31:
819:, and held that "If this is the touchstone then it is difficult to see how Section 2(a)(iii) of the Master Agreement can be said to offend against the anti-deprivation principle. ... There is no suggestion that it was formulated in order to avoid the effect of any insolvency law or to give the non-defaulting party a greater or disproportionate return as a creditor of the bankrupt estate."
583:) that a grantor may not derogate from his own grant by giving an absolute interest in an asset and then providing for it to be clawed back otherwise than for fair value in stated eventualities, including (but not limited to) bankruptcy and winding up. This is considered to consist of several branches:
831:
as holding that "there cannot be a valid contract that a man's property shall remain his until his bankruptcy, and on the happening of that event shall go over to someone else, and be taken away from his creditors." This is considered to be a true anti-deprivation rule, and several issues arise from
707:
has observed that "the individual bankrupt or insolvent company may not contract at any time, either before or after the making of the bankruptcy or winding-up order, for its property subsisting at that date to be disposed of or dealt with otherwise than in accordance with the statute." It is argued
649:
rule governs the distribution of assets within the estate following the event of bankruptcy. It therefore invalidates arrangements under which a creditor receives more than his proper share of the available assets or where ... debts due to the company on liquidation were to be dealt with other than
570:
had earlier observed that "the law is too clearly settled to admit of a shadow of doubt that no person possessed of property can reserve that property to himself until he shall become bankrupt, and then provide that, in the event of his becoming bankrupt, it shall pass to another and not to his
789:
It is irrelevant that the parties did not intend to achieve an insolvency advantage, or that the arrangement is long-standing, or has always represented the relationship between the parties, or is a static arrangement involving no insolvency trigger which changes the arrangement between the
615:
625:
rule, which are addressed to different mischiefs — and held that, in borderline cases, a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith should not be held to infringe the first rule. The relationship between the two rules was expanded upon later by
793:
It is crucial that the company is in insolvency proceedings, and that it has assets that need to be dealt with under those proceedings. What is then important is the effect of the impugned arrangement on the treatment of the insolvent's assets on its
712:
it could favour a nominated party on insolvency could either provide for a specific insolvency-triggered deprivation of its assets in favour of that party (being assets that would otherwise be available for distribution on the debtor's insolvency),
708:
that this rule can therefore be subdivided into two branches: the "insolvency-triggered deprivation" rule looks to disposals, and the "contracting out" rule to dealings. These subrules target two distinct strategies that a debtor might pursue:
30:
842:
the party's insolvency must trigger the deprivation. The rule does not catch arrangements which prevent property ever reaching the insolvent's hands
Equally, deprivations caused by some other event – any other event – are not touched by this
856:
The
Canadian courts have extended this further, declaring that termination clauses that are triggered where non-payment of obligations is indirectly caused by the debtor's insolvency should be deemed to have been caused by the insolvency.
1109:
In particular, deprivations caused by pre-insolvency disposal of assets, or by deprivation or forfeiture clauses that are not triggered by the party’s own insolvency, are all untouched by the insolvency-deprivation rule, as in
810:
might offend against the rule; specifically that if an Event of
Default (as defined) suspended the right of the Defaulting Party to receive payment indefinitely, then that would mean that if the Non-Defaulting Party went into
644:
rule is both dependant and autonomous. The former is concerned with contractual arrangements which have the effect of depriving the bankrupt estate of property which would otherwise have formed part of it. The
689:
if a transaction has the effect of depriving a company of an asset in order to distribute it among some only of the creditors otherwise eligible to participate in a distribution, it offends both principles
797:
If the impugned arrangement does not determine the distribution of the insolvent's assets, but defines the very asset which is the subject of the insolvency proceedings, then the transaction is generally
815:, the operating effect of the provision was to deprive the company's creditors of assets as a consequence of it going into liquidation. However the Court of Appeal considered the principles outlined in
1470:
852:
As in the "contracting out" cases, it is irrelevant that the provision was "always a term of the contract", rather than a post-acquisition initiative that effected a deprivation triggered by insolvency.
781:
1208:
716:
it could agree to more attractive contractual set-offs or netting arrangements, thus avoiding the distribution rules that would otherwise apply to the debtor's property.
720:
All these anti-avoidance rules are, however, subject to the very large exception that creditors remain able to jump up the priority queue, through the creation of a
1478:
1536:
878:
which affirmed that the anti-deprivation rule existed as part of the common law in Canada. The SCC departed from the UK Supreme Court's judgment in
655:
334:
882:, in holding that an effects-based test must be used in applying the rule, as that was a logical consequence of the requirement of Canada's
1016:
390:
319:
190:
762:
vesting clauses in building contracts (which vest the builder's materials in the building's owner upon the builder's liquidation)
446:
57:
974:
360:
519:
185:
566:, he is then to get some additional advantage which prevents the property being distributed under the bankruptcy laws."
692:
if the deprivation occurs on the company going into administration, only the anti-deprivation principle will be engaged
836:
It is legitimate for courts to intervene on the grounds of public policy, even in areas primarily governed by statute.
1507:
567:
1097:
82:
849:
It is irrelevant that the asset being deprived was acquired by way of gift rather than for valuable consideration.
415:
1503:
616:
Belmont Park
Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc
385:
927:
899:
884:
410:
405:
370:
62:
988:
1241:
632:
400:
554:
1523:
1495:
1271:
765:
sale with provision for retransfer on winding up (where the seller did not reserve title until payment)
1541:
686:
principle comes into play only if the purpose of the insolvency procedure is to effect a distribution
466:
355:
1288:
512:
395:
380:
365:
350:
236:
875:
871:
742:
619:
observed that the general principle consists of two subrules — the anti-deprivation rule and the
493:
483:
436:
324:
262:
113:
92:
1546:
928:"The Nature and Scope of the Anti-Deprivation Rule in the English Law of Insolvency – Part Two"
900:"The Nature and Scope of the Anti-Deprivation Rule in the English Law of Insolvency – Part One"
663:
226:
958:
807:
329:
221:
205:
159:
138:
133:
828:
677:
441:
47:
1474:
8:
1574:
1569:
1304:
505:
375:
1551:
1089:
966:
461:
252:
169:
1150:
1076:
1246:
1031:
1003:
984:
970:
942:
914:
721:
658:, held that it was valid and did not violate either the anti-deprivation rule or the
488:
471:
456:
303:
231:
123:
72:
1213:
1471:"Beware Contractual Provisions triggered (even indirectly) by a Party's Insolvency"
1093:
298:
267:
164:
128:
888:
that the bankrupt's property must "immediately pass to and vest in the trustee".
704:
627:
283:
67:
1209:
Belmont Park
Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd & Anor
747:
provision for termination on winding up of interest annexed to membership status
579:
It arises from the general principle (known as the "rule against repugnancy" in
549:
1563:
1035:
1007:
946:
918:
839:
If the arrangement breaches the insolvency-deprivation rule, then it is void.
545:
200:
580:
97:
77:
782:
British Eagle
International Air Lines Ltd v Compaigne Nationale Air France
812:
257:
87:
1301:
Perpetual
Trustee Co Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd & Anor
1278:
1058:
621:
603:
563:
541:
477:
52:
22:
954:
817:
Belmont Park
Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd
732:
Certain types of arrangements are not considered to offend the rule:
195:
640:
96. The relationship between the anti-deprivation principle and the
559:
293:
154:
118:
846:
The rule only concerns arrangements entered into by the insolvent.
989:"Insolvency Deprivation, Public Policy and Priority Flip Clauses"
759:
provision for divestment of ownership of an asset on winding up
451:
1426:
1390:
1315:
1313:
768:
increase in a company's contractual obligation on winding up
1285:
HM Revenue and
Customs v The Football League Ltd & Anor
1188:
1186:
1017:"Making Sense of Arguments about the Anti-Deprivation Rule"
676:
the anti-deprivation rule applies from the commencement of
288:
1492:
1310:
1183:
1171:
779:
This case arises infrequently, but it did so notably in
1371:
1369:
1367:
1342:
1340:
806:
it was argued that certain provisions in standard form
1161:
1159:
1537:
Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc
1272:"Pari passu rule on insolvency clarified and limited"
860:
1364:
1352:
1337:
1325:
1156:
1468:
654:In 2012, the Chancery Division, in assessing the
1561:
753:Other types are normally considered to offend:
738:limited and determinable interests and licences
1544: at par. 30 (2 October 2020), citing
1498: (14 February 2013), which extended upon
513:
1520:Capital Steel Inc v Chandos Construction Ltd
1307: at par. 113, Ch 347 (28 July 2009)
1216: at par. 1, 1 AC 383 (27 July 2011)
1432:
1396:
1319:
1192:
1177:
1014:
983:
703:With respect to the anti-deprivation rule,
1056:which has its own statutory rules barring
540:) is a principle applied by the courts in
520:
506:
1203:
1201:
822:
558:, "a person cannot make it a part of his
1236:
1234:
650:in accordance with the statutory regime.
1114:(deprivation triggered by default) and
925:
897:
727:
597:"Insolvency-triggered deprivation" rule
1562:
1291: at para. 73–104 (25 May 2012)
1198:
1118:(deprivation triggered by alienation).
963:Principles of Corporate Insolvency Law
698:
1375:
1358:
1346:
1331:
1231:
1165:
953:
785:. Several principles arise from it:
827:This subrule has been described by
13:
1062:clauses in the event of bankruptcy
891:
861:Application in other jurisdictions
774:
29:
14:
1586:
1305:[2009] EWHC 1912 (Ch)
1289:[2012] EWHC 1372 (Ch)
1098:purchase money security interests
574:
1469:Anthony Alexander (2013-06-06).
1529:
1513:
1462:
1450:
1438:
1414:
1402:
1381:
1294:
1264:
1252:
1149: (1861) 2 J&H 204,
1103:
1082:
1075: (1812) 19 Ves Jun 88,
1219:
1140:
1131:
1065:
1050:
1024:International Corporate Rescue
996:International Corporate Rescue
959:"7: The Anti-Deprivation Rule"
935:International Corporate Rescue
907:International Corporate Rescue
544:jurisdictions (other than the
1:
1547:Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
1125:
885:Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
538:fraud upon the bankruptcy law
16:Legal principle in common law
1421:Ex parte Jay, In re Harrison
1242:Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc
804:Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc
633:Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc
7:
1015:Worthington, Sarah (2011).
555:Re Jeavons, ex parte Mackay
10:
1591:
1445:Ex parte Newitt, re Garrud
1508:Superior Court of Justice
1506: (13 December 1995),
1500:C.I.B.C. v. Bramalea Inc.
941:(3). Chase Cambria: 231.
913:(2). Chase Cambria: 155.
874:upheld a decision of the
865:
741:preemption provisions in
548:) in which, according to
467:History of bankruptcy law
1423:(1880) 14 Ch D 19, at 26
1043:
1030:(1). Chase Cambria: 26.
1002:(1). Chase Cambria: 28.
965:(4th ed.). London:
237:Voidable floating charge
1247:[2012] EWCA 419
1153: (18 November 1861)
1088:Such as with effective
876:Alberta Court of Appeal
872:Supreme Court of Canada
743:articles of association
662:rule. In his judgment,
656:football creditors rule
484:Pre-packaged insolvency
437:Bankruptcy alternatives
325:Cross-border insolvency
263:Trading while insolvent
114:Insolvency practitioner
93:Provisional liquidation
1526: (29 January 2019)
1214:[2011] UKSC 38
1137:(1873) LR 8 Ch App 643
926:Davies, James (2011).
898:Davies, James (2011).
823:Insolvency deprivation
652:
594:"Contracting out" rule
591:Anti-deprivation rule
562:that, in the event of
227:Undervalue transaction
34:
1510:(Ontario, Canada)
870:In October 2020, the
808:ISDA Master Agreement
638:
534:anti-deprivation rule
432:Anti-deprivation rule
330:Insolvency Regulation
222:Fraudulent conveyance
206:Scheme of arrangement
160:Preferential creditor
139:Trustee in bankruptcy
134:Referee in Bankruptcy
33:
1554:1985, c. B-3, s. 71
969:. pp. 217–234.
955:Goode, Royston Miles
728:Scope of application
1249: (3 April 2012)
1073:Higinbotham v Holme
967:Sweet & Maxwell
699:Aspects of the rule
186:Administration (UK)
1459:(1889) 40 Ch D 585
1447:(1880) 16 Ch D 522
1411:, at paragraph 87.
1090:retention of title
985:Worthington, Sarah
588:General principle
462:Financial distress
335:UNCITRAL Model Law
253:Fraudulent trading
170:Unsecured creditor
35:
1475:McCarthy Tétrault
1435:, pp. 33–35.
1399:, pp. 32–33.
1094:Quistclose trusts
1079: (6 May 1812)
976:978-0-421-96610-9
722:security interest
530:
529:
489:Sovereign default
472:List of bankrupts
442:Creditors' rights
304:Security interest
232:Unfair preference
214:Avoidance regimes
124:Regulatory agency
1582:
1555:
1533:
1527:
1517:
1511:
1504:1995 CanLII 7420
1489:
1487:
1486:
1477:. Archived from
1466:
1460:
1454:
1448:
1442:
1436:
1433:Worthington 2010
1430:
1424:
1418:
1412:
1406:
1400:
1397:Worthington 2010
1394:
1388:
1385:
1379:
1373:
1362:
1356:
1350:
1344:
1335:
1329:
1323:
1320:Worthington 2011
1317:
1308:
1298:
1292:
1282:
1276:
1268:
1262:
1256:
1250:
1238:
1229:
1223:
1217:
1205:
1196:
1193:Worthington 2010
1190:
1181:
1178:Worthington 2010
1175:
1169:
1163:
1154:
1147:Whitmore v Mason
1144:
1138:
1135:
1119:
1107:
1101:
1086:
1080:
1069:
1063:
1054:
1039:
1021:
1011:
993:
980:
950:
932:
922:
904:
522:
515:
508:
299:Second lien loan
268:Wrongful trading
165:Secured creditor
19:
18:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1534:
1530:
1518:
1514:
1484:
1482:
1467:
1463:
1455:
1451:
1443:
1439:
1431:
1427:
1419:
1415:
1407:
1403:
1395:
1391:
1386:
1382:
1374:
1365:
1357:
1353:
1345:
1338:
1330:
1326:
1318:
1311:
1299:
1295:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1257:
1253:
1239:
1232:
1224:
1220:
1206:
1199:
1191:
1184:
1176:
1172:
1164:
1157:
1145:
1141:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1122:
1108:
1104:
1087:
1083:
1070:
1066:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1019:
991:
977:
930:
902:
894:
892:Further reading
868:
863:
825:
777:
775:Contracting out
730:
701:
612:
577:
536:(also known as
526:
320:Chapter 15 (US)
284:Floating charge
191:Chapter 11 (US)
68:Conservatorship
17:
12:
11:
5:
1588:
1578:
1577:
1572:
1557:
1556:
1528:
1512:
1461:
1449:
1437:
1425:
1413:
1401:
1389:
1380:
1378:, p. 226.
1363:
1361:, p. 225.
1351:
1349:, p. 223.
1336:
1334:, p. 220.
1324:
1309:
1293:
1281:. 29 May 2012.
1263:
1251:
1230:
1218:
1197:
1182:
1170:
1168:, p. 218.
1155:
1139:
1129:
1127:
1124:
1121:
1120:
1102:
1081:
1064:
1048:
1047:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1012:
981:
975:
951:
923:
893:
890:
867:
864:
862:
859:
854:
853:
850:
847:
844:
840:
837:
824:
821:
800:
799:
795:
791:
776:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
766:
763:
760:
751:
750:
749:
748:
745:
739:
729:
726:
718:
717:
714:
700:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
690:
687:
680:
678:administration
611:
610:
609:
608:
600:
599:
598:
595:
585:
576:
575:General scheme
573:
528:
527:
525:
524:
517:
510:
502:
499:
498:
497:
496:
491:
486:
481:
474:
469:
464:
459:
454:
449:
447:Chapter 9 (US)
444:
439:
434:
426:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
413:
411:United Kingdom
408:
403:
398:
393:
388:
383:
378:
373:
368:
363:
358:
353:
345:
344:
340:
339:
338:
337:
332:
327:
322:
314:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
301:
296:
291:
286:
278:
277:
273:
272:
271:
270:
265:
260:
255:
247:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
234:
229:
224:
216:
215:
211:
210:
209:
208:
203:
198:
193:
188:
180:
179:
175:
174:
173:
172:
167:
162:
157:
149:
148:
144:
143:
142:
141:
136:
131:
126:
121:
116:
108:
107:
103:
102:
101:
100:
95:
90:
85:
80:
75:
70:
65:
60:
58:Chapter 7 (US)
55:
50:
48:Administration
42:
41:
37:
36:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1587:
1576:
1573:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1565:
1553:
1549:
1548:
1543:
1539:
1538:
1532:
1525:
1521:
1516:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1490:, discussing
1481:on 2015-02-18
1480:
1476:
1472:
1465:
1458:
1457:In re Detmold
1453:
1446:
1441:
1434:
1429:
1422:
1417:
1410:
1405:
1398:
1393:
1384:
1377:
1372:
1370:
1368:
1360:
1355:
1348:
1343:
1341:
1333:
1328:
1322:, p. 27.
1321:
1316:
1314:
1306:
1302:
1297:
1290:
1286:
1283:, discussing
1280:
1273:
1267:
1261:, at para 96.
1260:
1255:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1237:
1235:
1227:
1222:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1204:
1202:
1195:, p. 33.
1194:
1189:
1187:
1180:, p. 32.
1179:
1174:
1167:
1162:
1160:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1134:
1130:
1117:
1113:
1106:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1085:
1078:
1074:
1068:
1061:
1060:
1053:
1049:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1018:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
990:
986:
982:
978:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
929:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
901:
896:
895:
889:
887:
886:
881:
877:
873:
858:
851:
848:
845:
841:
838:
835:
834:
833:
830:
820:
818:
814:
809:
805:
796:
792:
788:
787:
786:
784:
783:
767:
764:
761:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
746:
744:
740:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
725:
723:
715:
711:
710:
709:
706:
691:
688:
685:
681:
679:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
669:
666:, relying on
665:
661:
657:
651:
648:
643:
637:
635:
634:
629:
624:
623:
618:
617:
606:
605:
601:
596:
593:
592:
590:
589:
587:
586:
584:
582:
572:
571:creditors."
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:
551:
547:
546:United States
543:
539:
535:
523:
518:
516:
511:
509:
504:
503:
501:
500:
495:
494:Subordination
492:
490:
487:
485:
482:
480:
479:
475:
473:
470:
468:
465:
463:
460:
458:
455:
453:
450:
448:
445:
443:
440:
438:
435:
433:
430:
429:
428:
427:
423:
422:
417:
416:United States
414:
412:
409:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
352:
349:
348:
347:
346:
342:
341:
336:
333:
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:International
311:
310:
305:
302:
300:
297:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
282:
281:
280:
279:
275:
274:
269:
266:
264:
261:
259:
256:
254:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
243:
238:
235:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
212:
207:
204:
202:
201:Restructuring
199:
197:
194:
192:
189:
187:
184:
183:
182:
181:
178:Restructuring
177:
176:
171:
168:
166:
163:
161:
158:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
146:
145:
140:
137:
135:
132:
130:
127:
125:
122:
120:
117:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
105:
104:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
64:
61:
59:
56:
54:
51:
49:
46:
45:
44:
43:
39:
38:
32:
28:
27:
24:
21:
20:
1545:
1535:
1531:
1524:2019 ABCA 32
1519:
1515:
1499:
1496:2013 ONCA 95
1491:
1483:. Retrieved
1479:the original
1464:
1456:
1452:
1444:
1440:
1428:
1420:
1416:
1408:
1404:
1392:
1383:
1354:
1327:
1300:
1296:
1284:
1266:
1258:
1254:
1240:
1226:Belmont Park
1225:
1221:
1207:
1173:
1146:
1142:
1133:
1115:
1111:
1105:
1092:agreements,
1084:
1072:
1067:
1057:
1052:
1027:
1023:
999:
995:
962:
938:
934:
910:
906:
883:
880:Belmont Park
879:
869:
855:
826:
816:
803:
801:
780:
778:
752:
731:
719:
702:
683:
670:, declared:
668:Belmont Park
667:
659:
653:
646:
641:
639:
631:
620:
614:
613:
602:
581:property law
578:
553:
537:
533:
531:
476:
431:
401:South Africa
98:Receivership
78:Examinership
1542:2020 SCC 25
1071:relying on
813:liquidation
794:insolvency.
628:Longmore LJ
406:Switzerland
258:Misfeasance
88:Liquidation
73:Dissolution
1575:Bankruptcy
1570:Insolvency
1564:Categories
1485:2013-11-04
1376:Goode 2011
1359:Goode 2011
1347:Goode 2011
1332:Goode 2011
1279:Linklaters
1166:Goode 2011
1151:70 ER 1031
1126:References
1059:ipso facto
684:pari passu
664:Richards J
660:pari passu
647:pari passu
642:pari passu
622:pari passu
604:Pari passu
564:bankruptcy
550:Mellish LJ
542:common law
478:Pari passu
343:By country
129:Liquidator
53:Bankruptcy
23:Insolvency
1387:1 WLR 758
1228:, par. 79
1077:34 ER 451
1036:1572-4638
1008:1572-4638
947:1572-4638
919:1572-4638
829:Cotton LJ
705:Patten LJ
381:Hong Kong
356:Australia
196:Cram down
147:Claimants
106:Officials
40:Processes
987:(2010).
957:(2011).
790:parties.
560:contract
351:Anguilla
294:Mortgage
276:Security
245:Offences
155:Creditor
119:Tribunal
1540:,
1522:,
1502:,
1494:,
1116:Detmold
568:Wood VC
457:Default
391:Ireland
1552:R.S.C.
1112:Newitt
1034:
1006:
973:
945:
917:
866:Canada
452:Debtor
396:Russia
371:Cayman
366:Canada
1409:Lomas
1303:
1287:
1275:(PDF)
1259:Lomas
1245:
1212:
1096:, or
1044:Notes
1020:(PDF)
992:(PDF)
931:(PDF)
903:(PDF)
798:safe.
424:Other
386:India
376:China
1032:ISSN
1004:ISSN
971:ISBN
943:ISSN
915:ISSN
843:rule
832:it:
682:the
607:rule
532:The
289:Lien
802:In
630:in
552:in
361:BVI
83:IVA
63:CVA
1566::
1550:,
1473:.
1366:^
1339:^
1312:^
1277:.
1233:^
1200:^
1185:^
1158:^
1026:.
1022:.
998:.
994:.
961:.
937:.
933:.
909:.
905:.
724:.
713:or
636::
1488:.
1100:.
1038:.
1028:8
1010:.
1000:7
979:.
949:.
939:8
921:.
911:8
521:e
514:t
507:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
_(style_of)_-_A_Hand_Holding_an_Empty_Purse,_The_Emblem_of,_%E2%80%98No_suffering_can_compare%27_(with_that_of_the_bankrupt_spendthrift)_-_1298194_-_National_Trust.jpg){kind=spacer}