[maxerickson]

Aren't they telling their customers to cancel transfers into SVB?

(seems like the flow of funds is customer bank -> SVB -> [maybe more] -> payroll payees)

Seems likely enough that those transfers will fail to clear in a couple days, not bad to get ahead of that if possible.

[FireBeyond]

Right, but that's my point, not necessarily agreeing with the motivation or such. If the transfer went through before the FDIC shuttered them this AM, it could be argued that the transaction was entirely authorized _at the time_ the ACH debit occurred.

Hopefully banks will sympathize, but I don't know that you can say "the bank was forcibly closed the day after this ACH transaction, so it's unauthorized, because I intended to have those funds flow outbound later".

It would be unauthorized if the ACH debit was _initiated_ after the closure of the bank.

[OJFord]

Regardless of the correctness or legality of the advice, it's a bit odd to wade in and give it at all isn't it? Why not steer well clear? Seem friendly/helpful and buy goodwill I suppose?

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

Rippling has received the money, and it then disappeared while in Rippling's account.

If Rippling can get their customers to somehow get that money out and wire it again, Rippling may not be on the hook for replacing the missing money.

[maxerickson]

It's Rippling's account at SVB. They literally can't steer clear of the transfers.