Search

The following paper deals with the national law in England, Scotland and Germany governing real securities over land. After an introduction (under I) a short outline over the generally possible interests in land and their protection within the three considered legal systems follows (under II) to allow a better understanding of some special terms. A brief comparison concludes this overview. In the main part (under III) the different types and contents of real securities over land are shown, compared and discussed. Especially their technical construction (under 1), the English equitable mortgages and charges over legal interests in land (under 2), other rights in land, such as the English equitable interests in land, as security (under 3) and the possibility of a conveyance of land as security (under 4) are examined. Here it is focused especially on the law's consideration of the arising practical needs and interests of mortgagor/chargor and mortgagee/chargee as well as on the systematical clearness of the law. In the final conclusion (under IV) it is pointed out that within the rules governing real securities over land there are similarities as well as differences between the three legal systems. However the differences partly result from general phenomena which are sometimes deeply rooted in the legal system. Since their harmonisation does not seem probable in the near future the creation of a special international 'land charge or mortgage' is finally recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the belief of industry professionals in London, England that expensive basis sway costs could posed a challenge to certain British asset-backed securities and residential mortgage-backed securities issuers considering to offer paper in euros in 2012. According to an RMBS investor, the three-year swap from British pound into euros will cost nearly 45-50 basis points. Information on the impact of pound-to-dollar basis swap costs is given.

Reports on the call headteachers for government to increase securities to parents who bully teachers in England. Rules parents right to enter school premises; Regulations for health and safety on teachers; Assurance of teacher victims for legal assistance.

Information regarding the 2012 Data Explorers London Securities Financing Forum, held in London, England on July 17 is presented. Topics include how the securities finance chain can deal with the economic environment, the launch of central counterparties (CCPs), and collateral rules and trade depositories. The forum featured several investment advisors including David Mackie of JPMorgan and Chase Co., Joyce Martindale of RPMI Railpen, and Stefan Kaiser of BlackRock Inc.

The English law of security has been blighted by the "Charge Card" case, decided in 1986. However, in Morris versus Agrichemicals, at the end of October 1997, the House of Lords restated the applicable law. In "Charge Card," Millett J. indicated that a bank could not take a charge over money placed with it to secure the depositor liabilities to the bank. He said that such a charge-back was "conceptually impossible". The reason he gave was that you could not have a proprietary interest in a debt that you owe someone else, even though the bank could take a charge over a deposit by the depositor with another bank. Millett J. thought he was doing banks a favour: if they could take a charge, it would have to be registered at Companies House to take effect against other creditors of the depositor. All charges over deposits would therefore have to be registered. However, most banking lawyers disputed the logic of his judgment. When the Legal Risk Review Committee was set up in 1991 by the Bank of England, to identify areas of uncertainty and obscurity in the law affecting financial markets, a large number of submissions concerned "Charge Card."