Secure Capital v Credit Suisse: Difference between revisions

Secure Capital v Credit Suisse (view source)

Revision as of 14:52, 4 March 2021

5 bytes removed , 4 March 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

Revision as of 14:50, 4 March 2021 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 14:52, 4 March 2021 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{cn}}In {{~~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 system\|clearing systems]] which has a [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] provision excluding the right of the end [[noteholder]] (in the [[clearing system]]s) to sue the issuer is enforceable according to its terms. The [[governing law]] is the law in which the {{tag\|contract}} is expressed to be governed and not that where the instrument happens to be situated (in this case in a clearing system in {{t\|Luxembourg}}).		{{cn}}In {{cite\|Secure Capital\|Credit Suisse\|2017\|EWCA(Civ)\|1486}}: A [[bearer security]] held as a [[global note]] by a [[common depositary]] on behalf of [[Clearing system\|clearing systems]] which has a [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] provision excluding the right of the end [[noteholder]] (in the [[clearing system]]s) to sue the issuer is enforceable according to its terms. The [[governing law]] is the law in which the {{tag\|contract}} is expressed to be governed and not that where the instrument happens to be situated (in this case in a clearing system in {{t\|Luxembourg}}).

	Interesting observation re [[privity]] though: the direct custodian, who ''would'' be able to sue, would not suffer a loss because of its back-to-back custodial relationship with the client. Therefore, even if it did sue, it would not be able to prove any loss.		Interesting observation re [[privity]] though: the direct custodian, who ''would'' be able to sue, would not suffer a loss because of its back-to-back custodial relationship with the client. Therefore, even if it did sue, it would not be able to prove any loss.