Plaintiff sued the Defendant Bank for allegedly allowing improper deposits of company checks into a personal account. The Bank designated the case to the Business Court based on its jurisdiction over cases involving "the law governing corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and limited liability partnerships."
The Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the case involved nothing more than issues of agency, and that cases involving banking law were not included in the categories of cases over which the Business Court has mandatory jurisdiction.
The Bank contended in its Opposition to the Motion to Remand that the cases involved issues of "corporate governance" and corporate authority, and also unique issues under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code which were of significance to the state’s banking community.
The Business Court denied the Motion to Remand "for two reasons. First, it appears from the submissions that questions of authority of corporate officers will be a significant issue. Second, the decisions in this case could provide guidance to businesses and the financial community with respect to banking laws."