IANAL, but all of this probably depends on a tiny detail: did Revlon instruct Citibank to pay the $176.2 million to Brigade Capital?

(1) If the answer is yes, then this qualifies as a payment instruction. In a payment instruction, a bank sends someone money on behalf of the payer and in return claims that amount from the payer. In that case, citibank would have to recover the 176.2 million from Revlon.

(2) If the answer is no and citibank sent out the money by mistake without having been instructed to do so, it should be able to reclaim it from Brigade Capital.

The article mentions that citibank never deducted the paid amount from Revlon's account. This would hint at option (2) being the case.