Pedersen v. Midfirst Bank

2 Citing cases

  1. Yen Hwa Huang v. H.K. & Shanghai Banking Corp.

    1:20-cv-03548-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 9, 2022)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that the relevant analysis is whether "the claims are about events that occurred either before or after the processing of the wire transfer"

    For example, after the plaintiffs in Pedersen v. MidFirst Bank entered into a contract to buy a parcel of real estate, they received a fraudulent email (that appeared to be from their escrow agent) requesting that they wire the escrow funds to an account at MidFirst Bank (the defendant). 527 F.Supp.3d 188, 191 (N.D.N.Y. 2021).

  2. Bud's Goods & Provisions Corp. v. Doe

    630 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D. Mass. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    See N.Y.U.C.C. Law, ยง 4A-207, cmt 2 (standard format may allow inclusion of name of beneficiary and other information which can be useful to beneficiary's bank, but which plays no part in process of payment).See e.g. generally Wellton Int'l Express, 612 F.Supp.3d 358; Golden Door V & I, Inc. v. TD Bank, 123 A.D.3d 976, 977, 999 N.Y.S.2d 510; accord Pedersen v. MidFirst Bank, 527 F.Supp.3d 188, 192-93 (N.D.N.Y. 2021)(applying California law as jurisdiction where receiving bank was located, but noting that New York and California law are same). The Court finds no merit in Bud' assertion that its claims are not barred by the UCC given that as a result of the notation, HSBC had actual knowledge that Merton was not the proper beneficiary of the wire transfer (because, among other reasons, M. Holland and Son's Construction Inc. is a business and Merton's Account is a personal account).