dean ambrose won the most money in the bank.
dean ambrose won the most money in the bank.
who won the most money in the bank?
dean ambrose
in the last match of 2012 event, john cena defeated kane, the big show, the miz, and chris jericho to win the wwe championship money in the bank briefcase in his first money in the bank ladder match. a special stipulation had been added before hand that only former wwe champions could participate in the wwe championship money in the bank ladder match for 2012. cena won when the briefcase's handle snapped off while using it against big show, having previously blocked show's ko punch with it. on the july 16, 2012 episode of "raw", cena announced that he would cash his contract in the following week at "raw 1000". he became only the second wrestler after rob van dam to give prior notice to the opponent. at "raw 1000", cena failed to win the wwe title when big show interfered in the match, causing champion cm punk to be disqualified and retain the title (as championships don't change hands on disqualifications unless stipulated). this made cena the first money in the bank winner to fail to win a title.
money in the bank ladder match
while banks perform an essential economic function, supported by public institutions, the rights of bank customers have generally been limited to contract. in general terms and conditions, customers receive very limited protection. the consumer credit act 1974 sections 140a to 140d prohibit unfair credit relationships, including extortionate interest rates. the consumer rights act 2015 sections 62 to 65 prohibit terms that create contrary to good faith, create a significant imbalance, but the courts have not yet used these rules in a meaningful way for consumers. most importantly, since "foley v hill" the courts have held customers who deposit money in a bank account lose any rights of property by default: they apparently have only contractual claims in debt for the money to be repaid. if customers did have property rights in their deposits, they would be able to claim their money back upon a bank's insolvency, trace the money if it had been wrongly paid away, and (subject to agreement) claim profits made on the money. however, the courts have denied that bank customers have property rights. the same position has generally spread in banking practice globally, and parliament has not yet taken the opportunity to ensure banks offer accounts where customer money is protected as property. because insolvent banks do not, governments have found it necessary to publicly guarantee depositors' savings. this follows the model, started in the great depression, the us set up the federal deposit insurance corporation, to prevent bank runs. in 2017, the uk guaranteed deposits up to £85,000, mirroring an eu wide minimum guarantee of €100,000. moreover, because of the knock-on consequences of any bank failure, because bank debts are locked into a network of international finance, government has found it practically necessary to prevent banks going insolvent. under the banking act 2009 if a bank is going into insolvency, the government may (and usually will if "the stability of the financial systems" is at stake) pursue one of three "stabilisation options". the bank of england will either try to ensure the failed bank is sold onto another private sector purchaser, set up a subsidiary company to run the failing bank's assets (a "bridge-bank"), or for the uk treasury to directly take shares in "temporary public ownership". this will wipe out the shareholders, but will keep creditors' claims intact. one method to prevent bank insolvencies, following the "basel iii" programme of the international banker group, has been to require banks hold more money in reserve based on how risky their lending is. eu wide rules in the capital requirements regulation 2013 achieve this in some detail, for instance requiring proportionally less in reserves if sound government debt is held, but more if mortgage-backed securities are held.
united kingdom enterprise law