Template:Csa Expenses summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Bear in mind the pledge is designed purely as the Secured Party’s comfort it will be made whole if the Pledgor defaults, by the Pledgor handing over some assets as collateral, on the premise that the Pledgor will get them back. This is different from the {{Ttcsa}}, where you get the collateral to keep and do with as you wish, and collateralisation works by way of offset. | Bear in mind the pledge is designed purely as the Secured Party’s comfort it will be made whole if the Pledgor defaults, by the Pledgor handing over some assets as collateral, on the premise that the Pledgor will get them back. This is different from the {{Ttcsa}}, where you get the collateral to keep and do with as you wish, and collateralisation works by way of offset. | ||
Now, the idea is not to stick a Secured Party with any additional expenses as a result: if Pledgor delivers collateral to Secured Party to hold hostage, then if the Secured Party suffers any costs, be they by way of tax — the classic is a [[stamp duty]] or similar transfer tax — or perfection and registration of security, and then enforcement and realisation should the Pledgor default, these should be for the | Now, the idea is not to stick a {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} with any additional expenses as a result: if Pledgor delivers collateral to {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} to hold hostage, then if the {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} suffers any costs, be they by way of tax — the classic is a [[stamp duty]] or similar transfer tax — or perfection and registration of security, and then enforcement and realisation should the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}} default, these should be for the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}}’s account, as the {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} gets no benefit from incurring that cost. All the more so any costs and taxes the {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} should incur when transferring the assets ''back'' to the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}} at the end of the {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}. | ||
These considerations do not — quite so straightforwardly, at any rate — pertain to [[title transfer]] arrangements. Once you have the asset, it is yours. | These considerations do not — quite so straightforwardly, at any rate — pertain to [[title transfer]] arrangements. Once you have the asset, it is yours. And you can control, somewhat, for transfer taxes by adjusting your {{{{{1}}}|Eligible Credit Support}} criteria. | ||
This is | This is not an ''entirely'' ironclad justification, by the way — especially when you take into account the effects of [[rehypothecation]]. | ||
==={{capitalise|{{sicsa}}s}}=== | ==={{capitalise|{{sicsa}}s}}=== | ||
How to deal with stamp duties is the subject of Paragraphs {{nyvmcsaprov|10(b)}} and {{nyvmcsaprov|10(c)}}, of which there is no equivalent in the English law document. | How to deal with stamp duties is the subject of Paragraphs {{nyvmcsaprov|10(b)}} and {{nyvmcsaprov|10(c)}}, of which there is no equivalent in the English law document. | ||
{{Csa Expenses summ {{{1}}}}} | {{Csa Expenses summ {{{1}}}}} | ||
Revision as of 15:00, 15 May 2024
The starting point here, being a function of the common law of contract — not to mention common sense — is that every merchant is liable for its own costs and expenses of performing a contract, so if there you incur costs in running a collateral operation, as a general matter, they are for your own account.
Where this might change is as a result of a pledge. Specifically in the context of tax.
Bear in mind the pledge is designed purely as the Secured Party’s comfort it will be made whole if the Pledgor defaults, by the Pledgor handing over some assets as collateral, on the premise that the Pledgor will get them back. This is different from the title transfer CSA, where you get the collateral to keep and do with as you wish, and collateralisation works by way of offset.
Now, the idea is not to stick a {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} with any additional expenses as a result: if Pledgor delivers collateral to {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} to hold hostage, then if the {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} suffers any costs, be they by way of tax — the classic is a stamp duty or similar transfer tax — or perfection and registration of security, and then enforcement and realisation should the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}} default, these should be for the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}}’s account, as the {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} gets no benefit from incurring that cost. All the more so any costs and taxes the {{{{{1}}}|Secured Party}} should incur when transferring the assets back to the {{{{{1}}}|Pledgor}} at the end of the {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}.
These considerations do not — quite so straightforwardly, at any rate — pertain to title transfer arrangements. Once you have the asset, it is yours. And you can control, somewhat, for transfer taxes by adjusting your {{{{{1}}}|Eligible Credit Support}} criteria.
This is not an entirely ironclad justification, by the way — especially when you take into account the effects of rehypothecation.
security interest CSAs
How to deal with stamp duties is the subject of Paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c), of which there is no equivalent in the English law document.
{{Csa Expenses summ {{{1}}}}}