- •Contents
- •Preface
- •Table of legislation
- •Table of cases
- •Introduction
- •1.1 Convergence
- •1.2 Path-dependence
- •1.2.1 Politics
- •1.2.2 Economics
- •1.2.3 Culture
- •1.2.4 Social and commercial norms
- •1.2.5 Legal mentalities
- •1.3 Functional convergence
- •1.4 Summary of the analysis
- •2 Paper transfers
- •2.1 The historic starting point
- •2.2 Law and equity
- •2.3 Legal title and registration
- •2.4 Equitable title
- •2.4.1 Equity and transfers of registered securities
- •2.4.2 Legal nature of an equitable (beneficial) interest
- •2.4.3 Acquisition of an equitable (beneficial) interest
- •2.4.4 Equitable title and specific performance
- •2.4.4.1 Enforceable contract
- •2.4.4.2 Claimant must be ready and willing to perform
- •2.4.4.3 Specific or ascertained assets
- •2.4.4.4 Damages are an inadequate remedy
- •2.4.4.5 Conclusions
- •2.4.5 Equitable title on appropriation of securities and payment of purchase price
- •2.4.6 Equitable title on delivery of transfer documents
- •2.4.7 Express trusts
- •2.4.8 Conclusions
- •2.5 Summary of the analysis
- •3 Dematerialisation
- •3.1 Talisman
- •3.2 The need for reform
- •3.3 CREST
- •3.3.1 Introduction
- •3.3.2 Legal title
- •3.3.3 Equitable title
- •3.3.4 Conclusions
- •3.4 The 2001 reforms
- •3.4.1 Introduction
- •3.4.2.1 Effect of entries on registers: shares
- •3.4.2.2 Effect of entries on registers: public sector securities, corporate securities other than shares
- •3.4.2.3 Conclusions
- •3.4.3 Legal title
- •3.4.4 Equitable title
- •3.4.5 Conclusions
- •3.5 Summary of the analysis
- •4 Impact on the institutional framework
- •5 Defective issues
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Novation
- •5.2.1 Novation by operation of law
- •5.2.2 Novation by contract
- •5.2.3 Novation as a fiction
- •5.3 Defective issues and estoppel
- •5.4 Securities as negotiable rights
- •5.5 Summary of the analysis
- •6 Unauthorised transfers
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 Certificated securities and estoppel
- •6.2.1 Restoration of the legal owner’s name on the register
- •6.2.2 Liability of the issuer
- •6.2.3 Liability of the person who instructed the issuer to amend the register
- •6.2.4 Conclusions
- •6.3 Uncertificated securities and estoppel
- •6.3.1 Restoration of the legal owner’s name on the register
- •6.3.2 CRESTCo’s liability for forged instructions
- •6.3.3 Liability of the issuer
- •6.3.4 Securities as negotiable rights
- •6.3.5 Conclusions
- •6.4 Summary of the analysis
- •7 Indirect holdings
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Certainty of intention
- •7.3 Certainty of subject matter
- •7.3.1 Tangible goods
- •7.3.2 Registered securities
- •7.3.3 Analysis
- •7.3.3.1 Academic commentators
- •7.3.3.2 US authority
- •7.3.3.3 Policy considerations
- •7.3.3.4 Law reform
- •7.3.4 Conclusions
- •7.4 Summary of the analysis
- •8 Conclusions on English law
- •9 The historic starting point
- •9.1 Securities as intangibles
- •9.2 Shortcomings of the law of assignment
- •9.3 Theories overcoming the law of assignment
- •9.3.1 Nature of the instrument
- •9.3.2 Contract
- •9.3.3 Transfer by novation
- •9.3.4 Conclusions
- •9.4 Securities as tangibles
- •9.5 Summary of the analysis
- •10 Paper transfers
- •10.1 Transfer of ownership
- •10.1.1 German Law
- •10.1.2 Austrian law
- •10.1.3 Conclusions
- •10.2 Unauthorised transfers
- •10.2.1 Introduction
- •10.2.2 German law
- •10.2.3 Austrian law
- •10.2.4 Conclusions
- •10.3 Defective issues
- •10.3.1 German law
- •10.3.2 Austrian law
- •10.3.3 Conclusions
- •10.4 Summary of the analysis
- •11 Impact on the institutional framework
- •11.1 Indirect holdings
- •11.2 Immobilisation
- •11.3 Global certificates
- •11.4 Government bonds
- •11.5 Summary of the analysis
- •12 Immobilisation and its legal analysis
- •12.1 Genesis of the statutory regime
- •12.1.1 1896 German statute
- •12.1.2 Depotgesetz 1937
- •12.2 Relationship between clients and their intermediary
- •12.3 Co-ownership
- •12.4 Transfer of co-ownership
- •12.4.1 Introduction
- •12.4.2 Depotgesetz
- •12.4.3 German property law
- •12.4.4 Global certificates and Government bonds
- •12.4.5 German Government bonds
- •12.4.6 Austrian law
- •12.4.7 Conclusions
- •12.5 Unauthorised transfers
- •12.5.1 German law
- •12.5.2 Austrian law
- •12.5.3 Conclusions
- •12.6 Defective issues
- •12.7 Summary of the analysis
- •13 Evidence of convergence?
- •16 Legal doctrine and market infrastructure
- •17 Implications for convergence
- •17.1 UNIDROIT draft Convention
- •17.2 EU Legal Certainty Project
- •Select bibliography
- •Index
I N D I R E C T H O L D I N G S |
139 |
favour. For that to occur the securities to which the trust relates need to be identified. When securities are held in pooled accounts, an investor will acquire equitable ownership in the securities when the bulk of which the securities form part has been identified; it is not necessary for the intermediary to segregate specific securities out of that bulk and to appropriate them to the investor.
7.4 Summary of the analysis
The purpose of this chapter was to determine the circumstances in which investors who do not wish to hold securities directly have property rights in the securities that they hold through intermediaries.
In England, the law of trust operates as the tool through which investors are able to avail themselves of proprietary rights in indirectly held securities. An investor holds a proprietary interest in securities held on her behalf by an intermediary if a trust has been established in her favour by the intermediary. This proprietary interest is enforceable in the intermediary’s insolvency and prevails over charging orders issued by general creditors of the intermediary. It subsides only if legal title to the securities is transferred to a purchaser in good faith and for value.
Under the trust law analysis, the intermediary holds legal title and the investor holds equitable title to the securities. If securities are held through a chain of multiple intermediaries, the ultimate investor’s immediate intermediary does not hold legal title because its name is not entered in the securities register. Instead the investor’s immediate intermediary holds equitable title securities held by another intermediary on its behalf. In these circumstances, the ultimate intermediary holds an equitable title to the entitlement held by its immediate intermediary.
England is in the process of introducing law reform clarifying property rights in relation to securities held by intermediaries. The proposals put forward in this context are based upon the analysis currently adopted by English law. No attempt has been made to create a system for indirect holdings of securities that would operate according to rules that are independent of the current legal analysis; this is evidence that English law is likely to continue its path-dependent development.
It will be shown in part II that both German and Austrian law enable investors who hold securities indirectly through intermediaries to enjoy property rights in these securities. German and Austrian law use
140 E N G L I S H L A W
a different legal doctrine to achieve this result.54 Nevertheless, in terms of outcomes, the level of protection in the three jurisdictions is similar. Under both approaches investors hold property rights to securities that have preferred status in the intermediary’s insolvency and that take priority over claims raised by the intermediaries’ unsecured creditors. One difference between English law, on the one hand, and German and Austrian law, on the other, is the point in time at which the respective property rights arise. In English law, assuming that the underlying documentation does not regulate the matter differently, the buyer acquires equitable title to securities when the requirements imposed by the three certainties have been satisfied. This frequently occurs before the securities have been credited to the buyer’s account.55 In Germany and in Austria, co-ownership to securities usually passes to the buyer when the securities are credited to her account.
54See section 12.3.
55Law Commission, Project on Intermediated Investment Securities, Second Seminar 25.