For those interested in the case, a copy of the complaint is attached here.
The counts are unjust enrichment, conversion, money had and received, and mistake.
Matthew P Harrington
Professeur titulaire
Directeur, Programme de common law
Faculté de droit
Université de Montréal
514.3436105
matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca
From: Lionel Smith, Prof.
Sent: August 30, 2020 8:01 PM
To: ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
Subject: Re: [RDG] Aiken v Short in the USA
Very interesting.
From my reading of the Bloomberg story, my guess is that they will have trouble getting away with the ‘bona fide’ part of that in the circs.
L.
From: RDG <ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA> on behalf of Frederick Wilmot-Smith <frederick.wilmot-smith@ALL-SOULS.OX.AC.UK>
Reply-To: Frederick Wilmot-Smith <frederick.wilmot-smith@ALL-SOULS.OX.AC.UK>
Date: Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 14:36
To: RDG <ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: [RDG] Aiken v Short in the USA
Well, not quite. But an American friend of mine sent me this, which looks a fun case:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-17/citibank-sues-brigade-capital-management-over-mistaken-transfer
It seems that Citibank, purportedly on behalf of Revlon, paid $176.2m to Brigade, one of Revlon’s creditors—when it meant to pay $1.5m. Since Brigade was owed $174.7m in principal and $1.5m in interest, their argument seems to be that the
payment discharged the debt owed to them: a defence of bona fide payee, as the Americans would say.
Fred