Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to various creditors last August

Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou... by maxwell on Thursday February 18, 2021 @10:45AM (#26181161)

Wasn't actually about the UI, here's the buried lede:

> Ordinarily, paying back a loan early wouldn't be a big deal, since the parties could simply negotiate a new loan on similar terms. But in this case, some of the lenders were not on good terms with Revlon and Citibank.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou... by kcg on Thursday February 18, 2021 @10:57AM (#26181330)

That's not actually the point of this article. Many many lenders are not on good terms with their counterparties. Distressed debt and bankruptcy exist. And yet, I've never heard of another story of a bank accidentally wiring nearly a billion dollars to creditors.

Source: spent several years working in the loan and high yield space at a well-known fund.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou... by PeterisP on Thursday February 18, 2021 @12:17PM (#26182578)

The amount is unusually large for this type of mistake, making it newsworthy, but it isn't particularly unique. I have personally seen a couple cases of various mistakes in banking (both on customer and bank's side) causing accidental repayment of debt that otherwise would be unrecoverable as the payer became insolvent. Mistakes happen. Human processes and technical processes can help make a bit less mistakes, UX is part of that.

[ Parent | on HN ]