Opinion ID: 174724
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction over the Suspense Account in New York

Text: Alternatively, Allied contends that the suspense account is (1) in New York and (2) attachable there. It is unclear from the record on appeal whether the suspense account was created at BNP Paribas in Paris or at BNP Paribas in New York. The District Court considered both alternatives, and concluded that it was unlikely that the funds were in New York. Allied Maritime, 2009 WL 4884160, at . However, even if we assume that Allied is correct about the location of the suspense accountnamely, that the account is in New Yorkthat account would not be attachable property of Descatrade. As we noted recently in Scanscot Shipping Serv. (Deutschland) GmbH v. Metales Tracomex LTDA , [a]fter an EFT is initiated by an originator's bank, the funds at issue cease to be the property of the originator; the funds do not then become the property of the beneficiary until the EFT is completed by acceptance of a payment order by the beneficiary's bank. 617 F.3d 679, 682 (2d Cir.2010). In the interim, these funds are not property subject to attachment of either the originator or the beneficiary. Id. That [Descatrade] may be in the position of both originator and beneficiary does not change the Rule B analysis. Id. Like the bank account in Scanscot Shipping, BNP Paribas created the suspense account solely as a result of an order of attachment relating to funds now determined to be beyond the reach of the [D]istrict [C]ourt. 2010 WL 3169304, at . Accordingly, the new suspense account neither cures the jurisdictional defect nor provides a basis for reattachment of the same funds. Id.