Template:Assignment and set off: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "===Effect on {{tag|Netting}} and {{tag|Set-Off}}=== Could a right to assign by way of security could upset close out {{tag|netting}} such that one should, prohibit any assignm..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Effect on {{tag|Netting}} and {{tag|Set-Off}}=== | ===Effect on {{tag|Netting}} and {{tag|Set-Off}}=== | ||
Could a right to assign by way of security | Could a right to assign by way of security upset [[close-out netting]] such that one should, prohibit any assignment by way of security of any rights under a master netting agreement (such as an {{isdama}} or a {{gmsla}})? | ||
No: | |||
#.An assignment by way of security is a preferred claim in the assignor’s {{tag|insolvency}} over the realised value of certain rights, rather than a direct transfer of those rights to the assignee: the assignor is still obliged to the counterparty, not the assignee, and any claim the assignee would have against the counterparty would be by way of subrogation of the assignor’s claim. | #.An assignment by way of security is a preferred claim in the assignor’s {{tag|insolvency}} over the realised value of certain rights, rather than a direct transfer of those rights to the assignee: the assignor is still obliged to the counterparty, not the assignee, and any claim the assignee would have against the counterparty would be by way of subrogation of the assignor’s claim. | ||
#.“''Nemo dat quod non habet''” – the counterparty’s rights cannot be improved by assignment, and it being a [[single agreement]] on termination of the agreement the assignee’s claim is to the termination amount determined under the Agreement, which involves terminating all transactions and determining he aggregate mark-to-market and applying netting. | #.“''Nemo dat quod non habet''” – the counterparty’s rights cannot be improved by assignment, and it being a [[single agreement]] on termination of the agreement the assignee’s claim is to the termination amount determined under the Agreement, which involves terminating all transactions and determining he aggregate mark-to-market and applying netting. | ||
At the point of closeout, the assignee’s right is to any termination payment payable to the Counterparty. Therefore any assignment of rights is logically subject to the netting, as opposed to potentially destructive of it. | At the point of closeout, the assignee’s right is to any termination payment payable to the Counterparty. Therefore any assignment of rights is logically subject to the netting, as opposed to potentially destructive of it. | ||
Revision as of 18:37, 6 January 2015
===Effect on Netting and Set-Off=== Could a right to assign by way of security upset close-out netting such that one should, prohibit any assignment by way of security of any rights under a master netting agreement (such as an ISDA Master Agreement or a 2010 GMSLA)?
No:
- .An assignment by way of security is a preferred claim in the assignor’s insolvency over the realised value of certain rights, rather than a direct transfer of those rights to the assignee: the assignor is still obliged to the counterparty, not the assignee, and any claim the assignee would have against the counterparty would be by way of subrogation of the assignor’s claim.
- .“Nemo dat quod non habet” – the counterparty’s rights cannot be improved by assignment, and it being a single agreement on termination of the agreement the assignee’s claim is to the termination amount determined under the Agreement, which involves terminating all transactions and determining he aggregate mark-to-market and applying netting.
At the point of closeout, the assignee’s right is to any termination payment payable to the Counterparty. Therefore any assignment of rights is logically subject to the netting, as opposed to potentially destructive of it.