Studco Building Systems US, LLC v. 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
133 F.4th 264 (2025)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Metal fabricator Studco Building Systems US, LLC (Studco) (plaintiff) frequently purchased steel from Olympic Steel (Olympic). An unknown overseas actor hacked into Olympic’s email system and sent Studco an email claiming that Olympic had changed banks. Despite numerous errors and red flags in the email, Studco requested the new bank information without questioning the change. The hacker gave Studco information for an account at 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union (First Advantage) (defendant). The account was in the name of Lesa Taylor, an individual who had been duped into unknowingly participating in the fraud. Studco sent four automated-clearing-house (ACH) payments totaling $558,868.71 before it discovered the fraud. Each payment order from Studco’s bank to First Advantage listed Olympic Steel as the beneficiary but provided Taylor’s account number. First Advantage’s automated system detected the name mismatch. However, this system flagged hundreds to thousands of similar discrepancies daily, and no employee reviewed them. By the time Studco realized it had been tricked, the unknown criminals had withdrawn the money from Taylor’s account. The criminals were never caught, and the money was never recovered. Studco sued First Advantage in federal district court, alleging, among other claims, that the credit union had violated Virginia’s version of UCC § 4A-207 by negligently failing to notify ACH senders about name mismatches on payment orders. First Advantage argued that unless it had actual knowledge of a name mismatch, the statutory language allowed it to rely solely on the account number. Following a bench trial, the district court found that First Advantage had negligently failed to monitor name mismatches on ACH transfers and entered judgment for Studco. First Advantage appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Niemeyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 914,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 999 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.


