Liability for delegation - UCITS V Provision: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Newer edit →
VisualWikitext
Created page with "{{a|ucits5|}} Not pretty, sadly. Recital 27: :Where the {{depositary}} delegates custody tasks and the financial instruments held in custody by a third party are lost, the {{..."
 
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:


Recital 27:
Recital 27:
:Where the {{depositary}} delegates custody tasks and the financial instruments held in custody by a third party are lost, the {{depositary}} should be liable. In the case of loss of an instrument held in custody, a {{depositary}} should return a financial instrument of an identical type or the corresponding amount, even if the loss occurred with a third party to which the custody has been delegated. The {{depositary}} should be discharged of that liability only where it is able to prove that the loss resulted from an external event beyond its reasonable control and with consequences that were unavoidable despite all reasonable efforts to the contrary. In that context, a {{depositary}} should not be able to rely on internal situations such as a fraudulent act by an employee to discharge itself of liability. '''''No discharge of liability, be it regulatory or contractual, should be possible in the case of loss of assets by the {{depositary}} or a third party to which the custody has been [[delegate]]d.''
:Where the {{ucits5prov|depositary}} delegates custody tasks and the financial instruments held in custody by a third party are lost, the {{ucits5prov|depositary}} should be liable. In the case of loss of an instrument held in custody, a {{ucits5prov|depositary}} should return a financial instrument of an identical type or the corresponding amount, even if the loss occurred with a third party to which the custody has been delegated. The {{ucits5prov|depositary}} should be discharged of that liability only where it is able to prove that the loss resulted from an external event beyond its reasonable control and with consequences that were unavoidable despite all reasonable efforts to the contrary. In that context, a {{ucits5prov|depositary}} should not be able to rely on internal situations such as a fraudulent act by an employee to discharge itself of liability. '''''No discharge of liability, be it regulatory or contractual, should be possible in the case of loss of assets by the {{ucits5prov|depositary}} or a third party to which the custody has been [[delegate]]d.''

Revision as of 13:51, 5 April 2019

UCITS V Anatomy™
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.


Not pretty, sadly.

Recital 27:

Where the depositary delegates custody tasks and the financial instruments held in custody by a third party are lost, the depositary should be liable. In the case of loss of an instrument held in custody, a depositary should return a financial instrument of an identical type or the corresponding amount, even if the loss occurred with a third party to which the custody has been delegated. The depositary should be discharged of that liability only where it is able to prove that the loss resulted from an external event beyond its reasonable control and with consequences that were unavoidable despite all reasonable efforts to the contrary. In that context, a depositary should not be able to rely on internal situations such as a fraudulent act by an employee to discharge itself of liability. No discharge of liability, be it regulatory or contractual, should be possible in the case of loss of assets by the depositary or a third party to which the custody has been delegated.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Liability_for_delegation_-_UCITS_V_Provision&oldid=29135"