REP52229 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rules and procedures. See Rule 4.7(2j. [An automatic renewal and/or 90 day notice is no longer a practice of banks for their letters of credit; see Sec. 59-32-9 NMSA 1978 (1980 Supplement), and Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits (1983 Revised) International Chamber of Commerce, Publication No. 400.] Your standard "Financial Warranty Letter of Credit" form does NOT have the Bank giving an automatic renewal or any 90 day notice -- therefore, this DMG form does NOT comply with the Rules. This DMG form as an undefined person - the "Warrantor" - giving a 90 day notice, not the "Bank" and not the "operator" (see pg. 2). This DMG form states "The Bank is not a party to this agreement" (see pg. 2). This DMG form recognizes that the Bank's letter of credit will be valid only for a specific length of time (see " .. for the period from _, through _, `" on pg. 2). Why is this DMG form contrary to Rule 4.7? Who is the "Warrantor"? Since the Bank is not a party to the DMG form, isn't it correct to assume the "Bank" is NOT the "Warrantor" and the "Bank" is not bound by the 90 day notice requirement in this DMG form? Please show us some examples of banks agreeing to automatic renewal or 90 day notice. Our letter of credit did not need any documentation in the form of a balance sheet demonstrating that it does not exceed 10$ of the Bank's capital surplus account (which is about $8,782,000) because that is due only in our annual report. See Rule 4.7(3). Do you agree our annual report is not yet due? Under what circumstances does Rule 1.4.11 apply if not in this situation? As for DMG's inability to find Exh. R, what proof do you have that it was not sent? The facts upon which we agree are that: (1) a Jan. 3, 1995 letter from DMG was sent [saying the last missing item was Exh. R] and (2) then DMG fell silent for 2 and 1/2 years. I believe we can assume one of 3 possibilities: (a) that DMG received Exh. R so no further reminder was necessary, (b) that DMG did not receive Exh. R but decided to ignore this application for 2 and 1/2 years, or (3) that DMG received Exh. R and threw it away or lost it, and then decided to ignore this application for 2 and 1/2 years. Which one was it? Under any scenario, DMG was not doing its job in processing this application; do you agree? Regardless of whether DMG can find our Exh. R, what is the important issue -- that the recipients received the information or that DMG gets a copy of the green return-receipt card? We have proof that the recipients did get the information, and they did NOT have any objections to ORION PIT as shown by your files, As for your claim that the receipt cards have different numbers, ~~is~