Litigating Wire Transfer Fraud: UCC Article 4A, BEC Schemes, and the First 72 Hours That Define Recovery

Robert F. Tom
Shelli J. Clarkston
Elizabeth Roper
Robert F. Tom | Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
Shelli J. Clarkston | Spencer Fane
Elizabeth Roper | Baker & McKenzie LLP

Re-Broadcast: June 5, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

Master UCC Article 4A liability frameworks, execute critical 72-hour fraud response protocols, and develop winning litigation strategies against BEC schemes devastating businesses worldwide.

What Will You Learn

Attorneys will learn UCC Article 4A liability frameworks, BEC threat actor techniques, and the legal response steps that must occur within the first 72 hours following a wire fraud incident.

What Will You Gain

Attorneys will gain practical strategies for coordinating bank recalls, managing litigation positioning, and evaluating coverage options to maximize client recovery after BEC fraud.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Article 4A
    Analyze UCC Article 4A provisions governing wire fraud disputes between banks and accountholders.
  • Fraud scenarios
    Examine payment diversion and compromised email schemes that trigger bank-accountholder litigation.
  • 72-Hour response
    Execute bank recalls, law enforcement notifications, and evidence preservation immediately after fraud.
  • BEC evolution
    Identify current threat actor tools, techniques, and targeted industries driving business email compromise.
  • Litigation posture
    Apply early response decisions to shape litigation positioning and protect recovery options.
  • Coverage strategy
    Coordinate with insurers and financial institutions to preserve and maximize available coverage.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: June 5, 2026

  • 2:00 pm – 4:10 pm Eastern
  • 1:00 pm – 3:10 pm Central
  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Mountain
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Robert F. Tom, Shareholder | Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC

Robert F. Tom is a shareholder in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group at Baker Donelson, where he focuses on complex commercial litigation and financial services disputes. His practice centers on representing financial institutions, lenders, and businesses in matters involving banking operations, electronic payments, commercial contracts, and fraud-related disputes. Tom regularly advises clients on issues arising from wire transfers, payment systems, and financial transactions, and he has extensive experience handling litigation involving financial institutions and banking regulations. His work includes representing clients in state and federal courts in matters involving commercial disputes, banking liability issues, and operational risks affecting financial institutions.

  • Education & Credentials

Robert F. Tom earned his J.D. from the University of Tennessee College of Law and his B.A. from the University of Tennessee. He is admitted to practice law in Tennessee and represents clients in state and federal courts in complex litigation matters involving financial institutions and commercial disputes.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Tom has been recognized for his work in litigation and financial services matters within the legal profession. Through his role at Baker Donelson, he contributes to the firm’s litigation practice by advising financial institutions and corporate clients on complex disputes involving banking operations and commercial law.

  • Professional Involvement

In addition to his litigation practice, Tom contributes to legal discussions and publications addressing developments in financial services law, banking litigation, and commercial disputes. His work often focuses on legal and operational issues affecting financial institutions, including electronic payments and fraud-related litigation.

  • Experience

Tom represents banks, financial institutions, and corporate clients in complex commercial disputes, including matters involving wire transfers, payment processing, fraud allegations, and contractual disputes. His experience includes handling litigation involving financial transactions, advising clients on risk management strategies, and resolving disputes involving banking operations and financial regulations.

 

Shelli J. Clarkston, Of Counsel | Spencer Fane

Shelli Clarkston is a partner at Spencer Fane LLP who focuses her practice on financial services litigation, regulatory compliance, and complex commercial disputes. She represents banks, lenders, and other financial institutions in litigation involving lending transactions, fraud-related claims, and banking operations. Clarkston advises financial institutions on regulatory and operational issues affecting their business, including risk management and dispute resolution related to financial transactions. Her practice includes representing financial institutions in state and federal court and assisting clients in navigating legal issues arising from banking operations and financial services regulations.

  • Education & Credentials

Clarkston earned her J.D. from the University of Kansas School of Law and her B.S. from the University of Kansas. She is admitted to practice law in Kansas and Missouri and represents financial institutions and commercial clients in state and federal courts.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Clarkston has developed a reputation for advising financial institutions on complex litigation and regulatory issues affecting the banking industry. Through her work at Spencer Fane, she contributes to the firm’s financial services practice by assisting clients with disputes involving banking operations and commercial transactions.

  • Professional Involvement

Clarkston participates in legal and professional organizations connected to the banking and financial services industries. She engages with industry professionals and legal practitioners on developments affecting financial institutions and the regulatory environment governing financial transactions.

  • Experience

Her experience includes representing financial institutions and lenders in commercial litigation, financial services disputes, and regulatory matters. Clarkston advises clients on issues arising from banking operations, lending practices, and financial transactions, and she assists institutions in managing litigation risks associated with fraud claims and commercial disputes.

 

Elizabeth Roper, Partner | Baker & McKenzie LLP

Elizabeth Roper is a partner at Baker McKenzie and a member of the firm’s Cybersecurity, Data Privacy, and Technology practice. She advises multinational organizations on cybersecurity incidents, data privacy compliance, and complex regulatory investigations. Roper regularly counsels clients on responding to cyber incidents, managing data breaches, and navigating global privacy and cybersecurity laws. Her practice involves coordinating cross-border investigations, advising companies on regulatory obligations following cyber events, and helping organizations develop strategies to manage digital risk.

  • Education & Credentials

Roper earned her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and her B.A. from Georgetown University. She is admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia and Virginia and advises clients on legal and regulatory issues involving cybersecurity, data protection, and technology-related risks.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Roper is recognized within the legal community for her work in cybersecurity and data privacy matters. Her leadership within Baker McKenzie includes advising clients on complex cyber incidents and regulatory investigations affecting organizations operating in multiple jurisdictions

  • Professional Involvement

She participates in professional organizations and legal initiatives focused on cybersecurity, data protection, and emerging technology risks. Through her work, she contributes to discussions addressing evolving cybersecurity threats and the legal frameworks governing data protection and cyber incident response.

  • Experience

Roper advises organizations on cybersecurity preparedness, data breach response, and regulatory investigations related to cyber incidents. Her experience includes leading incident response efforts, coordinating cross-border regulatory engagement, and helping companies address legal risks associated with cyber threats such as business email compromise and other forms of cyber-enabled fraud.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Article 4A and the Anatomy of Wire Fraud Litigation | 2:00pm – 2:30pm

Attorneys will examine how wire transfer fraud disputes arise under UCC Article 4A and Regulation J, reviewing common fraud scenarios including payment diversion and compromised email instructions, along with the claims and defenses typically asserted in bank-accountholder litigation.

SESSION 2 – The First 72 Hours After a Fraud: Recovery, Coverage, and Litigation Positioning | 2:30pm – 3:00pm

This session outlines the critical legal steps attorneys must take immediately following a BEC or wire fraud incident, covering bank recall coordination, law enforcement engagement, evidence preservation, and how early response decisions shape litigation posture and affect insurer and bank disputes.

Break | 3:00pm – 3:10pm

SESSION 3 – Business Email Compromise/Fund Transfer Fraud: Identifying and Responding to Current Threat Patterns | 3:10pm – 4:10pm

Attorneys will explore how modern BEC schemes operate, examining threat actor techniques, the industries most frequently targeted, indicators of active payment diversion, and practical response strategies including incident containment, FBI and FinCEN coordination, and organizational risk mitigation.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arkansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via Attorney Submission.
Georgia

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

Indiana

Approved For On-Demand Credits
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Preview
More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit Thu, June 4, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
A, B, C’s of Revocable and Irrevocable Trusts
A, B, C’s of Revocable and Irrevocable Trusts Fri, June 5, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
Playing Defense at 30(b)(6) Depositions (2026 Edition)
Playing Defense at 30(b)(6) Depositions (2026 Edition) Wed, June 10, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay
Professionalism and Civility (2026 Edition)
Professionalism and Civility (2026 Edition) Fri, June 19, 2026
Live Webcast
The AI Chatbot Wiretap Class Action Wave
The AI Chatbot Wiretap Class Action Wave Fri, June 26, 2026
Live Webcast