Template:Aifmddepositarydelegation: 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: | ||
===Delegation of {{aifmdprov|depositary}}’s functions=== | ===Delegation of {{aifmdprov|depositary}}’s functions=== | ||
You will see from {{aifmdprov|21(4)}} the {{aifmdprov|depositary}}’s role ''[[in toto]]'' is not really suitable for a [[prime broker]]. However, the {{aifmdprov|depositary}} may delegate some of its functions, and a prime broker may act as: | You will see from {{aifmdprov|21(4)}} the {{aifmdprov|depositary}}’s role ''[[in toto]]'' is not really suitable for a [[prime broker]]. However, the {{aifmdprov|depositary}} may delegate some of its functions, and a prime broker may act as: | ||
*{{aifmdprov|custodian}}, but will have certain conditions to that appointment ( | *A '''{{aifmdprov|custodian}}''', but will have certain conditions to that appointment (set out in Art {{aifmdprov|21(11)}}, including the famous “{{aifmdprov|objective reason}}”), and you may expect the {{aifmdprov|depositary}} will seek to delegate the safe-keeping function on those exact conditions, and (as far as it can) transfer outright its liability for those responsibilities to the [[prime broker]], on exactly the terms required by [[AIFMD]] and [[AIFMR]]. | ||
*A “{{aifmdprov|depositary lite}}” to certain non-EU domiciled {{aifmdprov|AIF}}s who aren’t obliged to have a full-blown {{aifmdprov|depositary}}. The depo-lite regime, and the delegated safe-keeping regime, are different but in many respects quite similar things and it is easy to conflate them. A specialist will find you out if you do. | *A “{{aifmdprov|depositary lite}}” to certain non-EU domiciled {{aifmdprov|AIF}}s who aren’t obliged to have a full-blown {{aifmdprov|depositary}}. The depo-lite regime, and the delegated safe-keeping regime, are different but in many respects quite similar things and it is easy to conflate them. A specialist will find you out if you do. | ||
Revision as of 17:14, 26 November 2018
Delegation of depositary’s functions
You will see from 21(4) the depositary’s role in toto is not really suitable for a prime broker. However, the depositary may delegate some of its functions, and a prime broker may act as:
- A custodian, but will have certain conditions to that appointment (set out in Art 21(11), including the famous “objective reason”), and you may expect the depositary will seek to delegate the safe-keeping function on those exact conditions, and (as far as it can) transfer outright its liability for those responsibilities to the prime broker, on exactly the terms required by AIFMD and AIFMR.
- A “depositary lite” to certain non-EU domiciled AIFs who aren’t obliged to have a full-blown depositary. The depo-lite regime, and the delegated safe-keeping regime, are different but in many respects quite similar things and it is easy to conflate them. A specialist will find you out if you do.
Conditions to delegation by a depositary
The depositary can only delegate in certain circumstances:
- It must have an “objective reason” for the delegation.
- it must exercise due skill, care and diligence in the selection, appointment and ongoing monitoring of the sub-custodian;
- The sub-custodian to whom it delegates:
- must have structures and expertise proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of the assets of the AIF
- must be subject, in acting as a custodian, to effective prudential regulation and supervision in its local jurisdiction and periodic external audits;
- must segregate AIF assets from its own and the depositary’s assets
- may not reuse the AIF’s assets without the AIF’s express consent.
Conditions to discharge of liability when delegating by a depositary
It is one thing for a depositary to delegate performance of a safekeeping function to a prime broker (21(11)); it is another for it to discharge its liability for the safekeeping of assets (21(13)). That can only happen if:
- All the conditions to delegation are met;
- There is a written contract transfers that liability so the AIF can claim directly against the PB — which contractual privity freaks will immediately realise will require either artful use of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, or that the AIF should be party to that contract. In practice the AIF will of course be party to a contract with its prime broker.