In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-06539
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Citibank Wire Transfers: Judge Furman previewed issues for an upcoming hearing on Citibank’s requested stay and injunction, without deciding whether relief was warranted.
Citibank, the defendants, and the lenders involved in the disputed funds, as well as the counsel participating in the upcoming argument.
What happened
In In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers, the court prepared for an April 9, 2021 remote hearing about Citibank’s request for relief involving the disputed wire-transfer funds.
The court said Citibank might have the stronger argument on irreparable harm because it sought the return of specific, identifiable funds. But the court did not express a view on the other requirements or decide whether an injunction should issue.
Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the parties to discuss a possible repayment arrangement and to focus at the hearing on harm to the parties, the public interest, the required showing on the merits, and any bond. The order made no final ruling on the requested relief.
The detailed version
- In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers · No. 1:20-cv-06539
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 8, 2021
Background
The order concerns an upcoming oral argument about Citibank’s requested stay and injunction involving wire-transfer funds transferred on August 11, 2020. The court stated that the April 9, 2021 argument would be conducted remotely and gave instructions about counsel’s participation and public access.
Court’s Discussion
The court said it was inclined to believe that Citibank might have the better argument regarding irreparable harm, which is harm that cannot adequately be repaired later with money or another ordinary remedy. The court explained that although the loss of money generally does not qualify as irreparable harm, an exception may apply when the money consists of identifiable proceeds that are supposed to be held for the party seeking relief. The court viewed that exception as arguably applicable because Citibank’s claims were equitable and sought the return of specific, identifiable funds.
The court also noted that money is generally interchangeable and that Citibank had not shown or argued that the defendants or lenders faced insolvency. It suggested that the parties consider an arrangement under which the defendants or lenders could use the disputed funds during an appeal but would repay an equivalent amount, with an appropriate rate of return, if the decision were reversed. The parties were directed to confer promptly and be prepared to discuss that proposal.
Issues for Oral Argument
The court directed counsel to focus primarily on the three stay factors unrelated to the merits: irreparable harm, harm to other parties, and the public interest. Counsel also had to address whether Citibank needed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, whether it could instead show serious questions about the merits together with a decidedly favorable balance of hardships, and whether Citibank should post a bond if an injunction were granted.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not grant or deny the requested stay or injunction. The order expressed a preliminary view about irreparable harm, set issues for oral argument, and provided logistical instructions for the hearing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.