Template:Csa Rights and Remedies summ nyvmcsaprov: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{raw:jc:Csa Rights and Remedies summ nyvmcsaprov|{{{1}}}}}" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | ====Secured Party’s Rights and Remedies==== | ||
The circumstances in which the {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} can exercise its rights and remedies under the pledge following an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} or {{{{{1}}}|Specified Condition}} with respect to the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}}, such as [[set-off]], liquidation, and customary and statutory rights, without prior notice to the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}}. | |||
====Pledgor’s Rights and Remedies==== | |||
Of course, it is a [[The bilaterality, or not, of the ISDA|bilateral]] contract, and the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}} might be the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}} and {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} being the one going through its existential crisis. They are broadly the same rights that the Secured Party can exercise if the shoe is on the other foot. The difference is that the Secured Party must give back collateral, rather than it being sold (which figures) and if it is not so transferred, set off and withhold payments otherwise due to the Secured Party. | |||
Why wouldn’t the {{{{{1}}}|Posted Collateral}} be returned? [[Rehypothecation]] for one reason: if the Secured Party has reused the Collateral by punting it out into the market, even under a repo, being a Defaulting Party it may well not be able to get it back. |
Latest revision as of 16:03, 9 May 2024
Secured Party’s Rights and Remedies
The circumstances in which the {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} can exercise its rights and remedies under the pledge following an Event of Default or {{{{{1}}}|Specified Condition}} with respect to the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}}, such as set-off, liquidation, and customary and statutory rights, without prior notice to the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}}.
Pledgor’s Rights and Remedies
Of course, it is a bilateral contract, and the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}} might be the Non-defaulting Party and {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} being the one going through its existential crisis. They are broadly the same rights that the Secured Party can exercise if the shoe is on the other foot. The difference is that the Secured Party must give back collateral, rather than it being sold (which figures) and if it is not so transferred, set off and withhold payments otherwise due to the Secured Party.
Why wouldn’t the {{{{{1}}}|Posted Collateral}} be returned? Rehypothecation for one reason: if the Secured Party has reused the Collateral by punting it out into the market, even under a repo, being a Defaulting Party it may well not be able to get it back.