CAN YOU FIGHT A BIG BANK? YES, YOU CAN!
Rowland Uzoechi
Managing Partner at Peach & Bonds LP | Business Advisory | Dispute resolution | Notary Public for Nigeria.
“We should be winning cases every day”, remarked Chukwumereije, my colleague. “Why?”, I retorted. “Because I have not seen you so happy in a while”. He was right. Lawyering can be both incredibly stimulating and unimaginably frustrating at the same time. The grind can be so daunting – sometimes impossible - you could forget that you’ve not had a hearty smile in months. Which is why my elation knew no bounds when, last Wednesday, the Federal High Court pronounced its judgment in our client’s favour, holding one of the large commercial banks in breach of the terms of a documentary credit transaction and, consequently, reversed huge debit entries assessed/imposed by the bank ?(against our client) due allegedly to devaluation of the naira and awarded substantial damages against the bank, among other awards. I shall return to this case shortly.
?
All too often in banker customer relationships in Nigeria, the customer finds himself at the short end of the stick. The heartbreaks can arise from poor customer service, failure to follow instructions, unauthorized debits, mindless reversals of fund transfers, delays (last week, I made an electronic transfer which a bank credited after 3 days, 2 visits – to both the originating and destination banks), unexplained interest charges, wrongful dishonour of cheques/mandates, to downright fraudulent activities against customer accounts. The list is endless.
?
For businesses, the effect could be even worse - loss of business, reputational damage, loss of goodwill, financial hardship and many times, outright ruination of the business itself. Businesspeople engaged in international trade and finance, who must necessarily use these banking instruments/facilities, often find themselves naked and exposed to the whims of the bank, who readily passes on the negligence of bank officers to the unsuspecting businessperson. This is the recurring problem in documentary credit otherwise known as letter of credit (“LC”). It is the use of the LC that I will dwell in this short text.
?
When these banking malpractices do in fact occur and the customers complain, they are given short shrift. The dilemma for the customer is usually whether they can fight these institutional principalities. Does our system of justice have the gumption, the moral courage to call into question, the actions of these almighty institutions at the suit of one little, tiny, powerless individual, they wonder. Experience has shown that the customer is usually unsure (and afraid) to engage a bank in a fight. The bank has big fearsome lawyers, they reason. And the financial, social, political and other clout to muzzle or to wipe out the customer and her claims.
?
My answer to the customers’ nagging question is, YES. YES, you can hold the bank accountable. So, when my client, a customer of a commercial bank first walked in, there was this palpable trepidation. It was all too clear. The client has been told – by a director in a big financial institution – not to waste their time but to find ways to ‘settle’ with the bank because it was fruitless to fight. They would be crushed. Settlement here means no more than capitulation - understanding that if the bank officers should throw them some bones here and there, they must accept to avert banks’ wrath. We thought different.
?
In the above case, the bank established two LCs on behalf of our client for importation of manufacturing equipment. Although our client provided adequate funding, the bank negligently failed to bid for foreign exchange (forex) timely. Upon discovery, the bank had offered a distinct loan facility to the client to ‘help’ pay off the huge dollar debt arising from devaluation. However, this dodgy facility was to cover the bank’s mess. Accepting the loan meant that my client would bear the ultimate burden of the crushing devaluation. Plus bank interests and charges. The LCs was established at NGN198/$1 but the exchange rate was about NGN300/$1 at the time of the loan. In essence the bank was still profiting from its own wrongdoing.
?
We advised that our client should repudiate the loan and challenge the bank’s misdeeds. Because what the bank offered was the worst possible outcome for the client. Should they fight and lose, the outcome would be exactly where the bank had dumped them. But should we win, then they are in a good place. So, fight, we recommended. We litigated and won. The court declared the loan and any further obligation arising from the LCs a nullity. And the case decided speedily because of the procedure we adopted.
?
The recent case:
Our client, a manufacturing company, needed to import raw materials from China for its production in Lagos. It therefore approached the bank to open a confirmed letter of credit in favour of the foreign exporter. As is customary, the bank requested for cash cover. The parties executed an offer letter detailing the obligations of the parties under the LC with a tenor of 90 days as well as an Import Finance Facility Agreement. As a condition precedent for establishing the LC, the contract required our client to provide 110% cash cover for the naira value of the transaction.
?
Our client fully funded the account and supplied relevant documents. It also fulfilled other conditions precedent stipulated in the offer letter, including the Central Bank of Nigeria Form M – for bidding for forex. The bank established the LC at NGN420/$1, the official exchange rate at the time (2022).
领英推荐
?
The exporter shipped the raw materials to Nigeria. In November 2022, the bank received the shipping documents as provided in the LC and released the documents to our client. Our client proceeded to clear the raw materials and moved on with its business.
?
Surprisingly, in 2023, the bank claimed that the correspondent bank confirmed receipt of payment for the LC in January 2023. Consequently, the bank demanded that our client should issue instructions to enable the bank to bid for forex under the prevailing exchange rate as well as additional funding to cover the difference caused by current exchange rate. Our client disputed the bank’s claim that the obligation to provide forex crystallized in April 2023. The client asserted that it had discharged its obligations under the LC and that the LC expired in November 2022 and ultimately refused to accede to the bank’s demands. The bank threatened to unleash recovery actions against our client.
?
By August 2023, when the bank allegedly procured forex, the Federal Government had deregulated the foreign exchange market with the consequent free fall of the naira. It was impossible for our client to bear the burden.
?
We sued the bank on our client’s behalf. The bank argued that its obligation to bid for forex arose in 2023 because the LC matured in April 2023 and not 30 November 2022. The critical issues which arose for the court’s determination were - One, what exchange rate governed the transaction? Two, when was the bank obligated to bid for forex from the CBN? Three, did our client owe the bank any further obligations after providing funding and documents? Four, is a document purportedly varying the terms of the expired LC valid.
?
Last week, the Federal High Court, sitting at Ikoyi, Lagos, Nigeria, delivered its judgment in our favour, and held that the bank breached the terms of the LC by failing to obtain forex within the tenor of the LC; that the exchange rate of the contracts was NGN420/$1 - the prevailing rate as stated in the offer letter and the Import Finance Facility and not later as claimed by the bank; that the bank was obligated to bid for forex in November 2022 immediately upon receiving the credit complying documents or soon thereafter; that the seven months lag between the receipt of documents and bid for forex was unreasonable and wrongful; that oral or? other evidence was not required to ascertain the rights of the parties to documentary credit.
?
Customers should be acutely aware of their rights under LC contracts, particularly confirmed LC. Once the customer has funds in its account and supplies relevant documents, the law imposes on the banks, a corresponding duty to act promptly in every transaction involving foreign trade/currency. The bank must bid for forex immediately to avoid the risk of exchange rate fluctuation. Customers should be vigilant to resist attempt by bank officers to pressure them to bear responsibility for the bank’s misdeed or negligence.
?
The banks should constantly train and retrain their officers in this very vital area of international trade finance. The relevant departments should provide high level supervision in this area because time is of the essence. The bank should have a system (software) that will track timelines for processing every application for LC because of the exposure to huge risk of leaving compliance completely to human monitoring or interface alone. Their risk processes should be able to pick lapses.
?
Finally, lawyers who offer advice or representation on international trade finance must endeavor to do the hard work of understanding the unique requirements of the law in this area and be brave enough to encourage their clients to approach the courts if they must.
?
ROWLAND O, UZOECHI
--
1 个月This write-up is quite apt and an eye opener to several Nigerian businessmen in similar transctions. Kudos Rowland Uzoechi
??Senior Finance, Audit & Compliance Executive | 20+ Years in Oil & Gas, Tech & Financial Services | Expert in Budgeting, Financial Modelling, Forecasting & Risk Mitigation |
2 个月Very informative
Legal and Compliance Manager
2 个月This is very insightful. Thank you so much Rowland Uzoechi