin Hill Loan Management LLC ("Bardin Hill"), Greywolf Loan Management LP ("Greywolf"), ZAIS Group LLC ("ZAIS"), Allstate Investment Management Company ("Allstate"), Medalist Partners Corporate Finance LLC ("Medalist"), Tall Tree Investment Management LLC ("Tall Tree"), and New Generation Advisors LLC ("New Generation"). They are investment or collateral managers that maintain contractual relationships with, and manage the funds for, entities that hold pieces of the 2016 Term Loan and that have refused, to date, to return the funds Citibank wired on August 11, 2020 (the "Non-Returning Lenders").⁴ In total, Defendants’ clients were owed $558,558,375.74 in outstanding principal and interest on the 2016 Term Loan as of August 11, 2020. PX346A; Stipulation ¶¶ 15-16; ECF No. 142 ("Pl.’s Mem."), at 10.⁵

The 2016 Term Loan was set to mature on the earlier of September 7, 2023 (seven years after the closing date) or the "Accelerated Maturity Date," which is "the date that is 91 days prior to the stated maturity" of a specified set of senior notes due in 2021 — defined as "the 2021 Notes" — "if, on such date, any 2021 Notes remain outstanding." Amended Loan Agreement, § 1.1, at -24, -87. Because the stated maturity date of the 2021 Notes is February 15, 2021, the Accelerated Maturity Date for the 2016 Term Loan was November 16, 2020. DX1032, at 17; Amended Loan Agreement, § 1.1, at -24.⁶ Thus, the 2016 Term Loan was set to mature on September 7, 2023, unless any 2021 Notes remained outstanding on November 16, 2020, in which case the loan was to mature on that date — a feature known as a "springing maturity." Tr. 888 (testimony of Warren).

Several provisions of the Amended Loan Agreement are particularly relevant to this case. First, the Agreement provides that it is to be "governed by, and construed and interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the state of New York." Amended Loan Agreement, § 10.11, at -213 (capitalization and emphasis omitted); see also Defs.’ Mem. 9 (same). Second, to the extent relevant here, the Agreement defines the "Interest Payment Date" — that is, the date on which an interest payment is due — as either "the last day of" each "Interest Period" (which in this case meant August 28, 2020) or "the date of any repayment or prepayment" with respect to the 2016 Term Loan. Amended Loan Agreement, § 1.1, at -63.⁷ And finally, Section 2.11(a) of the Agreement, titled "Optional Prepayments," provides in relevant part that Revlon

may at any time and from time to time prepay any Tranche of ... Loans, in whole or in part, ... upon irrevocable written notice delivered to [Citibank] no later than 12:00 Noon, New York City time ... three Business Days prior thereto .... Upon receipt of any such notice [Citibank] shall promptly notify each relevant Lender thereof.

Amended Loan Agreement, § 2.11(a)...