SETTLEMENT

It seems universally agreed that the 30yr 1975 bond was a complex issue. An underlying fact is that the amount issued in 1975 does not correspond with the quantum outstanding or eligible for redemption exchange as discussed above. It has been referred to as a Pandora’s box. Some have referred to it as dangerous. The Appellate Review Board of Treasury took the position of pointing out that the disclosure of information under the Privacy Act involved harm, embarrassment or reprisal.

The question arises whether the settlement is due for an asset recovery (in terms of the legal technicalities) - and / or whether a trust can hold an ownership claim as an asset. The call date is 100 percent effective. The property is still registered in the name of DAVID GREEN irrespective of transfers taking place with premature redemption and/or exchange.

The property is therefore free, clear and unencumbered.( Note: Privacy Act applied to information requested in 1994 from Bureau of Public Debt referred to non – disclosure of information as a result of impediment of investigatory process. This can no longer apply if the account was blocked!)

Therefore it would not necessarily effect my ability to hypothecate because theoretically you can not hypothecate what can not be sold, regardless of the fact that the margin call will never become necessary. Bank and Trader can not become involved in supporting a clients title dispute in any way what so ever.

The solution involves an asset swap by means of an; -

1. Assignment

2. Cession

3. Novation and

4. A grant.

A grant can be linked to 1,2 and 3 for this transaction. Alternatively a Deed of Release can be assigned for a grant to be used for South African upliftment.

Legal representation at the highest level is crucial at this stage of the claim. I propose UBS or fiduciary to hold the Deed of Donation. Other issues to consider are security protocol, intellectual property and sanctioning.