Romanelli Vs Citibank Summary

I am pleased that Associate Professor Lee Aitken (TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland) penned another article for the bulletin. This time, he considers the New South Wales Court of Appeal decision on NAB v Dionys as trustee for the Angel Family Trust. I cannot write a better “teaser” than Lee himself, so I hope he would permit me to use his words here – a bank will usually try to ensure that a customer checks his or her account balances and alerts the bank to anything untoward. To what extent is the bank able to rely upon a standard clause which

Furthermore, the law case of Candler v. Crane Christmas & Co (1951), the plaintiff relied on the defendant account report to make an investment into the company project. The defendant owe a duty of care to all those whom rely on their account reports. Nevertheless, the company has gone bankruptcy and cause the plaintiff loss in his investment because of the defendant making a negligent misstatement which is carelessly prepared the account

5. In the Citibank example, how did Citi use existing laws to alter its business mode?

This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related to the case. First, it will address the legality of the case by reviewing the definition and analysis of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Article 2. Next, this review will analyze the business effects of the case as they relate to the monetary bottom line and Stylarama’s attempt to protect his profits. Finally, it will highlight

It seems that the company does not think it feasible to try to recovery their loses from employee, Lisa Leslie, and therefore goes after the bank for allowing her to steal from them. Is the bank at fault? Does the bank have an obligation to their customers to protect them from fraudulent activity? In short, yes. Customers trust banks to do just that.

As a result of the foregoing, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiffs and defendants DPR concerning their respective rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend that their security interests in the collateral described in the security agreements continued notwithstanding the sale or disposition to defendants DPR of the collateral, and continue to this day or, alternatively, defendants DPR should be estopped from asserting any right, title, or interest in the collateral senior or adverse to the security interests of plaintiffs in that recognition of any priority interest by defendants DPR would sanction fraud and promote injustice because recognition would effectively render plaintiffs’ security interest illusory, thus allowing

The court of appeal noted that while Cook denied the charges against her, she failed to present any evidence that the criminal charges had been terminated in her favour. The court of appeal also noted that the bank merely reported the monetary loss to the police department, which then conducted an independent investigation. The court found that Cook was unable to prove that her employer maliciously reported the alleged theft and therefore upheld the trial court's decision granting the employer's motion for summary judgment.”(Anonymous, 2010).

See, e.g., U.S. v. Gordon, 08-21103-Jordan (S.D. Fla. 2008) (bank’s managing director altered individual’s credit data to inflate mortgage pools’ apparent quality and value upon sale to investors); U.S. v. Levine, 1:09-CR-00554 (N.D. Ga. 2009) (executive vice president in charge of bank’s community redevelopment lending department accused of knowingly over-valuing bank assets (loans to flippers) in reports to the OCC and the FDIC; the defendant is expected to plead guilty in January, 2010).. 17 See, e.g., U.S. v. Sailor, 1:08-CR-105, superseding information (N.D. Ga. 2008). 18 See, e.g., U.S. v. Sprouts, 2:08-CR-0051 (W. D. Pa. 2008). 19 See, e.g., U.S. v.

Mr and Mrs Amadio initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia before Justice Wells. The Amadio’s in their attack for an order to release them from their obligations under the guarantee, sued the bank, claiming their inability to enforce the guarantee on a number of grounds. ‘It was an unconscionable bargain, … procured by undue influence, and induced by misrepresentation or concealment of facts …’ The bank counterclaimed; Justice Wells concluded his judgement dismissing the claims, thus ordering the Amadio’s pay the counterclaim of AUD239 830.85 under the guarantee.

Mellon Bank N.A. This case was created over the validity of an old negotiable instrument, and whether or not Kim Griffith was a holder in due course or not. Mr. Griffith had stumbled upon a certificate of deposit issued by Mellon Bank for the amount of $530,000. In addition to discovering the certificate, it was entitled “Negotiable Certificate of Deposit, No.1-48346.” Griffith found the negotiable instrument inside an old book he had purchased while he and his wife cleaned out there storage unit in Largo, Florida. Griffith was unable to verify the price he paid for the book, or the name of the seller. Griffith proceeded to take the instrument to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to claim the money as a holder in due course. When Griffith presented the instrument to the Mellon Bank, they denied the repayment of the instrument. As a result, charges were brought against Mellon Bank for the repayment of the certificate of deposit in the amount of $2.5 million after

When financial fraud has occurred to the American people by the alleged “Too Big to Fail” banks on Wall Street, is it more productive to the economy and society to criminally charge the executives of these financial institutions or negotiate a civil penalty that compensates victims and reforms the deceptive trade practices of our nation’s largest banks? Further, if settlement is the best solution, why settle for the less money than the financial harm caused by the big banks? The following will discuss the negotiations behind the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (hereinafter referred to as “SEC”) settlement with Goldman Sachs & Co. (hereinafter referred to as “GS&C”) and Fabrice Tourre,

4. Discuss the tort action of “Interference with Contractual Relations and Participating in a Breach of Fiduciary duty” and, if the bank you’ve chosen were to behave as

Business Ethics: Anthony and Dolores Angelini entered into a contract with Lustro Aluminum Products, Inc. (Lustro). Under the contract, Lustro agreed to replace exterior veneer on the Angelini home with Gold Bond Plasticrylic avocado siding. The cash price for the job was $3,600, and the installment plan price was $5,363.40. The Angelinis chose to pay on the installment plan and signed a promissory note as security. The note’s language provided that it would not mature until 60 days after a certificate of completion was signed. Ten days after the note was executed, Lustro assigned it for consideration to General Investment Corporation (General), an experienced home improvement lender. General was aware that Lustro (1) was nearly insolvent at the time of the assignment and (2) had engaged in questionable business practices in the past. Lustro never completed the installation of siding at the Angelini home. General, as a holder in due course, demanded payment of the note from the Angelinis. Who wins? General Investment Corporation v. Angelini, 278 A.2d 193, Web 1971 N.J. Lexis 263 (Supreme Court of New Jersey) (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 369).

In the Heller and Partners (plaintiff) vs The Commonwealth Bank (defendant) case the plaintiff approached the defendant about a client. The defendant gave a favorable reference but stated the reference was given without responsibility. Heller and Partners acted on the client which lead to a loss of $17 000. When the plaintiff tried to sue the defendant for giving negligent advice the case resulted in Judge Justice Wesling ruling in Commonwealth Banks favour saying that “Commonwealth Bank did not owe a duty of care” to the plaintiff as “the bank had

The economic responsibilities Bank of America has regarding this case is to provide exceptional service for investors and give returns on their investments while maintaining strategic decisions pertaining to its values. Legal responsibilities include adhering to all laws and regulations which include environmental and consumer laws. Daniel Rivas failed to honor Bank of America's code of ethics by initiating illegal acts of tipping and trading information about corporate mergers, investments, and small offers.