Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v. Bankers Trust Co.

[1988] 1 Lloyd’s L. Rep. 259

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v. Bankers Trust Co.

High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s L. Rep. 259

Facts

Bankers Trust Company (BT) (defendant) was a New York-based bank that maintained a London branch. The Libyan Arab Foreign Bank (Libyan Bank) (plaintiff) was affiliated with the Libyan government. As of January 8, 1986, the Libyan Bank had accounts with BT in both New York (NY) and London. The NY account was a demand account. BT made entries on the London account in London. BT NY was meant to transfer approximately $165.2 million to BT London shortly after 2:00 p.m. on January 7. BT NY also was supposed to make certain payments from the Libyan Bank’s account on January 8 and to transfer approximately $161 million to BT London shortly after 2:00 p.m. on January 8. BT NY did none of these things. BT NY’s decisions occurred against the backdrop of deteriorating relations between the United States (US) and Libya. On the afternoon of January 7, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY (NY Fed) asked BT’s chairman to inform the NY Fed of any unusual transfers from Libya’s BT accounts. On the evening of January 7, the US prohibited any US person from extending credit to the Libyan government or any of its instrumentalities or controlled entities. On January 8 at 4:10 p.m., the US blocked all Libyan-government property or interest in property (and that of any Libyan-government-related entities) that were or would come into the US BT’s chairman learned of this order while on the phone with the US secretary of the Treasury, with whom the NY Fed chairman repeatedly urged BT’s chairman to speak before releasing any Libyan money. During this call, the Treasury secretary advised BT’s chairman that BT could not make transfers from the Libyan Bank’s accounts. In April 1986, the Libyan Bank instructed BT NY to transfer $291 million in cash to BT London. BT did not comply with this instruction, citing US sanctions against Libya making it unlawful for BT to do so. Nor did BT comply with the Libyan Bank’s similar July and December 1986 demands. The Libyan Bank sued BT for breach of contract.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Staughton, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership