Re Lehman Brothers International: Difference between revisions

Line 10:

{{box|Two unusual features lie at the heart of the issues.

The first is that the documents describe the security as a “general lien” with rights of retention, sale and the application of proceeds, whereas the vast bulk of the property held by LBIE, consisted of de-materialised securities and money.

The first is that the documents describe the security as a “general lien” with rights of retention, sale and the application of proceeds, whereas the vast bulk of the property held by LBIE, consisted of de-materialised securities and money.

The second is that, the same provisions purported also to secure debts owed by LBF to a broadly defined class of LBIE’s affiliates without creating any agency or trust regulating the circumstances in which LBIE might realise the security for the benefit of its affiliates, or the priority in the application of any proceeds of such realisation.

The second is that, the same provisions purported also to secure debts owed by LBF to a broadly defined class of LBIE’s affiliates without creating any agency or trust regulating the circumstances in which LBIE might realise the security for the benefit of its affiliates, or the priority in the application of any proceeds of such realisation.

This application has come to be known as the [[Extended liens|Extended Liens]] application.}}

This application has come to be known as the [[Extended liens|Extended Liens]] application.}}

====Does the chargee have to be the creditor, or a fiduciary of the creditor?====

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 {{box|<small>Two unusual features lie at the heart of the issues.
-The first is that the documents describe the security as a “general lien” with rights of retention, sale and the application of proceeds, whereas the vast bulk of the property  held by LBIE, consisted of de-materialised securities and money.
+<small>The first is that the documents describe the security as a “general lien” with rights of retention, sale and the application of proceeds, whereas the vast bulk of the property  held by LBIE, consisted of de-materialised securities and money.
-The second is that, the same provisions purported also to secure debts owed by LBF to a broadly defined class of LBIE’s affiliates without creating any agency or trust regulating the circumstances in which LBIE might realise the security for the benefit of its affiliates, or the priority in the application of any proceeds of such realisation.
+<small>The second is that, the same provisions purported also to secure debts owed by LBF to a broadly defined class of LBIE’s affiliates without creating any agency or trust regulating the circumstances in which LBIE might realise the security for the benefit of its affiliates, or the priority in the application of any proceeds of such realisation.
-This application has come to be known as the [[Extended liens|Extended Liens]] application.</small>}}
+<small>This application has come to be known as the [[Extended liens|Extended Liens]] application.</small>}}
 ====Does the chargee have to be the creditor, or a fiduciary of the creditor?====

Re Lehman Brothers International: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Search