Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
where it might be interesting: | where it might be interesting: | ||
*{{casenote|Secure Capital|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 CRTPA provision excludes the right of the end noteholder (in the clearing systems) to sue the issuer. | *{{casenote|Secure Capital|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 CRTPA provision excludes the right of the end noteholder (in the clearing systems) to sue the issuer. Held: end noteholder could not pursue the issuer directly. | ||
{{egg}}{{draft}} | {{egg}}{{draft}} | ||
Revision as of 17:27, 30 October 2017
It is now lost in the mists of time, but once upon a time there must have been a reason why the international capital markets was so collectively hostile to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
Most likely the lawyer’s instinctive, huffy, reactionary petulance — which (while poor) was understandable in 1999, but ladies and gentlemen, come on: haven't we grown out of that now?
Nonetheless, the great canon of capital markets boilerplate is shot through with hostility to this poor act. There's Para 27.10 of the 2010 GMSLA for example: the very last paragraph, when all else is said and done, they knife the poor CRTPA just when, perhaps, it thought it had got away with it.
where it might be interesting:
- 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 CRTPA provision excludes the right of the end noteholder (in the clearing systems) to sue the issuer. Held: end noteholder could not pursue the issuer directly.