No fiduciary duty justifies profit taking off of a mistake or mis-transaction. This is like saying that a hedge fund is justified keeping the proceeds of a check written to the wrong routing/account number. Nothing, and I mean nothing, fiduciary duty be damned, justifies undermining the implicit trust that underpins the banking and financial system. It's why there is such a thing as white collar crime in the first place.
Frankly, the entire chunk of money should be considered legally tainted until legal action is resolved; which means escrow it somewhere and unleash the lawyers.
It’s already under litigation, so Brigade can’t withdraw and spend it. The case is interesting because they might have a chance at keeping the money. In other circumstances (if the money had randomly landed on their account from an unrelated party) they’d have to give it back and there wouldn’t be a story.
The interesting side effect if they actually prevailed over Citi would be general improvement in wire transfer rooms across US. Right now they are mostly sweat shops with focus on speed ( and pleasing big customers ).
All of a sudden, we may see some consideration given to proper verification ( not just quick rubber stamp ).
Even if Revlon goes under because the courts pull what I'd call a derp, it should create the illustrative case that creates a business niche for higher reliability/risk financial transactions.
Frankly, the entire chunk of money should be considered legally tainted until legal action is resolved; which means escrow it somewhere and unleash the lawyers.