Account control agreement: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|gmslaanat|
[[File:Triparty Diagram.png|500px]]
also known as a [[tri-party collateral arrangement]]; an arrangement wherein a debtor [[pledge]]s collateral to a [[custodian]] to hold it for that [[pledgor]], but subject to a security in favour of a [[pledgee]]. The agreement generally provides that neither party may instruct the custodian to do anything with the asset without the other's consent, except in the direst of circumstances.
also known as a [[tri-party collateral arrangement]]; an arrangement wherein a debtor [[pledge]]s collateral to a [[custodian]] to hold it for that [[pledgor]], but subject to a security in favour of a [[pledgee]]. The agreement generally provides that neither party may instruct the custodian to do anything with the asset without the other's consent, except in the direst of circumstances.


Line 33: Line 35:
***[[Pledgee]]  would have exactly the same liability if it held the [[collateral]] itself as [[Custodian]] and didn’t return it when [[Pledgor]] was entitled to it.
***[[Pledgee]]  would have exactly the same liability if it held the [[collateral]] itself as [[Custodian]] and didn’t return it when [[Pledgor]] was entitled to it.


 
{{seealso}}
 
===see also===
*[[Custodian]]
*[[Custodian]]
*[[Indemnity]]
*[[Indemnity]]
*[[Pledge]]
*[[Pledge]]
*[[Security]]
*[[Security]]
{{anat|CASS}}

Revision as of 17:24, 9 April 2019

{{a|gmslaanat| also known as a tri-party collateral arrangement; an arrangement wherein a debtor pledges collateral to a custodian to hold it for that pledgor, but subject to a security in favour of a pledgee. The agreement generally provides that neither party may instruct the custodian to do anything with the asset without the other's consent, except in the direst of circumstances.

Indemnity

Even in those dark days the custodian will be reluctant to do anything and may ask for an indemnity. Why would you indemnify the Custodian for actions it takes under an account control agreement?

The logic runs something like this:

See also