MMI were members of the London Stock Exchange, and accordingly held one share in that non-profit making institution. The share was valueless. Anticipating losing their membership and so the share, and also the demutualisation, the share was to be transferred to a third party. At that point it would become worth andpound;3 million. Because the ownership of the share was merely an incident of membership, there was no conflict between the rules which deprived it both of membership and the share, and the rules which invalidated the transfer of assets of an insolvent person. Until the de-mutualisation, the share remained worthless, and the insolvency rules did not bite.
Judges:
Neuberger J
Citations:
[2002] 1 WLR 1150, [2001] EWHC 1052 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bombay Official Assignee v Shroff PC 1932
The bankrupt had been a member of the Bombay stock exchange. His share had been forfeit. The trustee claimed the share. The official assignee contended that his members card or the value thereof vested in him as the assignee in the insolvency, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
Complex financial instruments insured the indebtedness of Lehman Brothers. On that company’s insolvency a claim was made. It was said that provisions in the documents offended the rule against the anti-deprivation rule. The courts below had upheld . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Financial Services, Insolvency, Contract
Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.166178