82,891
edits
Secure Capital v Credit Suisse: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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 systems which has a C...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In {{ | {{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. | |||
:''56. The only justification advanced by Secure Capital is that, unless the law of the settlement system is identified as the proper law, there will be no-one able to recover substantial damages in {{t|contract}} for breach of the [[Negligent misstatement|misleading statements]] term, thus creating a [[lacuna]] and conferring immunity on Credit Suisse as the issuer. I emphasise “in {{tag|contract}}” because it is not suggested that a claim in {{t|tort}}, if sustainable, would be similarly barred.'' <br> | |||
So wait, ''what''? The court is basically acknowledging that it is impossible for ''anyone'' to recover in contract for a breach of a [[bearer security]] held in a [[clearance system]], since the proximate holder is obliged only to pass on to the ultimate holder what it receives, so it is “perfectly hedged", and the ultimate holder is excluded from benefit by dint of the market-standard [[CRTPA]] disclaimer. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/1486.html Judgment transcript] | |||
*[[Privity of contract]] | |||
*[[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] | |||
*[[Negligent misstatement]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||