Aus:
The Money Market Review, 31. August 1867. S. 223/224.
Schließen

The New Act (1867) to amend „The Companies Act“ 1862.

 Zusammenfassender Kommentar von Marx.
Schließen Dieser miserable bungling act erlaubt keiner Co. ihr ihre nominellen shares herabzusetzen, ohne durch Chancery Court (Winding up) zu gehn. Dank dem Lord Overstone, as leader of a knot of 16 lords, verwarf das Oberhaus 1866 Milner Gibson’s (then President of Board of Trade) rationelles Amendment, wodurch die ganze Sache ohne Kosten etc mit Board of Trade abgemacht werden konnte.

 Zusatz von Marx.
Schließen Zweitens, was fraudulenten Schwindelcharakter betrifft, enthält nur den silly Paragraph, daß die „dates and names of parties to any contract be entered into prospectus, or the promoters, directors, or trustees thereof, before the issue of such prospectus or notice.“ It does not require that the subject matter of the contract should be stated, nor that the subject matter should have any relation to the business or purpose of the Co., or its undertaking.  Zusatz von Marx.
Schließen Ferner heißts in dieser Klausel: „and any prospectus or notice not specifying the same (names and dates) shall be deemed fraudulent on the part of the promoters, directors, and officers of the Co. knowingly issuing the same, as regards any person taking shares in the Co. on the faith of such prospectus, unless he shall have had notice of such contract.“

Secretaries, clerks, or officers may know that there are such contracts, but not know the dates or names of the parties. Ferner, what is to constitute, für die shareholders, |271 notice of such contracts? The only notice of such contracts which the statute requires is notice of their dates and the names of the parties to them, without any knowledge of their substance or contents.  Kommentar von Marx.
Schließen Silly nonsense!

---

The Judgment of the Lords in the Overends Case (für die Creditors) (Money Market Review Aug. 31, 1867)

Aus:
The Money Market Review, 31. August 1867. S. 232.
Schließen Consecrates fraud. The argument that shareholders under such circumstances must be held liable is tantamount to saying that a man must pay a cheque stolen from him because a creditor of the thief should plead that he parted with property of on the strength of the drawer’s name, and that therefore the drawer had no right to stop payment at the bank it was drawn upon.

Aus:
The Money Market Review, 31. August 1867. S. 232.
Schließen Das motive der lordships was fear – the fear of consequences – the fear that the joint-stock system could not bear the test of justice, but that, like Satan at the touch of the angel’s spear, it must appear in all its corrupt deformity, and that creditors – that terrible bugbear at which justice itself turns pale – must be satisfied at all cost. Truly, Englishmen may well deserve the title of a money-getting race, in the most offensive sense of the term, when the socalled rights of creditors are assisted to ride rough-shod over every other equities by the highest judicial tribunal in the land. Aber ihr Lordships „rewarded by the almost unanimous recommendations of the press“.

 Kommentar von Marx.
Schließen Der Case war sehr simple. Nach dem Limited Liability Act of 1862 hat der creditor no hold on the personal shareholder, sondern nur auf den corporate body, die Co. Nun sagten die shareholders – dieß war die question – sie seien nicht members dieser fraudulenten Co, die ursprünglich nur aus den 7 Directoren bestand. Die shareholders hatten keinen Ertrag erhalten, die creditors ihr eingezahltes Kapital bereits gefressen. Die Co. war bankrott, bei ihrem Beginn (eh shareholders drin waren) July 1865 so gut wie May 1866. Mit ganz wenigen Ausnahmen alle Creditors waren die identical creditors der old firm. Sie wurden also durch den fraud – nach dem Judgment erst des Malins, dann der Lords, bezahlt, und steckten vielleicht mit in dem Hokus Pokus! Die Presse war fast ganz gekauft, Times und Economist an der Spitze, durch die creditors. Dieß Urtheil zugleich gegen die durch die Lords selbst anerkannten Precedents!

---

Aus:
The Money Market Review, 31. August 1867. S. 227.
Schließen Diese 4 law lords have decided that contracts induced by fraud are binding obligations upon the party defrauded. Dieß war absichtliche perversion, kept up im judgment durch deliberate perversion of facts and cases, garbled quotations of previous decisions, and the wholesale suppression of adverse judgments, sogar in derselben Parlamentssitzung gefällt von denselben Lords und andern.

---

Aus:
The Money Market Review, 7. September 1867. S. 262/263.
Schließen Untainted Creditors had no place in the record; at all events, the liquidators had not proved a single claim as being extraneous to the fraud itself; neither creditors nor liquidators had alleged that Mr. Oakes’s £1250 on his 25 shares, or even Mr. Peek’s £100,000 on his 2,000 shares, would be required for paying to Oppenheim and others 20s. in the pound, with interest.  Zusatz von Marx.
Schließen Oakes und Peeks Peek waren die 2 contributories, welche die Sache vor Gericht bis zum Last Appellate Court der Lords brachten.

---