Template:Ucits delegaton versus aifmd delegation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Delegation of safekeeping under {{t|UCITS}} and {{t|AIFMD}} look kind of similar don’t they?=== | ===Delegation of safekeeping under {{t|UCITS}} and {{t|AIFMD}} look kind of similar don’t they?=== | ||
Yes, they do. The textual differences | Yes, they do. The textual differences betwixt {{t|UCITS}} (Art {{ucits5prov|22a}}) and {{t|AIFMD}} (Art {{aifmdprov|21(11)}}) are ''largely'' formal, or ''[[mutatis mutandis]]'' style. The main substantive differences are: | ||
*A {{t|UCITS}} {{ucits5prov|depositary}} is not allowed to reuse the UCITS’ assets at all, rather that only with prior notification and consent as under AIFMD; | *A {{t|UCITS}} {{ucits5prov|depositary}} is not allowed to reuse the UCITS’ assets at all, rather that only with prior notification and consent as under AIFMD; | ||
*A {{t|UCITS}} {{ucits5prov|depositary}}must take all necessary steps to ensure UCITS’ assets aren’t caught up in the bankruptcy estate of an insolvent custodian; | *A {{t|UCITS}} {{ucits5prov|depositary}}must take all necessary steps to ensure UCITS’ assets aren’t caught up in the bankruptcy estate of an insolvent custodian; | ||
*Where a non-EEA jurisdiction requires use of a local custodian and no local entities satisfy the delegation requirements, {{t|UCITS}} investors must be notified of the risks of such a delegation and not just the fact or, and circumstances justifying, it. | *Where a non-EEA jurisdiction requires use of a local custodian and no local entities satisfy the delegation requirements, {{t|UCITS}} investors must be notified of the risks of such a delegation and not just the fact or, and circumstances justifying, it. | ||
Revision as of 11:22, 25 July 2019
Delegation of safekeeping under UCITS and AIFMD look kind of similar don’t they?
Yes, they do. The textual differences betwixt UCITS (Art 22a) and AIFMD (Art 21(11)) are largely formal, or mutatis mutandis style. The main substantive differences are:
- A UCITS depositary is not allowed to reuse the UCITS’ assets at all, rather that only with prior notification and consent as under AIFMD;
- A UCITS depositarymust take all necessary steps to ensure UCITS’ assets aren’t caught up in the bankruptcy estate of an insolvent custodian;
- Where a non-EEA jurisdiction requires use of a local custodian and no local entities satisfy the delegation requirements, UCITS investors must be notified of the risks of such a delegation and not just the fact or, and circumstances justifying, it.