Re Lehman Brothers International: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:''It is as I have said common ground that, if the security rights are charges at all, they are floating charges. No one has advanced the argument that they merely create flawed assets in the hands of LBF as their primary case. It is advanced mainly as a fallback riposte to LBF’s case that the purported grant of a security right to a grantee other than the grantor’s creditor is conceptually incapable of being a charge, unless supported by a fiduciary obligation of the grantee to exercise it for the creditor’s benefit.'' — Briggs J <br> | :''It is as I have said common ground that, if the security rights are charges at all, they are floating charges. No one has advanced the argument that they merely create flawed assets in the hands of LBF as their primary case. It is advanced mainly as a fallback riposte to LBF’s case that the purported grant of a security right to a grantee other than the grantor’s creditor is conceptually incapable of being a charge, unless supported by a fiduciary obligation of the grantee to exercise it for the creditor’s benefit.'' — Briggs J <br> | ||
A case on the practical limitations of spraying the expression | A case on the practical limitations of spraying the expression “[[fixed charge]]”, or even “[[floating charge]]”, for that matter — over all your documents. | ||
If you de-pomposify the language of the introduction <ref>the expurgated words being: “appearing in both the documents most, but by no means all, of which I am invited to decide, in each case, purport to thereby created attendant in fact, as the parties would have known when the documents were created, of LBF to which the security related,from time to time intangibles, mainly in addition to purporting to create security for payment of debts owed by LBF to LBIE, constitute security in respect of (if arguably imprecisely) within the Lehman Brothers group , at least in express terms, but relationship between LBIE and its affiliates be obliged to as between LBIE and its affiliates”</ref> the issue is this: | If you de-pomposify the language of the introduction <ref>the expurgated words being: “appearing in both the documents most, but by no means all, of which I am invited to decide, in each case, purport to thereby created attendant in fact, as the parties would have known when the documents were created, of LBF to which the security related,from time to time intangibles, mainly in addition to purporting to create security for payment of debts owed by LBF to LBIE, constitute security in respect of (if arguably imprecisely) within the Lehman Brothers group, at least in express terms, but relationship between LBIE and its affiliates be obliged to as between LBIE and its affiliates”</ref> the issue is this: | ||
{{box| | {{box| | ||