Miscellaneous - Pledge GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{Manual|MSGP|2018|28|Clause|28|medium}}" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Manual|MSGP|2018|28|Clause| | {{Manual|MSGP|2018|28|Clause|27|short}} |
Latest revision as of 08:05, 17 September 2021
2018 Global Master Securities Lending Agreement (Pledge Version)
Clause 28 in a Nutshell™ Use at your own risk, campers!
Full text of Clause 28
Related agreements and comparisons
|
Content and comparisons
Largely untouched between the 2010 GMSLA and the 2018 Pledge GMSLA but for the omission of what I call the “supersession” clause: the one that automatically hoovers up all the outstanding stock loans documented under existing, but due-to-be-superseded, stock loan agreements, which is not used in the transition between title transfer and pledge stock loans because there are some fairly fiddly manual re-bookings required for each Loan, given the change in legal theory of the transactions.
Also because, due to the multi-principal nature of the 2018 Pledge GMSLA, and the high likelihood that the agent lenders will not be prepared to move their principals to the pledge format without first obtaining consent — the theory being that moving from outright title transfer to pledge only is not unequivocally in the principal’s best interest, so client’s will like to have the option — the process of moving a given agent lending agreement from title transfer to pledge will happen over months, so the “automatic supercession” language is not really appropriate.
Purists will remark that an agency master agreement entered into on behalf of separate unconnected principals whose liability is several and not joint is, in legal theory, multiple distinct agreements, and each one is transferred only when its principal formally consents, so this succession point is somewhat moot, but look, let’s not get wildly obsessed about this.
Summary
A grab-bag of the usual miscellany, paranoia and wrong-headedness that populates the back-end of most commercial contracts these days, with pointless things (like a counterparts clause), logically self-defeating ones (like a warranty in a standard form that the standard form hasn’t been subsequently amended, except where it has been), and positively pernicious ones (like a no oral modification clause, though admittedly the JC is in a minority in seeing these as pernicious).