Home About us Pay subscription Contact

Register

News

News Categories
Recent News

News by Month

SWIFT release latest BPO market data

23/07/2014 SWIFT have released the latest BPO data identifying the live banks and corporates, together with volume information including numbers of TSU transactions (monthly) and TSMT live messages (monthly).

BPO Market Adoption (18 July).pdf

Back to recent news

Recent News

Letters of Credit Are Not Disappearing; They Are Evolving! 24/09/2026

1...more

Lloyds, SocGen turn to eUCP for digital letters of credit 18/09/2026

Société Générale and Lloyds have completed a fully digital trade transaction between the UK and France, using Enigio’s technology, in what the French lender describes as a first-of-its-kind deal...more

Latest Question

In a forfaiting agreement subject to URF 800, a forfaiter takes the firm commitment in day (T1) to purchase a bill of exchange avalised by bank A (the banker of the buyer in the underlying transaction). The forfaiting agreement indicates that the exporter is supposed to provide to the forfaiter, the original bill of exchange with all the other necessary documents at the latest on day (T2). The forfaiting agreement indicates: “bill of exchange accepted by buyer and avalised by bank A” without any other restrictive conditions concerning the standing of bank A We are going to suppose that at T1, a bill of exchange avalized by bank A is in every point “satisfactory” (this term is mentioned in URF 800). What will happen if, in the meantime, the financial situation of bank A has changed radically and presents a great risk for the forfaiter? (we can suppose that bank A went bankrupt). Will the forfaiter be obliged to purchase the bill of exchange at the agreed price indicated on the forfaiting agreement, or will the forfaiter be in a position to invoke the fact that the bill of exchange is no longer satisfactory and refuse to purchase the bill of exchange?