Search

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents the DCT v. Rennie Produce (Aust) Pty Ltd. court case which dealt the interaction between the statutory power that is conferred to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 on the Commissioner by s 353-10 of Schedule 1 in Australia in 2018. The courts have developed rules to the impact that information which is not in the public domain and was attained by subpoena or discovery cannot be used for ulterior or collateral unrelated to proceedings.

The investment securities portion of this year's Uniform Commercial Code Survey begins with two cases involving security interests but is dominated by a unique and fascinating case implicating judgment creditors' rights in the indirect holding system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to provide some guidance to practitioners and the judiciary in both Australia and New Zealand on the vital question: when is a sale in the 'ordinary course of business' for the purposes of the Personal Property Securities Acts of Australia and New Zealand? It is not uncommon for the courts to say that in any given case this is a question of fact. But, while not denying the importance of the particular factual circumstances in issue, the author seeks to demonstrate that the analysis will be facilitated by adopting a structured approach that initially recognises the primacy of security interests and that follows sound legal principles developed by the North American courts. Differences between the Australian and New Zealand legislative provisions are analysed to determine whether they lead to different outcomes on either side of the Tasman. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the laws regarding financial collateral (FC) agreements and financial regulations in Spain as of October 2012, focusing on the practical application of the nation's laws in Spanish courts, as well as an analysis of the role of FC regulations in a civil law system. Spanish insolvency law is also addressed in relation to FC agreements.

The article aims to understand the doctrine of equitable subrogation as it functions within the context of mortgage refinancings in the U.S., outlining the basic mechanics of mortgages, mortgage recordation, and foreclosures as well as title searches and priority. It describes the development of equitable subrogation in order to identify the historical purpose and scope of equitable subrogation. It recommends a comprehensive reading of major New York cases to determine factors implicitly considered by New York courts in deciding when to use equitable subrogation.

This article considers judicial responses to the use of ‘bright line’ rules in social security law. It analyses, within the framework of judicial deference, the receptiveness of the judiciary to an argument by the executive that a rule is justified as being administratively convenient to operate. The article questions the proposition that the judiciary is at its most deferential when complex issues of socio-economic policy or resource allocation are raised in the context of social security law. A contrast is drawn between cases involving an issue of statutory interpretation and those applying a proportionality test. The article tests the presumption that a difference in approach should be discernable in these two situations. It concludes by criticising the courts for failing to articulate clearly the values at stake and by arguing for the need for greater transparency and a broader public debate concerning the use of bright line rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Bar Review is the property of Canadian Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses some new legal cases of the United States. In a suit to enforce a lien given by a State statute, for repairs to a vessel, held, that the transaction is maritime in its nature and the State courts have not jurisdiction. The Constitution of the United States, article 3, section 2, declares that " the judicial power shall extend to all cases in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." An act of Congress provides that the district courts of the United States shall have-exclusive jurisdiction of such causes. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has since held that although the State legislatures may regulate the rights of material-men furnishing necessaries to vessels, so long as Congress does not interpose to regulate the subject, yet State law cannot take the contract out of the exclusive domain of admiralty jurisdiction.

The article reports that the Court of Appeals of Texas for Eastland County, Texas considered an issue of first impression for Texas. Topics include the issue was whether the holder of a prior perfected security interest waives its right to collateral by failing to take affirmative action prior to a junior creditor exercising rights on the same collateral.

The article discusses the Great Britain High Court's ruling in the 2012 case In the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) which deals with an extended liens appeal, British securities law, and security interests. Other topics include the nation's Financial Collateral Arrangements (No. 2) Regulations 2003, Master Custody Agreements, and bilateral agreements. Trust and fiduciary relationships are also examined.

Discusses the issue of whether a court of appeal has authority to order not only security for costs for the appeal, but also security for the costs of trial. Court case that triggered the question regarding security for costs; Information on the court case.

The article discusses a lawsuit and a legislative bill related to the courts in the U.S. Under Senate Bill No. 73, Acts 1911, which went into effect March 4, 1911, providing that a petition by an appealing defendant to be admitted to bail pending appeal may be filed either in the trial court or in the appellate court, where a petitioner exercised an election and applied to the trial court and was denied bail, he, could not present the same question to the Supreme Court except by appeal. The lawsuit discussed is Commonwealth v. Rusic.

The article presents information about Sommer versus Anthony J. Quarant Contracting Inc. case from New York. Where a contractor filed a notice of lien and demanded arbitration, the Appellate Division reversed a trial court stay of arbitration finding no waiver of the right to arbitrate or election of inconsistent remedies. The parties had agreed to arbitrate and the contractor also agreed to waive the right to file a lien but when a dispute arose the contractor filed notice of a mechanic's lien and later served a demand for arbitration. The trial court stayed the arbitration and the Appellate Division reversed finding that while under older decisions the filing of a lien was deemed a waiver, the decisions had been nullified by statutory amendments which expressly provide a notice of lien. While courts of the state had frequently continued to find a waiver, the court found those decisions incorrect. Considering the agreement to waive the right to file a lien, the court concluded that it did not engraft on exception to the lien law provision and the appellant, at most, breached his contract.