Export-Import Bank of the United States v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
609 F.3d 111 (2010)
Facts
In March 2001, several former subsidiaries (the borrowing subsidiaries) of Asia Pulp & Paper Company, Ltd. (APP) (defendants) defaulted on over $100 million of loans made or guaranteed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States (ExIm) (plaintiff). In February 2009, seeking to collect on a judgment entered in ExIm’s favor by the district court, ExIm obtained from the district court writs of garnishment pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA) to retain property in which two of the borrowing subsidiaries had a nonexempt interest. ExIm served the writs on two banks located in New York—Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (Deutsche Bank) and Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BONY)—both of which answered the writs by indicating that they held, as intermediary banks, electronic fund transfers (EFTs) of which the borrowing subsidiaries were the originators or beneficiaries. The borrowing subsidiaries objected, contending that New York law prohibited an intermediary bank from restraining an EFT and that, as originators or beneficiaries of the EFTs temporarily held by Deutsche Bank and BONY, the borrowing subsidiaries did not have a property interest in the EFTs. The district court agreed and quashed the writs to the extent they were being used to garnish EFTs held at intermediary banks. ExIm appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Straub, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,300 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
