Appropriation: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Appropriation]] is a remedy created by the [[Financial Collateral Regulations]] the right to take an asset against a debt, as opposed to selling it: | {{a|security|}}[[Appropriation]] is a remedy created by the [[Financial Collateral Regulations]] the right to take an asset against a debt, as opposed to selling it: | ||
:''“Where a legal or equitable [[mortgage]] is the [[security interest]] created or arising under a [[security financial collateral arrangement]] on terms that include a power for the collateral-taker to appropriate the collateral, the [[collateral-taker]] may exercise that power in accordance with the terms of the [[security financial collateral arrangement]], without any order for [[foreclosure]] from the courts.”'' | :''“Where a legal or equitable [[mortgage]] is the [[security interest]] created or arising under a [[security financial collateral arrangement]] on terms that include a power for the collateral-taker to appropriate the collateral, the [[collateral-taker]] may exercise that power in accordance with the terms of the [[security financial collateral arrangement]], without any order for [[foreclosure]] from the courts.”'' | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
It might be useful in some cases, especially where encumbered assets are illiquid or not easily sold. But the problem becomes how one attaches a value to the appropriated asset. The less liquid it is, the more contentious the value is likely to be. The more liquid it is, the less need there is for a right of appropriation, since the collateral taker can just sell it in the market. | It might be useful in some cases, especially where encumbered assets are illiquid or not easily sold. But the problem becomes how one attaches a value to the appropriated asset. The less liquid it is, the more contentious the value is likely to be. The more liquid it is, the less need there is for a right of appropriation, since the collateral taker can just sell it in the market. | ||
Also a thing in [[Luxembourg law pledge|Luxembourg]], apparently. | |||
Not to be confused with ''[[cultural appropriation]]'', a beautifully paradoxical concept that only [[libtard]]s care about. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Financial Collateral Regulations]] | *[[Financial Collateral Regulations]] | ||
*[[Financial Collateral Directive]] | *[[Financial Collateral Directive]] | ||
*[[Fixed charge]] | *[[Fixed charge]] | ||
*[[Floating charge]] | *[[Floating charge]] | ||
*[[Luxembourg law pledge]] | |||
{{c2|Security|Collateral}} | {{c2|Security|Collateral}} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:21, 2 April 2021
|
A word about credit risk mitigation
|
Appropriation is a remedy created by the Financial Collateral Regulations the right to take an asset against a debt, as opposed to selling it:
- “Where a legal or equitable mortgage is the security interest created or arising under a security financial collateral arrangement on terms that include a power for the collateral-taker to appropriate the collateral, the collateral-taker may exercise that power in accordance with the terms of the security financial collateral arrangement, without any order for foreclosure from the courts.”
“Appropriation” is – helpfully, but typically – not defined, but the directive does require that the collateral taker has an agreed valuation method.
It might be useful in some cases, especially where encumbered assets are illiquid or not easily sold. But the problem becomes how one attaches a value to the appropriated asset. The less liquid it is, the more contentious the value is likely to be. The more liquid it is, the less need there is for a right of appropriation, since the collateral taker can just sell it in the market.
Also a thing in Luxembourg, apparently.
Not to be confused with cultural appropriation, a beautifully paradoxical concept that only libtards care about.