Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

In Citibank Revlon Wire Transfer Case 2d Cir Reverses Ruling Money Didn't Have To Be Returned

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book
BBC - Honduras - CIA Trial book - NY Mag

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Sept 8 – As Citibank tries to recoup the money it wired out on August 11, 2020, the virtual / Zoom trial began on December 9 before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jesse M. Furman. Inner City Press reported daily on the trial, below.

 On February 16, Judge Furman ruled that the Defendants could keep the money.

On September 8, 2022, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed: "Plaintiff Citibank, N.A, the Administrative Agent for the lenders on 4 a $1.8 billion seven-year syndicated loan to Revlon Inc., appeals from the 5 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 6 New York (Jesse M. Furman, J.) in favor of Defendants, the Loan 7 Managers for certain lenders, who received and refused to return 8 Citibank’s accidental, unintended early repayment of the loan. The 9 district court, after a bench trial, relying on Banque Worms v. BankAmerica 10 International, 570 N.E.2d 189 (N.Y. 1991), ruled that the rule of discharge11 for-value provided a defense against Citibank’s suit for restitution. Held, 12 because the Defendants had notice of the mistake and because the lenders 13 were not entitled to repayment at the time, the rule of Banque Worms does 14 not protect the Defendants. The judgment is VACATED and the case is 15 REMANDED to the district court." Full decision here.


Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.


Feedback: Editorial [at]
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]