82,882
edits
Re Lehman Brothers International: Difference between revisions
Re Lehman Brothers International (view source)
Revision as of 18:15, 18 January 2018
, 18 January 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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|Two unusual features lie at the heart of the issues. | {{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. | 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. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
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.</small>}} | ||
====Does the chargee have to be the creditor, or a fiduciary of the creditor?==== | ====Does the chargee have to be the creditor, or a fiduciary of the creditor?==== | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:''I can see no good reason why A should not confer a specifically enforceable right on B to have A’s property [[Appropriation|appropriated]] towards the discharge of a debt which A (or someone else) owes C, without any requirement that B be C’s [[trustee]] or [[fiduciary]]. B may have good business or personal reasons to wish to ensure that A pays his debt to C, and I cannot see why the law should prevent B taking an enforceable (and therefore [[proprietary interest|proprietary]]) interest in A’s property so as to give himself the power to achieve that objective, without making himself a [[trustee]] or [[fiduciary]] for C.'' — Para 44. | :''I can see no good reason why A should not confer a specifically enforceable right on B to have A’s property [[Appropriation|appropriated]] towards the discharge of a debt which A (or someone else) owes C, without any requirement that B be C’s [[trustee]] or [[fiduciary]]. B may have good business or personal reasons to wish to ensure that A pays his debt to C, and I cannot see why the law should prevent B taking an enforceable (and therefore [[proprietary interest|proprietary]]) interest in A’s property so as to give himself the power to achieve that objective, without making himself a [[trustee]] or [[fiduciary]] for C.'' — Para 44. | ||
====[[Financial Collateral Arrangement (No.2) Regulations 2003|Financial Collateral]]==== | |||
There is a looooong discussion about the [[FCAR]]s. Best if you read it. | |||
===Trivia=== | ===Trivia=== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||
*[[Fixed charge]] | *[[Fixed charge]] | ||
*{{casenote1|Re Spectrum Plus}} | *{{casenote1|Re Spectrum Plus}}, whose findings on the need for control to make a [[fixed charge]] this case endorsed. | ||
*[[cave verba magicae]] | *[[cave verba magicae]] | ||