|
|
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{gmslaanat|Designated Office}} | | {{gmslaanat|Designated Office}} |
| Just what significance a {{gmslaprov|Designated Office}} has to a stock borrower or lender is never made clear in the {{gmsla}}. It gets a mention in the first line of Clause {{gmslaprov|1.1}} — encouraging you would think — but gets no further mention until it is defined, unenlighteningly, as you can see in the panel.
| | {{gmsla designated office|gmsla}} |
| | |
| What are we to make of this? “The parties, acting through their {{gmslaprov|Designated Office}}s, may enter into transactions ...” — that is a common or garden [[agreement to agree]], folks — so is this meant to restrict the parties’ ability to act out of other offices?
| |
| | |
| Note in the more fulsomely-articulated<ref>Some would say, “''tiresomely''”-articulated.</ref> {{isdama}} the “{{isdaprov|Multibranch Parties}}” concept involves the party giving [[representations]] as to recourse, and expressly prohibits parties changing their specified {{isdaprov|Office}}s during the life of a transaction without the other’s [[prior written consent]].
| |
| | |
| Details fans will immediately note that, from the point of view of legal and corporate philosophy — a subject dear to every [[Legal Eagles|attorney]]’s heart — the differing offices or branches of a [[legal entity]] have no distinct legal personality, any more than does a one’s arm have different personality one’s her leg. So, being a “multibranch” party, or acting out of a designated office, makes no legal difference. If you’re bound, you’re bound.
| |
| | |
| the main risk of booking out of the wrong entity is a taxation risk.
| |
|
| |
|
| {{sa}} | | {{sa}} |
| *Section {{isdaprov|10}} of the {{isdama}} relating to {{isdaprov|Multibranch Parties}} | | *Section {{isdaprov|10}} of the {{isdama}} relating to {{isdaprov|Multibranch Parties}} |
| {{ref}} | | {{ref}} |