|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| A provision which seems to require an {{aifmdprov|AIF}} being able to directly sue a sub-custodian located in a [[third country]]. | | {{aifmdanat|21(14)}} |
| | A provision which seems to require an {{aifmdprov|AIF}} being able to directly sue a sub-custodian located in a [[third country]]. Eek! (But fear not: there's a twist...) |
|
| |
|
| {{aifmdsnap|21(14)}} | | Of interest are the criteria set out in Article {{aifmdprov|21(11)(d)(ii)}}, right? If met, the strictures of this paragraph do not apply. These are, even in weird and wonderful jurisdictions, a fairly low bar over which to execute a Fosbury flop: That it be subject to "effective" prudential regulation — seems a bit of a value judgment — to have ''some'' minimum [[capital]] requirements (without saying how much...), and to be ''audited''. |
|
| |
|
| {{comm}}
| | Which is just as well, because the provisions of {{aifmdprov|21(14)}} are otherwise onerous. |
| Of interest are the criteria set out in Article {{aifmdprov|21(11)(d)(ii)}}, right? Well, these are they:
| |
| {{aifmdsnap|21(11)(d)(ii)}}
| |
| These are, even in weird and wonderful jurisdictions, a fairly low bar over which to execute a Fosbury flop: That it be subject to "effective prudential regulation - seems somewhat subjective to me - to have {{isdaprov|some}} minimum capital requirements (without saying how much...), and to be audited. Which is just as well, because the provisions of {{aifmdprov|21(14)}} are otherwise outrageously onerous.
| |
| {{anat|aifmd}}
| |
Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024
|
AIFMD Anatomy™
{{{2}}}
In a Nutshell™ Section 21(14):
|
21(14) Discharge of liability for delegates in non-EU jurisdictions in limited circumstances: Discharge of liability in the case of third parties in Third Countries: when certain conditions met.
|
view template
Full text
This is an unoffical transcription, may be wrong, buggered up, out of date etc. You should Google the original.
|
21(14). Further, where the law of a third country requires that certain financial instruments are held in custody by a local entity and there are no local entities that satisfy the delegation requirements laid down in point 21(11)(d)(ii) of paragraph 21(11), the depositary can discharge itself of liability provided that the following conditions are met:
- (a) the rules or instruments of incorporation of the AIF concerned expressly allow for such a discharge under the conditions set out in this paragraph;
- (b) the investors of the relevant AIF have been duly informed of that discharge and of the circumstances justifying the discharge prior to their investment;
- (c) the AIF or the AIFM on behalf of the AIF instructed the depositary to delegate the custody of such financial instruments to a local entity;
- (d) there is a written contract between the depositary and the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF, which expressly allows such a discharge; and
- (e) there is a written contract between the depositary and the third party that expressly transfers the liability of the depositary to that local entity and makes it possible for the AIF or the AIFM acting on behalf of the AIF to make a claim against that local entity in respect of the loss of financial instruments or for the depositary to make such a claim on their behalf.
|
view template
|
A provision which seems to require an AIF being able to directly sue a sub-custodian located in a third country. Eek! (But fear not: there's a twist...)
Of interest are the criteria set out in Article 21(11)(d)(ii), right? If met, the strictures of this paragraph do not apply. These are, even in weird and wonderful jurisdictions, a fairly low bar over which to execute a Fosbury flop: That it be subject to "effective" prudential regulation — seems a bit of a value judgment — to have some minimum capital requirements (without saying how much...), and to be audited.
Which is just as well, because the provisions of 21(14) are otherwise onerous.