Litigations Involving SBLC

Litigations Involving SBLC (Standby Letter Of Credit)
Late 2016 saw three English court rulings on whether issuing banks were obliged to pay against
what, on their face, appeared to be complying demands under standby letters of credit (SBLCs).
These cases were:
 National Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. v. BNP Paribas [2016] EWHC 2508 (the BNPP
Case);
 National Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. v. Banco Santander S.A. [2016] EWHC 2990
(the Santander Case); and
 Petrosaudi Oil Services (Venezuela) Ltd v. Novo Banco S.A. [2016] EWHC 2456 (the Novo
Banco Case).
This note looks at the key issues for trade finance practitioners.
Unlike ordinary documentary (commercial) letters of credit, which are payment instruments, SBLCs
are used mainly as credit support instruments. The issuer of an SBLC undertakes to pay the
beneficiary only if the applicant does not perform the underlying contract.
If a demand under an SBLC appears on its face to comply with the terms of the SBLC (and the
requirements of any ICC rules, such as the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits
(UCP 600) or the International Standby Practices (ISP 98), to which the SBLC is expressed to be
subject), English law has only very limited exceptions to the rule that the issuing bank must pay
against an apparently compliant demand.
These exceptions include where there is:
 illegality under local law in the place of payment under the SBLC; or
 fraud in procuring the issue of the SBLC, or a fraudulent demand by the beneficiary.
The BNPP Case and the Santander Case

Both of these cases involved demands by National Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. (NIDCO), of
Trinidad and Tobago, for payment under SBLCs issued in NIDCO's favour by various international
banks at the request of a Brazilian contractor, Construtora OAS (OAS). The SBLCs were English law
governed, and the English courts had jurisdiction to settle disputes arising in relation to them.
NIDCO and OAS had entered into a contract for OAS to build a major highway in Trinidad (the
Construction Contract). The Construction Contract was subject to Trinidad law, with dispute
resolution by arbitration in Trinidad.
OAS filed for judicial reorganisation in Brazil. Following this, NIDCO terminated the Construction
Contract, referred disputes under that contract to arbitration, and served demands under the SBLCs.
It then emerged that the Brazilian courts had granted OAS an injunction restraining the various
banks from paying under the SBLCs (the Brazilian Injunction).
The BNPP Case

BNP Paribas (BNPP) had issued SBLCs in favour of NIDCO to secure advance payments made to
OAS and to provide credit support for OAS's performance obligations under the Construction
Contract. The amounts demanded were not paid and NIDCO sought judgment for those amounts in
the English courts.
Under Brazilian law, BNPP risked a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of the SBLCs if it paid out
in breach of the Brazilian Injunction. Did the Brazilian Injunction give BNPP grounds to refuse to pay
under the SBLCs as a matter of English law?
The court held that "if a party who had opened a letter of credit could defeat the bank's obligation to
pay by obtaining an injunction against the bank in its home jurisdiction" this would undermine the
commercial purpose of letter of credit transactions. In addition, there was no suggestion that the
fraud exception applied. BNPP therefore had to pay.
The Santander Case1

Banco Santander S.A. (Santander) had issued SBLCs in favour of NIDCO as a performance and
retention "guarantee" under the Construction Contract. NIDCO served demands under the SBLCs.
Santander claimed the fraud exception applied to these demands because, among other things:
 what was "due and owing" from OAS was the subject of arbitration, so NIDCO's claim that
the sums were due and owing was not honestly made;
 NIDCO had over-claimed under the SBLCs;
 the Brazilian Injunction prevented Santander from paying under the SBLCs; and
 in all the circumstances, NIDCO's demands were unconscionable.
The court held that:
 the words "due and owing" in the demand did not mean "determined by a tribunal to be due
and owing", or "due and owing as a matter of law". Instead, the trigger for payment of the SBLC was
NIDCO's belief that the amounts demanded were due and owing;
 despite the ongoing arbitration, it was not seriously arguable that NIDCO did not honestly
believe its demands were valid; 2
 the alleged overcompensation was not significant and did not indicate that NIDCO's
demands were dishonest;
 the potential adverse consequences for Santander for paying out in breach of the Brazilian
Injunction were part of the risk that Santander had taken; and
 unlike under Singapore law, unconscionability was not a basis for restraining payment under
a letter of credit under English law.
Santander therefore had to honour the demands.
The Novo Banco Case3

Petrosaudi Oil Services (Venezuela) Ltd (Petrosaudi) provided oil rig drilling services to PDVSA
Servicios S.A. (PDV), under a Venezuelan law contract (the Drilling Contract). As credit support for
PDV's payment of Petrosaudi's invoices, Novo Banco S.A. (Novo Banco) issued an English law
governed SBLC in favour of Petrosaudi.
Under the Drilling Contract, if PDV disputed an invoice it had to tell Petrosaudi within a set time or it
would be deemed to have accepted the invoice on a "pay now, argue later" basis. At arbitration, this
arrangement was held invalid under Venezuelan law (which set out a prescribed process for
approving invoices issued to a state entity, such as PDV, before that entity had to pay).
PDV failed to pay certain invoices and Petrosaudi demanded payment from Novo Banco under the
SBLC. Petrosaudi's position was that the underlying debts arose once it had performed the relevant
services under the Drilling Contract, and the invoices in respect of those services were "due" for
payment when issued. By contrast, PDV argued that the Venezuelan arbitration rulings meant that
the invoices were not due, so the demand certifying that PDV was "obligated to the beneficiary to
pay the amount demanded under the drilling contract" was fraudulent.
The court held that, at the time of the demand, the sums claimed under the SBLC had to be due for
payment immediately, not at some defined or undefined point in the future. It further held that, in the
light of the Venezuelan arbitration rulings, in certifying that PDV was "obligated" to Petrosaudi for the
sums claimed under the SBLC the signatory of the demand either knew that the demand was false
or was reckless as to its falsity. The fraud exception therefore applied and Novo Banco should not
pay under the SBLC.
This decision is under appeal.
Conclusions
The English law exceptions for restricting payment under letters of credit are just that – limited
departures from the fundamental principle that an issuing bank must honour a complying
presentation/demand. To allow these exceptions to be invoked too readily, or to broaden their scope
beyond the current narrow limits, risks greatly reducing the utility of letters of credit as "equivalent to
cash".
The decisions in the two NIDCO cases are therefore not unexpected. In particular, it is reassuring
that, in the Santander Case, the court dismissed the argument that English law should "admit an
exception for unconscionable conduct alongside the existing, recognised, fraud exception".
Singapore law recognises breach of faith or unscrupulous conduct by a beneficiary of a letter of
credit falling short of fraud as distinct grounds for an issuing bank withholding payment. However,
these concepts are, arguably, too broad and ill-defined to be applied with certainty and consistency.
The decision in the Novo Banco Case is less clear cut – the meaning of the term "obligated" in the
demand is ambiguous, and it is, arguably, not plainly obvious on the facts of the case that there was
fraud by the beneficiary in making the demand. What position the Court of Appeal takes in clarifying
the issues in this complex case will be of interest and practical significance.
------------------------------------------------
1
Affirmed by Court of Appeal, 26 January 2017 – National Infrastructure Development Co Ltd v.
Banco Santander S.A. [2017] EWCA Civ 27.
2
Note that at appeal, although affirming the summary judgment decision, the Court of Appeal agreed
that Knowles J had applied the incorrect test by referring to serious arguability. According to the
Court of Appeal, the correct test is that a defendant seeking to resist summary judgment in such
cases has to establish a "real prospect" that it could be established at trial that "the only realistic
inference is that the claimant could not honestly have believed in the validity of its demands".
3
Reversed by Court of Appeal, 25 January 2017 – Petrosaudi Oil Services (Venezuela) Ltd v. Novo
Banco S.A. [2017] EWCA Civ 9.

Litigations Involving SBLC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Litigations Involving SBLC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Litigations Involving SBLC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Litigations Involving SBLC (Standby Letter Of Credit)

The BNPP Case and the Santander Case

The BNPP Case

The Santander Case1

The Novo Banco Case3

You might also like