Secure Capital v Credit Suisse: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cn}}In {{ | {{cn}}In {{cite|Secure Capital|Credit Suisse|2017|EWCA(Civ)|1486}} a [[bearer security]] held as a [[global note]] by a [[common depositary]] on behalf of [[Clearing system|clearing systems]] which has a [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] provision excluding the right of the end [[noteholder]] (in the [[clearing system]]s) to sue the issuer is enforceable according to its terms. The [[governing law]] is the law in which the [[contract]] is expressed to be governed and not that where the instrument happens to be situated (in this case in a clearing system in [[Luxembourg]]). | ||
Interesting observation re [[privity]] though: the direct custodian, who ''would'' be able to sue, would not suffer a loss because of its back-to-back custodial relationship with the client. Therefore, even if it did sue, it would not be able to prove any loss. | Interesting observation re [[privity]] though: the direct [[custodian]], who ''would'' be able to sue, would not suffer a [[loss]] because of its back-to-back custodial relationship with the client. Therefore, even if it did sue, it would not be able to prove any loss. | ||
:''56. The only justification advanced by Secure Capital is that, unless the law of the settlement system is identified as the proper law, there will be no-one able to recover substantial damages in | :''56. The only justification advanced by Secure Capital is that, unless the law of the settlement system is identified as the proper law, there will be no-one able to recover substantial damages in [[contract]] for breach of the [[Negligent misstatement|misleading statements]] term, thus creating a [[lacuna]] and conferring immunity on Credit Suisse as the issuer. I emphasise “in [[contract]]” because it is not suggested that a claim in [[tort]], if sustainable, would be similarly barred.'' <br> | ||
So wait, ''what''? The court is basically acknowledging that it is impossible for ''anyone'' to recover in contract for a breach of a bearer security held in a clearance system, since the proximate holder is obliged only to pass on to the ultimate holder what it receives, so it is | So wait, ''what''? The court is basically acknowledging that it is impossible for ''anyone'' to recover in contract for a breach of a [[bearer security]] held in a [[clearance system]], since the proximate holder is obliged only to pass on to the ultimate holder what it receives, so it is “perfectly hedged", and the ultimate holder is excluded from benefit by dint of the market-standard [[CRTPA]] disclaimer. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/1486.html Judgment transcript] | |||
*[[Privity of contract]] | *[[Privity of contract]] | ||
*[[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] | *[[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] | ||
*[[Negligent misstatement]] | *[[Negligent misstatement]] | ||
{{ref}} | |||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
In Secure Capital v Credit Suisse [2017] EWCA(Civ) 1486 a bearer security held as a global note by a common depositary on behalf of clearing systems which has a Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 provision excluding the right of the end noteholder (in the clearing systems) to sue the issuer is enforceable according to its terms. The governing law is the law in which the contract is expressed to be governed and not that where the instrument happens to be situated (in this case in a clearing system in Luxembourg).
Interesting observation re privity though: the direct custodian, who would be able to sue, would not suffer a loss because of its back-to-back custodial relationship with the client. Therefore, even if it did sue, it would not be able to prove any loss.
- 56. The only justification advanced by Secure Capital is that, unless the law of the settlement system is identified as the proper law, there will be no-one able to recover substantial damages in contract for breach of the misleading statements term, thus creating a lacuna and conferring immunity on Credit Suisse as the issuer. I emphasise “in contract” because it is not suggested that a claim in tort, if sustainable, would be similarly barred.
So wait, what? The court is basically acknowledging that it is impossible for anyone to recover in contract for a breach of a bearer security held in a clearance system, since the proximate holder is obliged only to pass on to the ultimate holder what it receives, so it is “perfectly hedged", and the ultimate holder is excluded from benefit by dint of the market-standard CRTPA disclaimer.
See also
- [Judgment transcript
- Privity of contract
- Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
- Negligent misstatement