this type of formalist reasoning and takes a more legal realist approach. As far as propert law is concerned, I refer to the recent United States v. Sandra Craff case, in which the question was decided whether the possession of individual rights in a tenancy -by-the-entirety estate can be seen as property belonging to one of the spouses that may fall under a lien in favour of the federal Internal Revenue Service. 37 The majority of the Court answered this question positively, considering the substance of the right under discussion, not its form Finally, a fairly recent development that should be mentioned here is the proposal to amend the above-cited provision on assignment of claims(viz. that notice to the claim debtor is a conditio sine qua non)and restore- in cases of securitisation and factoring-the rule under the old dutch Civil Code that for an assignment to be valid the claim debtor need not be informed about the assignment. 39 The new provision, as proposed, reads These rights [viz. rights to be exercised against one or more specifica lly determined persons, JvE]can also be delivered by an authentic deed or a registered deed under private writing, which authentic or gistered deed must be drawn up for that purpose, without notification thereof to the persons against whom those rights must be exercised, provided that these rights already exist at the time of the delivery or will be directly acquired pursuant to a juridical relationship already existing at that time. The delivery cannot be invoked against the persons aga inst whom these rights must be exercised, except after notification of the delivery to those persons by the assignor or the assignee. 40 To justify this radical change less than fifteen years after the enactment of the new Civil Cod the Explanatory Memorandum argues that the creation of a non-possessory pledge in cases of securitisation and factoring is not what the parties want. What they want is a complete assignment, without the claim debtor having knowledge of the assignment, which they cannot attain as this requires notification of the claim debtor. Therefore, the notification requirement must be abandoned. I No mention is made of the impact of the fiducia ban: if the assignment were to be considered not real, or not true. it would still be invalid for that reason Or should we read the Explanatory Memorandum as implying that also Book 3, Article 84(3)no longer applies in cases of securitisation and factoring? It is clear that the internal coherence of the system is at risk It will be clear from the above that present Dutch property law, as laid down in the Civil Code, can be characterised as the result of an attempt to purify the civil law and re establish statutory law as the prime source of legal rules for market participants. This attempt U.S. Supreme Court 17 April 2002, docket no. 00-1831, United States, petitioner. Sandra L. Craft, 535 U.S(2002), 70.SL W. 4249(April 17, 2002), to be found electronically at http://supctlawcomelledu/supct/html00-1831.zs.htmlandathttp://caselaw.Ipfindlaw.com bin/getcase courtes&navby=case &vo000&invo=00-1831 See fora comment on this decision, H Dagan, Crafting Property Forms by the Bundle, University of Michigan Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 17. The paper can be downloaded free of charge fromhttp://www.ssm.com/abstractid=33120 hbe. Kamerstukken ll(Parliamentary Documents)2002/03 and 2003/04,28878, to be foundelectronically /www overheid nOn My translation Memorie van Toelichting(Explanatory Memorandum), Kamerstukken / 2002/03, 28878, no. 3, p See the Explanatory Memorandum forfurther references, also to foreign law10 this type of formalist reasoning and takes a more legal realist approach. As far as property law is concerned, I refer to the recent United States v. Sandra Craft case, in which the question was decided whether the possession of individual rights in a tenancy-by-the-entirety estate can be seen as ‘property’ belonging to one of the spouses that may fall under a lien in favour of the federal Internal Revenue Service.37 The majority of the Court answered this question positively, considering the substance of the right under discussion, not its form.38 Finally, a fairly recent development that should be mentioned here is the proposal to amend the above-cited provision on assignment of claims (viz. that notice to the claim debtor is a conditio sine qua non) and restore - in cases of securitisation and factoring - the rule under the old Dutch Civil Code that for an assignment to be valid the claim debtor need not be informed about the assignment.39 The new provision, as proposed, reads: These rights [viz. rights to be exercised against one or more specifically determined persons, JvE] can also be delivered by an authentic deed or a registered deed under private writing, which authentic or registered deed must be drawn up for that purpose, without notification thereof to the persons against whom those rights must be exercised, provided that these rights already exist at the time of the delivery or will be directly acquired pursuant to a juridical relationship already existing at that time. The delivery cannot be invoked against the persons against whom these rights must be exercised, except after notification of the delivery to those persons by the assignor or the assignee.40 To justify this radical change less than fifteen years after the enactment of the new Civil Code, the Explanatory Memorandum argues that the creation of a non-possessory pledge in cases of securitisation and factoring is not what the parties want. What they want is a complete assignment, without the claim debtor having knowledge of the assignment, which they cannot attain as this requires notification of the claim debtor. Therefore, the notification requirement must be abandoned.41 No mention is made of the impact of the fiducia ban: if the assignment were to be considered not ‘real’ or not ‘true’, it would still be invalid for that reason. Or should we read the Explanatory Memorandum as implying that also Book 3, Article 84(3) no longer applies in cases of securitisation and factoring? It is clear that the internal coherence of the system is at risk. It will be clear from the above that present Dutch property law, as laid down in the Civil Code, can be characterised as the result of an attempt to purify the civil law and re￾establish statutory law as the prime source of legal rules for market participants. This attempt 37 U.S. Supreme Court 17 April 2002, docket no. 00-1831, United States, petitioner v. Sandra L. Craft, 535 U.S. (2002), 70 U.S.L.W. 4249 (April 17, 2002), to be found electronically at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1831.ZS.html and at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi￾bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1831. 38 See for a comment on this decision, H. Dagan, Crafting Property Forms by the Bundle, University of Michigan Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 17. The paper can be downloaded free of charge from: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract_id=331201. 39 Kamerstukken II (Parliamentary Documents) 2002/03 and 2003/04, 28 878, to be found electronically at: http://www.overheid.nl/op. 40 My translation. 41 Memorie van Toelichting (Explanatory Memorandum), Kamerstukken II 2002/03, 28 878, no. 3, p. 3. See the Explanatory Memorandum for further references, also to foreign law