77 Sentences With "beneficial interest" | Random Sentence Generator

Despite nominally ceding control of his business operations to his sons, Mr. Trump has outraged ethics experts who say that retaining a beneficial interest in his company remains a colossal conflict.

The agreement also says no proceeds will go "to any other entity in which President Trump has a direct, indirect or beneficial interest," meaning he would not profit from its operations in any way.

Just days before Daniels filed her lawsuit, CREW had requested that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) look into whether Trump "held a beneficial interest" in a limited liability company that Cohen reportedly used to pay off Daniels.

Santander-Totta will give up on a lawsuit demanding compensation from the state in Portuguese courts and will provide a 2.3 billion euros 15-year loan to the state at a beneficial interest rate that will save Portugal 442 million euros in interest payments over 15 years.

In October, the construction firm announced plans to dispose of a 51 percent beneficial interest and a 45 percent economic interest to Kutana construction, a black women-owned entity, for 756 million rand ($13 million) to help the business become profitable again and introduce a black partner.

Lord Millett's analysis of the Quistclose trust closely mirrored the same approach he had suggested twenty years earlier in an article in the Law Quarterly Review.(1985) 101 LQR 269 He suggested there are four possible answers to the question of the nature of a Quistclose trust. The beneficial interest could lie with (1) the lender, (2) the borrower, (3) an ultimate purpose, and (4) no-one, in the sense that the beneficial interest remains "in suspense". The beneficial interest could not remain in suspense, a purpose trust would be void under English law, and if the borrower held the beneficial interest the remaining money could not go back to the lender.

Browne-Wilkinson LJ held that the building society was entitled to take possession because the lady could show no beneficial interest under a constructive trust that had priority over the building society's interest. Mr Henning never had the intention of giving her a beneficial interest, and without an express or imputed intention, it was impossible to create a common intention constructive trust. Sir John Donaldson MR and Lloyd LJ concurred.

Akers v Samba (SC), at para 85. He referred to El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc [1993] BCC 698, 715-716. The liability of the constructive trustee was unaffected by any issue as to existence of rights in rem. SICL's problem was not that it lacked a beneficial interest in the shares, but that Mr Al-Sanea did not dispose of that beneficial interest by transferring the shares to Samba.

He wanted to inspect all the documents which came into the directors' possession, and claimed to be able to do so by virtue of his large beneficial interest.

However, others point out that there are many resulting trusts whose beneficial interest never leaves the donor, such as the classic example of a trust failing for uncertain objects.

Lord Millett suggests that there are four possible answers: (1) the lender, (2) the borrower, (3) the ultimate purpose and (4) no one in the sense that the beneficial interest remains "in suspense". Lord Millett then analysed all of the foregoing, and determined that the beneficial interest remains with the lender until the purpose for which the funds are lent is fulfilled. The only other reasoned decision was Lord Hoffmann, who agreed with Lord Millett but disagreed as to whether it was an express or resulting trust. Some have suggested that a Quistclose trust is indubitably a trust but would not be a resulting trust as the beneficial interest never 'results back' to the lender; it was with him all the time.

The company then went insolvent. It was also necessary to determine the applicable law. If the clients had a beneficial interest in the shares, it meant that they would not be available for the liquidator.

Despite the objection, Erlam was able to obtain a final charging order on the second property on 29 June 2015. Additionally, an interim charging order was then secured against a property registered solely in Farid's name on the argument that Rahman has a beneficial interest in it. Due to Lutfur Rahman's failure to pay court cost as ordered, and Ayesha Farid's claims of beneficial interest in their properties, Andy Erlam applied for Rahman's asset to be frozen to prevent dissipation in case Farid's claim is upheld.

In common law systems, the resulting trust refers to a subset of trusts which have such outcome; express trusts which stipulate that the settlor is to be the beneficiary are not normally considered resulting trusts.Gardner (Secret trust), An Introduction to the Law of Trusts The beneficial interest results in the settlor, or if the settlor has died the property forms part of the settlor's estate (intestacy). It remains with the person and Re Vandervell case has proven that only the Beneficial interest disappears but not the beneficiary interest.

Neuberger J held that English law applied to the US shares (Australian law to the Australian shares, up to those sold after the 14 July), and the clients did have a beneficial interest, as there was no need to segregate the property. In principle, it was a valid declaration of trust to say that a percentage of shares would be held on trust, as in the Court of Appeal's decision in Hunter v Moss.[1993] EWCA Civ 11, [1994] 1 WLR 452 But here, unidentified shares in a class were being treated as beneficial property. If the correspondence had specified the number of shares, there would have been a beneficial interest.

Edwards (2007) p.109 Under the rule established in Vandervell v IRC,[1967] 1 All ER 1 if the owner of a sole beneficial interest instructs his trustees to transfer the property, and this is done to transfer the beneficial interest and not simply to change the trustees, this does not fall under Section 53(1)(c) and requires no specific formalities.Edwards (2007) p.110 Simply disclaiming a beneficial interest does not fall within Section 53(1)(c), as in Re Paradise Motor Co.[1968] 2 All ER 625 Nominating somebody to receive benefits of a pension fund should the pensioner die is also not a valid disposition, as in Re Danish Bacon Co Ltd Staff Pension Fund,[1971] 1 All ER 486 and neither is nominating a beneficiary under a life insurance policy, as in Gold v Hill.[1999] 1 FLR 54Edwards (2007) p.111 Where a beneficiary declares he is holding the property on behalf of another, this would be the creation of a sub-trust and not subject to specific formalities.

Parke B held that Mr Wilson (and the other defendants) had a beneficial interest in the first type of notes, and were therefore entitled to set them off. But he was not entitled to set off the last-mentioned class, as they held them merely as trustees for others.

The House of Lords held that Mrs Gissing had made no contribution to the house from which a beneficial interest could be inferred. No inference for a common intention to share in the home's equity could be inferred. Lord Reid said the following.[1971] AC 886, 896 Lord Diplock said the following.

The Court of Appeal held that the gift was made to the couple jointly (50:50). This was proof of a common intention to have a beneficial interest. But in quantifying her interest the financial contribution was not the only thing which mattered: the whole course of dealing did. On the facts it was clear that the presumed intention was that she should have an equal share of the beneficial interest. Waite LJ observed that people usually will not talk about legal entitlements to property when young and embarking on a relationship, and says that should not leave them ‘beyond the pale of equity’s assistance’. The parties shared everything equally, including ‘the upbringing of their children.’ He continued as follows. Stuart-Smith LJ and Schiemann LJ concurred.

A servitude is a qualified beneficial interest severed or fragmented from the ownership of an inferior property (servient estate) and attached to a superior property (dominant estate) or to some person (personal beneficiary) other than the owner.R.C. Elliott, The South African Notary, 6th edn. (Cape Town: Juta, 1987), 168. At civil law, ownership (dominium) (e.g.

An equitable interest is an "interest held by virtue of an equitable title (a title that indicates a beneficial interest in property and that gives the holder the right to acquire formal legal title) or claimed on equitable grounds, such as the interest held by a trust beneficiary."Black's Law Dictionary. Second Pocket Edition. p. 361. 2001 West Group.

Kroenke had a beneficial interest in, and controlled voting rights, over 18,594 shares, representing 29.9% of the issued shares. Thus, he was nearing the maximum 29.99% threshold, beyond which he would be forced to make an offer for all remaining shares. On April 10, 2011, it was reported that Kroenke was in advanced talks to complete the takeover of Arsenal.

Following his judgment, Richard Mawrey ordered Lutfur Rahman to pay the petitioners' costs to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed between the parties. An order for an interim payment of £250,000 to be paid within 14 days was also made pending agreement or assessment of costs, estimated at £500,000. Rahman was also ordered to pay the costs of John Williams, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Metropolitan Police, and expenses incurred in the hosting of the election court. As a result of the costs order, Andy Erlam obtained interim charging orders on two investment properties registered solely in Rahman's name as security for the judgment debt. Rahman's wife Ayesha Farid filed objection to the charging orders claiming absolute beneficial interest on one of the two property, and 74% beneficial interest in the other.

Hope JA, with whom Samuels and Mahoney agreed, said: > I agree with his Honour's conclusion that (Ms Muschinski) intended to give > (Mr Dodds) a one-half beneficial interest in the land, and that this > intention was based on the assurances which (Mr Dodds) gave to her and not > upon the fulfilment of those assurances.Muschinski v Dodds (1982) 8 622 at p > 627, NSW Court of Appeal.

Founded in 1959 to perpetuate the memory of Sir Ian Clunies Ross, the Ian Clunies Ross Memorial Foundation promoted the development of science and technology in Australia's beneficial interest. In November 2002, the Foundation was brought under the Academy's umbrella, securing the long-term future of the Awards. It became known as the Clunies Ross Foundation. The Foundation established the Clunies Ross National Science & Technology Award in 1991.

Other issues arose from this decision. The Privy Council said, for example, that Ontario must relieve Canada of its obligations under the treaty since Ontario had the benefit of it, but subsequent litigation by Canada failed on that point too. In Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold, the Privy Council extended the rule to deny the Indians any beneficial interest in the reserves that had been set apart for them under the Treaty.

The use of Nuclear elements in the Nation may only have peaceful purposes (i.e., Mexico cannot build nuclear weapons). This article also deals with other subtleties on what constitutes Mexico's territory. Foreign nationals cannot own land within 100 km of the borders or 50 km of the coast; however, foreigners can have a beneficial interest in such land through a trust (fideicomiso), where the legal ownership of the land is held by a Mexican financial institution.

J Sainsbury plc major shareholders To further his philanthropy interests, he placed 92million of his shares (representing 5.28% of the Company's share capital), into his investment vehicle, Innotech Advisers Ltd (which donates all its dividends to charity), meaning his beneficial stake is just 0.57% (lower than JD's 1.6% beneficial interest). The Sainsbury family as a whole control approximately 15% of Sainsbury's. In the Sunday Times Rich List 2008 his family fortune was estimated at £1.3 billion.

At first instance, the Judge rejected Geary's claim. She appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal,[2012] EWCA Civ 555 holding that the legal title was solely in Rankine's name and so the burden of establishing a constructive trust was on Geary. The relevant question was whether there was a common intention for Geary to have a beneficial interest in the property, applying Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, which must be determined objectively from the parties' conduct.

Most states have property laws that allow a trust agreement to contain a legally enforceable restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest in the trust (sometimes known as an "anti-alienation provision"). The anti-alienation provision generally prevents creditors of a beneficiary from acquiring the beneficiary's share of the trust. Such a trust is sometimes called a spendthrift trust. To prevent fraud, most states allow this protection only to the extent that the beneficiary did not transfer property to the trust.

In January 2018, Novena Global launched its new flagship clinic concept, NOVU Genesis. "NGHG is not wholly owned by the Lohs. The majority of the beneficial interest in NGHG is ultimately held by individual, private and institutional investors," said the board, adding that the firm is "wholly unconnected and unrelated to the Bellagraph Nova Group or Axington Ltd, and any of the allegations made in relation to the conduct of Nelson and Terence Loh" in the management of these entities.

Under the UK scheme, a company's losses may be surrendered to a related company if several conditions are met. The companies must be 75% owned companies. For this purpose, a parent company and its subsidiaries qualify if the parent company owns at least 75% of the ordinary share capital of the subsidiary(ies) and have a beneficial interest in at least 75% of any distributions of earnings or upon winding up. Alternative similar rules apply for certain consortia and branches.

KSE went on to buy further shares in the club, taking the total stake to 12.19%. The club's board initially expressed skepticism that a bid would be in its best interests, By June 2008 the board had prepared to facilitate KSE take over the club, and on September 19, 2008, it was officially announced that Stan Kroenke had joined the Arsenal board of directors. KSE had a beneficial interest in, and controlled voting rights, over 18,594 shares, representing 29.9% of the issued shares.

The House gave two main reasons for its decision. Lord Jauncey upheld the Thomsons' argument that, because in delivering the disposition, Albyn could no longer make use of or sell the house, it had no "Beneficial Interest" in the house and this was enough to remove it from being part of its property. Lord Jauncey commented that the ability to sell the house in fraud of the disposition did not amount to a right in property. Lord Clyde offered different reasoning.

The liquidator of Harvard Securities Ltd, a stockbroking company, applied under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 112 to determine whether the company or its clients held a beneficial interest in shares of which the company held possession. Harvard Securities business was buying blocks of Australian or US shares, which it sold onto clients in parcels. It retained legal title of the shares, as a nominee for each client. But the parcels were not registered individually in the names of the clients.

The Three entity rule is a rule about farm subsidy payments in the United States. Federal law currently sets an annual cap on the amount of payments that a person may receive from the major farm programs. A provision in this law permits a person to receive payments up to the full cap on the first farm in which the person has a substantial beneficial interest, and up to half the full cap on each of two additional farms; hence the so-called three-entity rule.

As a result, proceedings in respect to the two properties without a final charging order was stayed pursuant to section 285 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Determination on Farid's claim of 74% beneficial interest on the remaining property continued at the court's discretion. The property was purchased in 2005 with a mortgage in Rahman's name, and all rental payments income and mortgage payments outgoing were handled by Rahman. As part of her evidence, Farid produced a declaration of trust dated May 2006 in support of her claim.

The court decided Mrs Rosset had no beneficial interest in the property. There were no discussions to that effect, and the work Mrs Rosset did was not enough for a constructive trust. The court also held, obiter, the date to determine whether Mrs Rosset was in occupation under LRA 1925 section 70 was the date the charge was created, i.e. 17 December just as Scarlett J had interpreted the law at trial; however, it abjectly refused to be drawn into whether Rosset was "in actual occupation" (clarifying this would need to be before completion).

For disposing of existing equitable interests, the Law of Property Act 1925 provides in Section 53(1)(c) that: Much of the debate in this area is over the definition of "disposition", and unsurprisingly almost all of the cases involve people trying to avoid tax. In Grey v IRC,[1959] All ER 603 the House of Lords gave disposition its "natural meaning", saying that it meant "a transaction whereby a beneficiary who has a beneficial interest at the beginning of the transaction no longer has it at the end of the transaction".

Yet he purchased ostensibly in his own name for his own beneficial interest, some very substantial properties, via a large group of "feoffees" or trustees, especially those purchased from Lord Gray. One of the feoffees in the Shenley purchase was Edmund Dudley, who was the first president of the "Council Learned in the Law" set up by the king in the last years of his life, which David Starkey explains as a private slush fund for the king, reducing his need to consult Parliament in order to raise revenues.Starkey, David. Henry, Virtuous Prince.

In 2015, Lim acquired Crystal Cruises from Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha for $550 million. Following the acquisition, Lim rapidly expanded the company by building four new river vessels, purchasing an ocean-and-expedition ship and three shipyards, and adding a charter jet service. In 2017, three of Lim's nephews filed a lawsuit against him and his brother, in which they contested a family trust created by founder of Genting, Lim Goh Tong. Another lawsuit was brought against Lim by his sister over the beneficial interest in a block of Genting stock.

"Beneficial use" is a legal term describing a person's right to enjoy the benefits of specific property, especially a view or access to light, air, or water, even though title to that property is held by another person. This may also be termed "beneficial enjoyment". Compare this with a "beneficial interest", where a beneficiary has an interest in a thing ("res"), such as a trust or estate, but does not own the underlying property. This usually entitles the beneficiary to some of the income from the underlying property.

Crop share rent (in contrast to economic rent) is a proportion of the crop harvest (yield) to be paid by the tenant farmer to the land owner as compensation for occupying and exploiting the rented land. This arrangement puts the landlord, like the tenant operator, at risk from variation in yields and prices. For the farm operator, crop share rent is a mechanism for sharing risks with the landlord. In relation to commodity programs for supporting prices and farm incomes, cash rent landlords do not have a beneficial interest in the commodity and are not eligible payments.

This is thought to ensure property is more marketable, because then to make a sale only four people need to be dealt with.). If that was true, a consequence would have been that property was held on trust for members of an association, and those members were beneficiaries. It would have followed that when members left an association, their share could not be transferred to the other members without violating the requirement of writing in the Law of Property Act 1925 section 53(1) for the transfer of a beneficial interest: a requirement that was rarely fulfilled.

Elaine Tettemer Marshall (born July 22, 1942) is an American billionaire heiress. Trusts for the benefit of Marshall and her sons own the 16% beneficial interest in Koch Industries; formerly owned by her husband, E. Pierce Marshall, to whom she was married from 1965 until his death in 2006. These shares were previously owned by her father in-law, J. Howard Marshall, who was married to Anna Nicole Smith in the last year of his life. Elaine has been a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries since the 2006 death of her husband.

Recent amendments to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), allow superannuation funds to invest in any kind of asset and to borrow, charging those assets so long as there is no recourse for the borrowing against the superannuation fund. New section 67A & 67B provides that a fund can borrow money if: 1\. the borrowed monies are used to acquire an asset which the fund is not otherwise prohibited from acquiring 2\. the asset acquired (or a replacement asset) is held on trust (the holding trust) so the fund receives a beneficial interest in the asset 3\.

He served in that position until February 2001, when he had to resign due to his voting on a Dáil motion without declaring that he had a beneficial interest in the subject matter. On 28 November 2007, during a debate on a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Health and Children Mary Harney, O'Keeffe resigned the Fianna Fáil party whip when forced to vote his confidence in the Minister. On 26 February 2008, he was re-admitted to the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party. He was a member of Cork County Council from 1985 to 1997.

The business trust made its debut in Massachusetts in 1827. As a result, a U.S. business trust today is often called a "Massachusetts trust" in legal circles. The U.S. Supreme Court defined the Massachusetts trust as a form of business organization, common in Massachusetts consisting essentially of an arrangement whereby property is conveyed to trustees: in accordance with terms of the trust. The business is to be held and managed for the benefit of persons who hold transferable certificates issued by the trustees showing the shares into which the beneficial interest in the property is divided.

" The right protected was instead the right to give and received contractual rights on one's own behalf, which many states had denied to African Americans when the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was drafted.See Black Codes for an overview of the laws passed after the American Civil War to restrict the rights of freed slaves. The Court further noted that at that time, it was a well accepted legal principle that "a mere agent, who has no beneficial interest in a contract which he has made on behalf of his principal, cannot support an action thereon.

F was entitled to a beneficial interest in the property based on proprietary estoppel. There had been a mutual understanding between T and F that if F built an extension it would belong to her. T had failed to establish that F had not acted in reliance on that representation, and F established her claim to ownership of the extension. (2) Unacceptable conduct amounting to undue influence might arise out of a relationship between two persons where one had acquired over the other a measure of influence or ascendancy, of which the ascendant person took unfair advantage.

A trust may be created by will or by an act inter vivos. A testamentary trust is constituted when a testator bequeaths property to one person, called a ‘trustee’ or an ‘administrator’, with an instruction to administer it for the benefit of another person or other persons appointed by the will, or for an impersonal object or purpose (the so-called charitable trust). The essential feature of a trust is the separation of the ownership or control of property from the beneficial enjoyment thereof. The trustee acquires no beneficial interest in the property, acting merely as a conduit pipe in carrying out the dispositions in favour of the beneficiary.

Whilst Lord Mance dealt with the primary issue (relating to section 127), most of the concurring judgments largely commented on ancillary issues of wider law which related to the broader issues in the case. In the Supreme Court the primary issue was whether the overreaching of a beneficial interest in trust property by the trustee transferring it to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice amounted to a "disposition" for the purposes of section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986. If so, then it would be void unless the court otherwise ordered. Samba argued that extinguishing an equitable interest in this manner was not a disposition.

In DKLR Holding Co (No 2) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW),. the High Court of Australia held that if a person has an equitable interest in property, this implies that some other person has the legal interest in that property. If one person has both the legal and equitable interest in the relevant property, he or she has no ‘equitable interest’ in that property as such. Aickin J said "If one person has both the legal estate and the entire beneficial interest in the land he holds an entire and unqualified legal interest and not two separate interests, one legal and the other equitable". .

In general, a Wyoming Statutory Foundation makes provisions for a Founder, an Operating agreement (similar to a Foundation Charter), a Board of Directors (similar to Trustees or a Foundation Council), Beneficiaries and Protectors. Beneficial Interest in the Statutory Foundation can (by default) be held as undivided interest in the Statutory Foundation or attached to specific foundation property (similar to a trust) or can have a different structure as per the operating agreement (allowing the Statutory Foundation to qualify as a different business entity - a corporation, partnership or disregarded entity). The Statutory Foundation may have discretionary beneficiaries determined by the Board of Directors and the operating agreement.

In Pettitt, the wife had used her own money to buy a house during the marriage, meaning the title to the house had been in the wife's name, and both she and her husband resided therein until the wife left the husband. The husband claimed that he had carried out a considerable number of improvements to the house and garden. These improvements consisted of internal decoration work, building a wardrobe, laying a lawn and constructing an ornamental wall and a side wall in the garden. By virtue of these efforts the husband sought a beneficial interest in the proceeds of sale of the property.

The land… at 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, New Hampshire > [the Browns' residence], and all that is in and upon it, including the Lords > bodies, are in the kingdom of heaven, belonging to the Lord, have been > claimed by him, and thus can be claimed by no man, nor can any man have > beneficial interest in it… Stand down and away from the Lords land and the > bodies of the Lord. So it is written. So it is done. Edward Brown was also quoted as having made comments about law enforcement officials and the judge in his case: > I wouldn't want to be this U.S. attorney.

A resulting trust (from the Latin 'resalire' meaning 'to jump back') is the creation of an implied trust by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to have held the property for benefit of another person. The trust property is said to "result" back to the transferor (implied settlor). In this instance, the word 'result' means "in the result, remains with", or something similar to "revert" except that in the result the beneficial interest is held on trust for the settlor. Not all trusts whose beneficiary is also the settlor can be called resulting trusts.

Loans at beneficial interest rates were made available by the Government, under the Railways (Agreement) Act, 1935. Haslemere, Havant, Portsmouth & Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour stations were all greatly enlarged to give 800 feet (244 m) platform lengths to handle twelve-car trains. Resignalling was undertaken at Woking Junction (where a former scheme to provide a grade separated junction was now considered to be unnecessary) and Havant, but complete resignalling was not thought to be needed as the train service density was not so great as on the Brighton line electrification scheme. The signalling improvements were commissioned in June and July 1937, and the electric train service started on 4 July 1937.

On April 20, 2007, Uranium One acquired UrAsia Energy, a Canadian firm with headquarters in Vancouver, from Frank Giustra, who then resigned from the UrAsia Energy Board of Directors. Having severed ties with UrAsia Energy and Uranium One in 2007, Giustra had no evident beneficial interest in the firm's subsequent sale to Rosatom in 2010. UrAsia has interests in rich uranium operations in Kazakhstan,"UrAsia Energy Ltd." updated April 21, 2007, accessed April 23, 2015. and UrAsia Energy's acquisition of its Kazakhstan uranium interests from Kazatomprom followed a trip to Almaty in 2005 by Giustra and former U.S. President Bill Clinton where they met with Nursultan Nazarbayev, the leader of Kazakhstan.

The Court of Appeal noted: > ... the appeal raises some important questions as to the law applicable to > and the validity of trusts which purport to comprise shares registered in > civil law countries, whose laws do not themselves recognise either the trust > concept or the division of a legal and beneficial interest. These questions > have involved a close analysis of the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable > to Trusts and on their Recognition (the "Convention"), which was given > statutory effect in the United Kingdom by the Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 > (the "1987 Act").Akers v Samba (CA), at para 3. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, and held that the matter could proceed to trial.

The generic term "beneficiary" under the Uniform Trust Code is defined as a person that (A) has a present or future beneficial interest in a trust, vested or contingent; or (B) in a capacity other than that of trustee, holds a power of appointment over trust property.UTC Section 103(3). Beneficiaries are the holders of "equitable title" of trust assets and receive the benefits of trust property, subject to the trustee's "legal title" ownership and control under the terms of the trust agreement as established by the grantor. The Code makes a distinction between certain classes of beneficiaries with respect to the traditional reporting requirements for trustees with respect to the assets and transactions actually held in the trust.

Although the decision has never subsequently been doubted, commentators were quick to point out that "trust" is not used in the strictly technical term, as none of the creditors have any specific interest in the trust property. Other commentators have noted that "[i]t has long been objected that there is no real trust of the property of a company in liquidation and 'trust' should be used only as a convenient way of describing the status of property in a liquidation, not as a categorisation with legal consequences". Subsequent cases have held that neither the company nor any other person has a beneficial interest in the assets of a company in liquidation., per Lord Hoffman at [28].

Craven assisted JPCDF get several grants and contracts with various Massachusetts governmental agencies and City of Boston contracts. Further, Craven and four of his brothers had formed Celtic Realty Trust and all five were named beneficiaries of the Trust. Albert Buchwald and John Lawless, who were President and a Director of JPCDF at the time, were named as Trustees of the Trust. In May 1977, the Trust bought the Minton Building in Jamaica Plain. At the same time, Craven “assigned his 20 percent beneficial interest in the Celtic Realty Trust to his daughter, Theresa.” When a grant came through, which Craven had facilitated, part of the grant money was used to rent office space in the Minton Building.

In the common law of England and Wales, it has been held, controversially, that where a trustee declares an intention to transfer trust property to a trust of which he is one of several trustees, that is a valid settlement notwithstanding the property is not vested in the other trustees.T Choithram International SA and others v Pagarani and others [2001] 2 All ER 492 Capacity to be a trustee is generally co-extensive with the ability to hold and dispose of a legal or beneficial interest in property. In practice, special considerations arise only with respect to minors and mentally incapacitated persons. A settlor may create a trust by manifesting an intention to create it.

The conceptual analysis underpinning Quistclose trusts was the source of some debate. Shortly after the decision, an article appeared in the Law Quarterly Review,(1985) 101 LQR 269 written by Peter Millett QC, suggesting how the traditional trust need for certainty of objects (beneficiary) could be squared with the decision of the House of Lords and the refusal to accept new categories of purpose trust in equity. In Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley,[2002] UKHL 12 the House of Lords reviewed the law, and the leading judgment was given by Lord Millett, whose judicial analysis unsurprisingly closely mirrored what he had suggested twenty years previously. The key issue, according to Lord Millett, in upholding the trust concept is ascertaining where the beneficial interest in the money lies.

He was of the opinion that nothing other than "subsequent discussions, statements or actions, which can fairly be said to imply a positive intention to depart from that apportionment, will do to justify a change in the way in which the beneficial interest is owned."[2007] 2 AC 432, [146] He thought that the facts that they lived together for a long time, have been in a loving relationship, have children, operated a joint bank account and shared the outgoings of the household could not of themselves indicate an intention to vary this unequal split, and that even payments on decoration, repairs, utilities and council tax did not suffice on their own without evidence of an express agreement to vary their shares.

Care is required to ensure there are no adverse GST, taxation or stamp duty consequences. The legal and beneficial interests in the property must be separated, so that an entity separate from the Superannuation Fund Trustee holds the legal title, while the Superannuation Fund Trustee holds the beneficial interest. A case that deals with the limited powers of a bare trustee to deal with trust assets is Caterpillar Financial Australia Ltd v Ovens Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 677 which considered the law relating to the duties, powers and rights of a bare trustee in a winding up. This case is an important reminder to practitioners of some of the difficulties that can arise where an insolvent company owns property as a corporate trustee.

The default lead to the crystallization of a floating charge held by the bank over all of Albyn's "Property and Undertaking", and Sharp was appointed Receiver to collect this for the Bank. Sharp raised an action before the Court of Session contesting that, since the disposition hadn't been registered, the ownership of the house remained with Albyn at the time of Crystallization and that it and the purchase price was available to the Bank as holder of the charge. The Thomsons responded that the act of delivering the disposition divulged Albyn of any "Beneficial Interest" in the house and that this was enough to remove it from the scope of the charge. The Inner House of the Court of Session found in favour of Sharp.

The only precondition sine qua non to granting such a beneficial interest is that the foreigner agree that all matters relating to such land are the exclusive domain of Mexican courts and Mexican jurisdiction, and that in all issues pertaining to such land, the foreigner will conduct him or herself as a Mexican, and settle any issues arising from their interest in such land exclusively through Mexican courts and institutions. The stipulated consequence of a failure to abide by these terms is forfeiture to the nation of their interests in all lands where the foreigner has such beneficial interests. That an area of land at the coast (20 meters from the highest tide line) is federal property which cannot be sold.

Ownership of Arabella Racing Pty Ltd was transferred to a Canadian, Thomas Sebastian Cain, who in February 2015 completed a transfer-of-ownership form, declaring to racing authorities that he was the new owner of Azkadellia. He did not declare that he was formerly known as Matthew Thomas Reed and has been sentenced to 12 years imprisonment in 2007 for smuggling cocaine and ecstasy tablets worth A$211 million into Queensland from British Columbia. On 25 August 2015, Cain completed a transfer of ownership to Ben Connolly, who bought the horse for A$60,000. Private investigator Ken Gamble described the sale as a "deliberate and covert attempt to deceive Racing Victoria and to conceal Foster's beneficial interest in the racehorse".

In transactions with static assets, a depositor will assemble the underlying collateral, help structure the securities and work with the financial markets to sell the securities to investors. The depositor has taken on added significance under Regulation AB. The depositor typically owns 100% of the beneficial interest in the issuing entity and is usually the parent or a wholly owned subsidiary of the parent which initiates the transaction. In transactions with managed (traded) assets, asset managers assemble the underlying collateral, help structure the securities and work with the financial markets in order to sell the securities to investors. Some deals may include a third-party guarantor which provides guarantees or partial guarantees for the assets, the principal and the interest payments, for a fee.

Lord Neuberger summarised the facts briefly, and then turned to the direct issue in the case as to whether the overreaching of the beneficial interest in trust property could be a "disposition" for the purposes section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986. He stated that: "There is no doubt but that SICL's equitable interest in the shares constituted "property" in the light of the very wide definition of that expression in section 436 of the 1986 Act, which is set out in para 7 of Lord Mance's judgment. He cited with approval what Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said in Bristol Airport Plc v Powdrill [1990] Ch 744, 759, "[i]t is hard to think of a wider definition of property"."Akers v Samba (SC), at para 60.

To prevent individuals from creating trusts to defeat their own creditors, the laws of most states provide that a spendthrift clause in a trust document does not protect the beneficiary to the extent that the beneficiary is also the person who created the trust. The settlor does not need to be either the sole settlor or the only beneficiary of the trust. As long as the settlor is a beneficiary of the trust to any extent, to that extent the trust will be deemed self-settled. For example, Texas law provides: ::(d) If the settlor is also a beneficiary of the trust, a provision restraining the voluntary or involuntary transfer of his beneficial interest does not prevent his creditors from satisfying claims from his interest in the trust estate.

A layman or straw man is a figure not intended to have a genuine beneficial interest in a property, to whom such property is nevertheless conveyed in order to facilitate a transaction. The unity of time rule requires a joint tenancy be granted both parties at the same time. When the current owner of a property wishes to create a joint tenancy with another party, the grantor conveys the property to a strawperson (often a lawyer or the lawyer's secretary), who in turn creates a second deed conveying property to the original grantor and their desired joint tenant(s). Strawpersons sometimes engage in straw purchases to protect the privacy of the beneficial owner or to allow the beneficial owner to acquire a property when the seller's rules, policies or biases might not have allowed it.

Although "trust" has a specific legal meaning (where one person holds property for the benefit of another), in the late 19th century the word was commonly used to denote big business, because that legal instrument was frequently used to effect a combination of companies.For example, the Standard Oil Trust was formed in 1882 to combine the Standard Oil Company and a number of other companies that were engaged in producing, refining, and marketing oil. Under the Standard Oil Trust Agreement, the companies transferred their stock "in trust" to nine trustees headed by John D. Rockefeller and in exchange received a beneficial interest in the trust. Eventually, the trustees governed some 40 corporations, of which the trust wholly owned 14. In 1899, however, the trust renamed its New Jersey firm Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) and incorporated it as a holding company.

A Delaware statutory trust (DST) is a legally recognized trust that is set up for the purpose of business, but not necessarily in the U.S. state of Delaware. It may also be referred to as an Unincorporated Business Trust or UBO. Delaware statutory trusts are formed as private governing agreements under which either (1) property (real, tangible and intangible) is held, managed, administered, invested and/or operated; or (2) business or professional activities for profit are carried on by one or more trustees for the benefit of the trustor entitled to a beneficial interest in the trust property. DST Investments are offered as replacement property for accredited investors seeking to defer their capital gains taxes through the use of a 1031 tax deferred exchange and as straight cash investments for those wishing to diversify their real estate holdings.

On 29 January 2016, chief master Matthew Marsh ruled against Ayesha Farid granting a declaration that Lutfur Rahman holds an absolute beneficial interest in the property under question. In his ruling, Marsh accused Lutfur Rahman, who was not called as a witness by Ayesha Farid of knowingly providing misleading information when making his mortgage application, and failure to declare rental income received to HM Revenue and Customs. Farid was labelled by Marsh as "a thoroughly unsatisfactory and unreliable witness" with a "cavalier attitude to disclosure" who was "willing to alter and extend her case when challenged". In addition to finding that Farid had failed with her evidence to establish a trust on the balance of probabilities, the declaration of trust of May 2006 was also held to be a sham, "prepared in order to be available, if needed" rather than to reflect the true position.