Banco Nacional De Mexico v. Societe Generale
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
820 N.Y.S.2d 588 (2006)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
As part of a construction contract, Alstom Power and Rosarito Power (Alstom-Rosarito) requested that Societe Generale (SG) (defendant) issue a letter of credit in favor of the Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE). SG designated Banco Nacional De Mexico, S.A. (Banco Nacional) (plaintiff) as the confirming bank. Alstom-Rosarito and CFE agreed that the letter would be governed by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP). The letter provided for governance by New York law and designated a New York court as the exclusive forum for disputes. Thereafter, CFE made a compliant presentment to Banco Nacional, and Banco Nacional notified SG of its intent to pay. SG informed Banco Nacional that Alstom-Rosarito was disputing CFE’s entitlement to payment. Alstom-Rosarito subsequently brought suit against CFE in Mexico, obtaining two orders to stay payment on the letter of credit. Banco Nacional argued that the dispute had no bearing on its obligation to pay on a letter of credit. Banco Nacional paid CFE and requested reimbursement from SG. SG refused to pay Banco Nacional, citing the Mexico orders. Banco Nacional filed suit against SG for reimbursement and moved for summary judgment. The motion court denied summary judgment, concluding that the doctrine of comity required the United States court to respect the Mexico court judgments. Banco Nacional appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Catterson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.