Template:M summ EUA Annex (d)(i)(2)

All tediously quotidian, largely-goes-without-saying stuff, until you stumble over subparagraph (B) like an inattentive trail-runner not noticing a tree-root.

So:

(A) you have to comply with the Scheme, and deliver from your Holding Account to the Receiving Party’s. (Quite why it matters whence the Allowances come we cannot say — a vague fretfulness about theft perhaps? — but ok; let’s run with it. The transfer is done once the Allowances hit the Receiving Party’s account (I know, I know: you don’t say.)

(B) Let’s skip (B) for a minute.

(C) If the Receiving Party has designated multiple Specified Holding Accounts — as to why it would have multiple accounts, let alone specify them for a single Transaction we can provide no answer beyond basic bloody-minded perversity — but let’s just say — Delivering Party starts at the top and, if for some reason the first-named accounts are subject to some kind of disruption and the later ones are not — again, search us what might cause that — work its way down until it has delivered all EUAs. (If it gets to the bottom unfulfilled, see Settlement Disruption Event and Suspension Event).

(D) If you deliver outside the normal window during business hours, your delivery is deemed satisfied at the next moment where a window on business hours opens. Workaday stuff that will be familiar with anyone who deals with the settlement of securities for a living.

But (B) — what this is getting at is harder to figure. By simply designating a Holding Account — thereby turning it into a Specified Holding Account — why should a Delivering Party’s obligation thereby be limited to delivering from that Holding Account?

If it is empty, does that create some kind of impossibility or frustration as a grounds for release from the contract? That would seem a peculiar outcome. If Delivering Party has other Holding Accounts is it not obliged to deliver from those? We cannot imagine this was intended. If the Specified Holding Account is empty or immobilised, perhaps due to some service-provider failure elsewhere, could not the Delivering Party nominate delivery directly from a market counterparty into the Receiving Party’s account?

So many questions.