- •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
192 G E R M A N A N D A U S T R I A N L A W
11.5 Summary of the analysis
In this chapter, two conclusions were drawn from the discussion of the impact legal doctrine has had on the institutional setup of market infrastructure providers.
The first was that the German and Austrian rules protecting purchasers against adverse claims arising out of unauthorised transfers created an incentive for investors to prevent documents from disappearing out of their possession. This created a demand for depository services in the German and Austrian market. This demand was met by the German and Austrian banks, which developed specialised depository services. The second was that the doctrinal framework that governed paper transfer of securities had an impact on the way in which paper certificates were eliminated from transfers in Germany and Austria. The legal doctrine underlying securities in both jurisdictions is based on the normative assumptions that the special rules that govern transfers of securities are applied because securities are tangibles. From that legal scholarship derives the conclusion that if securities are not classified as tangibles, these special rules cannot be applied. Instead, securities transfers would have to be governed by the law of assignment. To prevent this from happening, it would be possible to draft a special regime that applied to securities transfer irrespective of how they were classified. It would also have been possible for German and Austrian law to build on the rules that were in place for Government bonds for which no paper certificates existed.
This option was, however, not adopted. Instead, securities certificates were eliminated from the transfer process by putting them out of circulation (immobilisation) rather than by abolishing them (dematerialisation). The prevailing view was that it was of crucial importance that the legal analysis which governed paper securities continued to be applied even in an environment in which paper certificate had ceased to perform their original function of transferring the entitlement embodied in them. As a result, the German and Austrian market put in place central depositories.
Following the analysis of the process that led to immobilisation in Germany and Austria contained in this chapter, chapter 12 will focus on the legal analysis of immobilised securities.