What the judge is no doubt considering is that the transaction side of the lender makes no commercial sense given the counter party risks.
Who would loan shares, (if they knew they were loaning shares) at such an open or non binding collateral obligation as a lender in the agreement, unless you thought your shares were beneficially held for you or in held in trust.
1194 clients won't just give sign their shares over with fully counter party risk for some one to use willy nilly as they please. He knows the deal stinks and the agreements are really non commercial in their construction.
