82,891
edits
Re Lehman Brothers International: Difference between revisions
Re Lehman Brothers International (view source)
Revision as of 17:49, 18 January 2018
, 18 January 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cite1|Re Lehman Brothers International|2012|EWHC|2997}} | {{cite1|Re Lehman Brothers International|2012|EWHC|2997}} | ||
A case on the practical limitations of spraying | :''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 "[[fixed charge]]", or even [[floating charge]], for that matter — over all your documents. | |||
It was common ground between counsel that rights properly classified in English law as a general lien were incapable of application to anything other than tangibles and old-fashioned certificated securities. | |||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||
*[[Fixed charge]] | *[[Fixed charge]] | ||