82,910
edits
Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|rep|}}{{cite|Hazell|Hammersmith and Fulham LBC|1992|2AC1}} declared that local authorities had no power to engage in interest rate swap agreements beca...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*“'''Re-profiling'''”: Swaps relating to an existing loan, intended to alter the proportion of the interest which was paid on either a fixed or variable basis. Lord Templeman thought these were largely indistinguishable from parallel contracts. | *“'''Re-profiling'''”: Swaps relating to an existing loan, intended to alter the proportion of the interest which was paid on either a fixed or variable basis. Lord Templeman thought these were largely indistinguishable from parallel contracts. | ||
Having almost immediately stated that all swaps were, in his view, conceptually the same as the types of swap which the banks had admitted were unlawful, Lord Templeman then explored the limits of the powers of local authorities under the Local Government Act 1972. Again, cutting to the chase, he said, “In the result, I am of the opinion that a local authority has no power to enter into a swap transaction.” | Having almost immediately stated that all swaps were, in his view, conceptually the same as the types of swap which the banks had admitted were unlawful, Lord Templeman then explored the limits of the powers of local authorities under the Local Government Act 1972. Again, cutting to the chase, he said, “In the result, I am of the opinion that '''a local authority has no power to enter into a swap transaction'''.” | ||
Ouch ouch ouch, investment banking dudes. | Ouch ouch ouch, investment banking dudes. | ||
Cue a torrent of litigation from local authorities across the land to recover swaps losses. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Capacity and authority]] | *[[Capacity and authority]] | ||