Template:Amending security interests: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:Amending security interests (view source)

Revision as of 11:42, 1 February 2023

603 bytes added , 1 February 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,371

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-If you amend a [[security document]] 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 intervening period.
+===Amending security interests===
+[[Security]] is deep Eagle lore. Even sensible, experienced, senior, inhouse lawyers will get the shivers whenever the topic of taking security comes up. From childhood they have been raised on [[Cruwwelpeter|gruesome stories of what happens to legal eaglets who are careless with security interests]].
-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.
+If you amend a document granting a [[security interest]] you risk someone trying to argue that you have terminated the old [[security interest]] and created a new one, thereby re-starting any [[voidable preference]] period, invalidating any previously registered charge, and of course relegating your interest behind those of anyone who has registered a [[security interest]] over the same assets in the mean time — the first security interest in time prevails.
-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.
+Some of these risks have been de-complicated by the [[financial collateral regulations]] (insofar as they’ve done away with registration requirements, [[slavenburg]]s and so on for [[financial collateral arrangement]]s), and while this is still a bit of a mine-field, basic common sense should avoid anyone but the most headless [[chicken-licken]] standing on any landmines.
-{{magicwords|full force and effect}}
+For one thing, to run any risk you have to actually be amending the [[security interest]] itself, rather than ''other'' legal or economic terms that just happen to be in the same contract.
+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.
+In any case, the following [[magic words]] should help: “These amendments will not affect the effectiveness, time of original execution or priority of any [[security interest]]s.”