News

ICC announce the revision of the Uniform Rules for Bank Payment Obligations (URBPO)

10/04/2018

ICC Banking Commission Digitalisation of Trade Finance Working Group: Approved EXCO mandate for revision of URBPO 

As discussed in the Banking Commission Executive Committee call of 7 March 2018. 

Mandate 

The Banking Commission Executive Committee has authorized the Steering Committee of the Digitalisation Working Group to proceed with a revision of the Uniform Rules for Bank Payment Obligations (URBPO). 

Background 

Under the auspices of the ICC Working Group on Digitalisation in Trade Finance, the ICC Banking Commission created a sub-stream for BPO that included three objectives: 

1. Marketing and Awareness of BPO in its current state. 

2. Revision of the URBPO to include the roles and responsibilities of buyers and sellers and modify it to address conditions within distributed ledger technologies (DLT) that create obligations. 

3. Address in conjunction with the “standards” stream of the digitalisation working group data standards which improve the Trade Services Utility (TSU) and/or lay the framework for smart contracts and other data enablers to support DLT. 

The initial aim of the second objective was to evaluate the existing URBPO in order to determine whether a revision of the rules would be required. 

Rationale for revision of URBPO 

As mentioned in the introduction to the URBPO rules, the scope of the rules lies solely in the bank-to-bank space as agreed in the memorandum of understanding signed between ICC and SWIFT in September 2011. The URBPO do not cover the interaction between a bank and their corporate client. 

However, it was recognised at the time of drafting that, at a future indeterminate date, a ‘phase 2’ would be required in order to address incorporation of the buyer and seller into the rules (including, but not limited to, the four corner model for Supply Chain Finance). In view of the fact that many ICC National Committees had requested such an objective, the concept of a ‘phase 2’ was openly communicated at various Banking Commission plenary sessions. 

In addition, with the advent of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) & Blockchain applications, there is a further need for a form of risk mitigation. As such, modification of the URBPO is required in order to address conditions within DLT technologies that create an obligation to pay and facilitate financing. 

Provided the rules can be revised to accommodate such progress, the BPO can serve as a framework for risk mitigation in the emerging technologies. 

Composition of Group 

The group, chaired by Mike Quinn, is a sub-stream of the ‘e-compatibility of ICC Rules’ work stream co-chaired by David Meynell and Gary Collyer. Pursuant to National Committee recommendations, a core drafting team with the necessary skills is now in place. 

Next Steps 

The BPO sub-stream is to proceed with the revision of URBPO in order to incorporate buyer and seller and to take note of emerging technologies. Any further changes will be identified as the drafting work progresses. 

An outline of the overall aims of the BPO sub-stream to be presented at the ICC Banking Commission Annual Meeting in Miami, April 2018. 

National Committees and members will be given the chance to review and comment on the drafts provided by the working group. Either an initial revision of URBPO, or an outline of work-to-date, will be made available in time for the ICC Banking Commission Technical Meeting in Georgia, October 2018. 


Back to recent news

Recent News

26/11/2024

The latest newsletter is now available in the members trade information section under the category of 'Newsletters'...more

ICC release Technical Advisory Briefing No. 11 - Definition of Trade Finance 19/09/2024

Recognising that there is no global standard for the defining Trade Finance, this Briefing document provides a suggested text and has been recommended for use by the ICC Banking Commisison Steering Committee...more

Latest Question

We, as the issuing bank, requested the below document, under field 46A. “Insurance policy/certificate for 10.00 percent above CIF value payable to the order of Sampath bank PLC, covering institute cargo clauses (a), institute war clauses (cargo), institute strike clauses (cargo), transshipment risks marked premium paid claims payable in Colombo irrespective of percentage.” Insurance certificate is presented containing below wording on the face side of the document. “The settlement of loss and damage will be effected, unless otherwise provided, through the intermediary of Marsh SA/NV to whom all documents are to be forwarded for this purpose, and will collect the indemnity under deduction of a commission of one percent” Also, it indicates the LC conditions as a mirror image as follows under the heading of "letter of credit conditions" whereas insurance conditions are incorporated separately in the certificate: "covering institute cargo clauses (A), institute war clauses (cargo), institute strike clauses (cargo), transshipment risks marked premium paid claims payable in Colombo irrespective of percentage" Having considered the above clauses, we have quoted below discrepancies. 1) Insurance policy indicates a deductible of 1 pct instead of irrespective of percentage. 2) Insurance not marked premium paid Beneficiary’s bank disagrees with our discrepancy and raised below argument: “Insurance policy/certificate does not indicate a deductible of 1 pct irrespective of percentage on the face of the document and banks will not examine terms and condition in insurance document as per ISBP paragraph K22 and marked as premium paid under the LC conditions. Considering above, may we have your opinion on the discrepancy quoted by us and the counter argument raised by the beneficiary’s bank.