A Texas limited partnership (the “partnership”) made a substantial wire transfer to a bank (“bank 1”), which sent a portion of the funds to another bank (“bank 2”). The partnership denied any knowledge as to how or why any of the transactions took place. The partnership sought to recover the allegedly fraudulently transferred funds, which remained frozen in an account at bank 2. The partnership sued both banks for “money had and received,” “unjust enrichment,” and “aiding and abetting.” After the partnership filed suit, the court dismissed bank 1 as a party, and bank 2 moved for summary judgment under Rule 12(b)(6).
In Peatwatuck Enters. v. Truist Bank, 773 F. Supp. 3d 366 (S.D. Tex. 2025), the district court dismissed all three of the partnership’s claims reasoning that Article 4A of the Texas Uniform Commercial Code preempted all the claims. Article 4A covered each of the partnership’s claims because it governs fund transfers, which are "the series of transactions, beginning with the originator's payment order, made for the purpose of making payment to the beneficiary of the order." § 4A.104(1). Therefore, Article 4A preempted each of the partnership’s common law claims. Additionally, the court placed great emphasis on how the partnership’s claims for unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting did not allege the necessary facts for the claim to proceed. For the unjust enrichment claim, the partnership failed to state whether bank 2 held the requisite knowledge for the tort or whether it received any benefit from the transfer. Regarding the aiding and abetting claim, the partnership failed to provide any facts that could support its claim. As a result, the court dismissed the entirety of the partnership’s petition, with leave for the partnership to amend pleadings.
By Conor Doris [email protected]
Edited By Taylor O’Brien [email protected]
Edited By Kristin Meurer [email protected]
Edited By Hayden Mariott [email protected]