Grain Traders, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “receiving bank” and “bank receiving payment” are synonymous in this context
• holding that “receiving bank” and “bank receiving payment” are synonymous in this context
• holding that, generally, the U.C.C. requires an \orderly unraveling of a funds transfer\ when a cancellation occurs, meaning that each entity involved in the transfer can recover only from the entity to which it directly passed the EFT
• concluding “that [the remedial provisions] allows each sender of a payment order to seek refund only from the receiving bank it paid”
• observing that the effect of section 4-A-402(5) is that \the party that designated the failed bank bears the burden of recovery by being subrogated to the right of the sender that paid the failed bank\
• “Any common law claim that would impose liability on Citibank for failing to cancel BCN's payment order is precluded as inconsistent with Article 4–A.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).