The legitimacy as a proper party transferred to the bankrupt's estate, the capacity to litigate in the name and on behalf of the debtor, may, however, be transferred back to the debtor if he opposes the settlement made in the disputed case. However, the debtor may obtain the right to proceed in his own name only if he provides the bankrupt's estate a collateral security on what is offered as the settlement. Thus the debtor must provide the bankrupt's estate with a collateral corresponding to the sum which the bankrupt's estate would get if it made a settlement in the dispute. If the debtor has not given this collateral in the meeting in which the creditors have decided upon the settlement of the case, the debtor has lost his chance to regain his legitimacy as a proper party, and the creditors in the bankruptcy can settle the dispute with final order in a manner that is binding on the debtor. Section 71 subsection 5. of the. Bankruptcy Act contains an explicit provision to this effect. This is a peremptory legal provision and cannot otherwise be agreed upon."

Acting Deemster Corrin found that any interest which the Appellant had in the shares in Regatta were assigned to the Trustees.

[c] He made the following findings of fact -

[1] At a creditors' meeting on 10th September 1997, at which the Appellant and his lawyer were present, the creditors approved of the Trustees negotiating a settlement of the Appellant's claim in these Manx proceedings upon payment by the Respondent of US$ 70000 or such lesser sum as might be agreed.

[2] On 15th October 1997 the Trustees agreed with the Respondent that upon payment by him of US$ 10000 they would withdraw from the Manx proceedings and make no claim to the beneficial interest in the shares in Regatta thereby leaving the Respondent free to obtain a declaration of beneficial ownership in such shares.

[3] By letters to the Appellant dated 4th and 5th November 1997 the Trustees recited the agreement made with the Respondent and asked whether the Appellant wished to make the agreed payment of US$ 10000 or provide a guarantee for such sum. Acting Deemster Corrin concluded -

"Thus it would appear that Mr. Holmaranta was given a full opportunity of taking advantage of the Finnish law by either making a payment, giving security, or making a guarantee of the 10,000 dollars. He failed to do so then or later. There is no evidence that Mr. Holmaranta made any