Efforts to devise a choice-of-law rule for intermediated securities in the last two decades have almost entirely been centred on issues of property and title. Intermediation of securities does not, however, give rise to issues of property alone, even as they are mostly represented as such. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Secure Capital SA v Credit Suisse AG (hereinafter referred to as “Secure Capital”) signals a possibly larger problem of the disenfranchisement of the investor of intermediated securities. Consideration of Secure Capital and its implications on choice-of-law have however been curiously sparse. This article seeks to bring the debate which still continues for issues of property to the issues of disenfranchisement, and to demonstrate why they are no less problematic, complex and in urgent need of a viable solution.

中文翻译：

---

重新授权中间证券的投资者

在过去的二十年中，为中间证券制定法律选择规则的努力几乎完全集中在财产和所有权问题上。但是，证券的中介并不会单独引起财产问题，即使它们大多是这样代表的。上诉法院在Secure Capital SA诉瑞士信贷公司（以下简称“ Secure Capital”）中的裁决标志着中间证券投资者被剥夺权利的更大问题。然而，对安全资本的考虑及其对法律选择的影响却很少。本文旨在将关于财产问题的辩论继续进行下去，以剥夺公民权，并说明为什么它们同样有问题，复杂并且迫切需要可行的解决方案。