Court Denies Pre-Judgment Attachment Against Foreign Bank Because Plaintiff Failed To Show Identifiable Risk That Judgment Would Not Be Paid

Posted: June 12, 2026 / Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Ian Weiss, Thomas A. Kissane / Categories Commercial, Court Rules/Procedures

Court Denies Pre-Judgment Attachment Against Foreign Bank Because Plaintiff Failed To Show Identifiable Risk That Judgment Would Not Be Paid

On April 17, 2026, in Olam Global Agri Pte. Ltd. v. Social Islami Bank Ltd., Index No. 652242/2026, Justice Melissa A. Crane of the New York County Commercial Division denied plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a pre-judgment attachment of defendant’s New York correspondent bank accounts.

Plaintiff Olam Global Agri Pte. Ltd., a Singapore trading company, sued defendant Social Islami Bank Limited, a Bangladesh bank, for breach of a letter agreement. Plaintiff moved ex parte under CPLR 6201(1) and (3) to attach assets held in New York correspondent (Nostro) bank accounts, arguing that a Bangladesh government ordinance—the Bank Resolution Ordinance of 2025—had placed defendant in the process of transferring its assets and liabilities to a newly formed banking entity, creating a risk that any judgment would go unsatisfied. The Court denied the motion under both CPLR 6201(1) and (3). On the CPLR 6201(1) ground, the Court explained:

These statements show that Bangladesh’s government ordered defendant’s reorganization, and that defendant is not hiding or depleting its assets. Further, Mr. Tonny states that defendant is transferring its assets and liabilities to the supervising Bangladesh Bank, and confirms that there is no moratorium prohibiting plaintiff from litigating this breach of contract matter against defendant (or its successor bank) in Bangladesh. Plaintiff only speculates that defendant may “lack sufficient assets” to satisfy the judgment that could be entered here, and there is no showing that defendant “will choose to hide or otherwise dispose of their assets. . . . At most, the [plaintiffs’] affidavits establish that there is potentially a significant amount of bureaucracy involved in obtaining the assets as converted funds.” “There must be more than a showing that the attachment would, in essence, be ‘helpful.’ ” (citations omitted)

The Court also rejected the CPLR 6201(3) ground, finding that defendant’s failure to remit payment despite demands was insufficient to show an intent to defraud, and raised concerns about whether plaintiff could establish quasi in rem jurisdiction based solely on the correspondent bank accounts. The motion was denied without prejudice, with any new application required to be made by order to show cause with notice to defendant.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning pre-judgment attachments or enforcement of judgments against foreign entities.