Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

The Citibank corporate headquarters in New York on May 20, 2015.

Mike Segar/Reuters

A federal judge on Tuesday said Citigroup Inc. is not entitled to recoup half a billion dollars of its own money that it mistakenly wired lenders of Revlon Inc. , in what he called “a banking error of perhaps unprecedented nature and magnitude.”

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan said the Aug. 11, 2020, transfers were “final and complete transactions, not subject to revocation.”

Citigroup plans to appeal. “We believe we are entitled to the funds and will continue to pursue a complete recovery of them,” a spokeswoman said.

Story continues below advertisement

The blunder was the latest misstep involving internal controls at Citigroup, which federal regulators fined $400 million in October over longstanding deficiencies.

Acting as Revlon’s loan agent, Citigroup had wired $893 million to the cosmetic company’s lenders, appearing to pay off a loan not due until 2023, when it intended to send only a $7.8 million interest payment.

The New York-based bank blamed human error for the gaffe, and some lenders returned money they were sent.

But 10 asset managers, including Brigade Capital Management, HPS Investment Partners and Symphony Asset Management, refused, and Citigroup sued to recoup approximately $501 million they received.

The bank said Revlon’s lenders knew or should have known the transfers were a mistake, and that Revlon, controlled by billionaire Ron Perelman, could not afford such a big payment.

But in a 101-page decision, following a six-day trial in December, Furman said the transfers were a “discharge for value,” matching “to the penny” what the lenders were owed.

“The non-returning lenders believed, and were justified in believing, that the payments were intentional,” Furman wrote. “To believe otherwise - to believe that Citibank, one of the most sophisticated financial institutions in the world, had made a mistake that had never happened before, to the tune of nearly $1 billion - would have been borderline irrational.”

Story continues below advertisement

Furman left in place a temporary ban on the lenders’ using the transferred funds, reflecting Citigroup’s expected appeal.

In a joint statement, the lenders’ lawyers Adam Abensohn and Robert Loigman said they were “extremely pleased” with the decision.

Administrative agents typically distribute interest payments and perform back-office services for clients.

Industry groups have said a ruling against Citigroup could expose banks to excessive liability risks.

The Loan Syndications and Trading Association, whose roughly 530 members include Citigroup and some Revlon creditors, said such a ruling could destabilize the $1.2 trillion U.S. syndicated loan market.

Shortfalls in Citigroup’s internal controls were a factor in Chief Executive Mike Corbat’s planned early retirement this month.

Story continues below advertisement

The case is In re: Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 20-06539.

Be smart with your money. Get the latest investing insights delivered right to your inbox three times a week, with the Globe Investor newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies