Template:Amending security interests: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
If you amend a [[security | ===[[amendment|Amending]] [[security interest]]s=== | ||
If you amend a document granting a [[security interest]] you risk the argument that you have terminated the old [[security interest]] and created a new one, thereby re-starting any [[voidable preference]] period, potentially invalidating any previously registered charge at [[Companies House]], and of course relegating your interest behind those of anyone who has registered a [[security interest]] over the same assets in the mean time. | |||
Some of these risks have been de-complicated by the [[financial collateral regulations]] (insofar as they've done away with registration requirements for [[financial collateral arrangement]]s), and while this is a bit of a mine-field, basic common sense should avoid anyone but the most headless [[chicken-licken]] standing on any landmines. | Some of these risks have been de-complicated by the [[financial collateral regulations]] (insofar as they've done away with registration requirements for [[financial collateral arrangement]]s altogether), and while this is a bit of a mine-field, basic common sense should avoid anyone but the most headless [[chicken-licken]] standing on any landmines. | ||
For one thing, to run any risk you have to actually be amending the [[security interest]] itself, rather than other related legal or economic terms. So, if you have — ooh, say a [[prime brokerage agreement]] which contains a [[charge]] but a lot of other stuff besides — you are (in the humble opinion of [[Jolly Contrarian|this bear of little brain]]) most likely to be amending ''other'' things and not the actual charge provision, which tends to be dull and {{sex|workpersonlike}}. You may tweak [[rehypothecation]] limits, financing rates, [[transaction]] terms and so on — but the [[security package]] will remain intact. | For one thing, to run any risk you have to actually be amending the [[security interest]] itself, rather than other related legal or economic terms. So, if you have — ooh, say a [[prime brokerage agreement]] which contains a [[charge]] but a lot of other stuff besides — you are (in the humble opinion of [[Jolly Contrarian|this bear of little brain]]) most likely to be amending ''other'' things and not the actual charge provision, which tends to be dull and {{sex|workpersonlike}}. You may tweak [[rehypothecation]] limits, financing rates, [[transaction]] terms and so on — but the [[security package]] will remain intact. | ||
{{magicwords|amendment}} | {{magicwords|amendment}} | ||
Revision as of 10:41, 16 April 2020
Amending security interests
If you amend a document granting a security interest you risk the argument that you have terminated the old security interest and created a new one, thereby re-starting any voidable preference period, potentially invalidating any previously registered charge at Companies House, and of course relegating your interest behind those of anyone who has registered a security interest over the same assets in the mean time.
Some of these risks have been de-complicated by the financial collateral regulations (insofar as they've done away with registration requirements for financial collateral arrangements altogether), and while this is a bit of a mine-field, basic common sense should avoid anyone but the most headless chicken-licken standing on any landmines.
For one thing, to run any risk you have to actually be amending the security interest itself, rather than other related legal or economic terms. So, if you have — ooh, say a prime brokerage agreement which contains a charge but a lot of other stuff besides — you are (in the humble opinion of this bear of little brain) most likely to be amending other things and not the actual charge provision, which tends to be dull and workpersonlike. You may tweak rehypothecation limits, financing rates, transaction terms and so on — but the security package will remain intact.
Magic wordsTM
No amendment provision would be complete without the following magical incantation: