Limited recourse: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Of a {{tag|contract}}, that the [[obligor]]’s obligations under it are limited to a defined pool of assets. You see this a lot in [[repackaging]]s, [[securitisation]]s and other structured transactions involving [[ | Of a {{tag|contract}}, that the [[obligor]]’s obligations under it are limited to a defined pool of assets. You see this a lot in [[repackaging]]s, [[securitisation]]s and other structured transactions involving [[espievie]]s. | ||
Usually the limitation of a claim in this way goes hand-in-hand with a security interest over the defined pool of assets. | Usually the limitation of a claim in this way goes hand-in-hand with a security interest over the defined pool of assets. | ||
Revision as of 12:32, 30 January 2018
Of a contract, that the obligor’s obligations under it are limited to a defined pool of assets. You see this a lot in repackagings, securitisations and other structured transactions involving espievies.
Usually the limitation of a claim in this way goes hand-in-hand with a security interest over the defined pool of assets.
Security and limited recourse are fundamental structural aspects of contracts with special purpose vehicles and investment funds, so if you feel the urge to challenge these provisions, do yourself and everyone else on the deal a favour: save your breath.
In the immortal words of the East Enders: “Leave it Phil! Leave it! He's not worth it.”