Expenses - VM CSA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Replaced content with "{{csaanat|8|2016}} {{csa expenses|csa}}" Tag: Replaced |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{nman|csa|2016|Expenses}} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:46, 12 May 2024
ISDA 2016 English Law VM Credit Support Annex
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ Expenses in a Nutshell™
Original text
Resources and Navigation
|
Comparisons
title transfer CSAs
Paragraph 8 of the 1995 CSA is identical to the paragraoh 8 in the 2016 VM CSA.
security interest CSAs
Paragraph 10(a) of the 1994 NY CSA (but for the (VM)s) identical to Paragraph 10(a) of the 2016 NY Law VM CSA.
security interest CSAs vs. title transfer CSAs
The bit about everyone being liable for their own costs is common to all CSAs. the difference is that taxes lie where they fall in the title transfer CSAs, but are the responsibility of the Pledgor in the security interest CSAs. The security interest CSAs also carry on in 10(b) and 10(c) to rabbit on a bit about taxes and enforcement costs on Posted Collateral.
IM CSD
The 2018 English law IM CSD is an odd hybrid: all parties are liable for their own taxes, there is all the additional bit about Posted Credit Support, but the Chargor is liable for the costs and taxes of returning Credit Support from the Segregated Account back to the Chargor (when no longer required as IM).
Basics
The starting point here, being a function of the common law of contract — not to mention common sense — is that every merchant is liable for its own costs and expenses of performing a contract, so if there you incur costs in running a collateral operation, as a general matter, they are for your own account.
Where this might change is as a result of a pledge. Specifically in the context of tax.
Bear in mind the pledge is designed purely as the Secured Party’s comfort it will be made whole if the Pledgor defaults, by the Pledgor handing over some assets as collateral, on the premise that the Pledgor will get them back. This is different from the title transfer CSA, where you get the collateral to keep and do with as you wish, and collateralisation works by way of offset.
Now, the idea is not to stick a Secured Party with any additional expenses as a result: if Pledgor delivers collateral to Secured Party to hold hostage, then if the Secured Party suffers any costs, be they by way of tax — the classic is a stamp duty or similar transfer tax — or perfection and registration of security, and then enforcement and realisation should the Pledgor default, these should be for the Pledgor’s account, as the Secured Party gets no benefit from incurring that cost. All the more so any costs and taxes the Secured Party should incur when transferring the assets back to the Pledgor at the end of the Transaction.
These considerations do not — quite so straightforwardly, at any rate — pertain to title transfer arrangements. Once you have the asset, it is yours. And you can control, somewhat, for transfer taxes by adjusting your Eligible Credit Support criteria.
This is not an entirely ironclad justification, by the way — especially when you take into account the effects of rehypothecation.
security interest CSAs
How to deal with stamp duties is the subject of Paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c), of which there is no equivalent in the English law document.
Premium content
Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics👇
|