Account control agreement

Revision as of 17:10, 17 June 2016 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Why would you indemnify the custodian for actions it takes under an account control agreement? The logic runs something like this: *Custodian is in the middle. It has no...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Why would you indemnify the custodian for actions it takes under an account control agreement?

The logic runs something like this:

  • Custodian is in the middle. It has no skin in the game.
  • If there’s an enforcement event and Pledgee wants to take control of the collateral:
    • Things will be moving super-fast
    • Pledgee will want Custodian to act quickly and to not stand on ceremony.
  • If Pledgee instructs Custodian wrongly then:
    • Pledgee is in the wrong (Q.E.D.)
    • Pledgee benefits, because Custodian does what it wants and Pledgee gets the collateral
    • Pledgor loses, because Custodian does what Pledgee wants and Pledgee gets the collateral
    • Custodian is arguably complicit in Pledgee's wrongdoing, but
      • Pledgee started it;
      • Custodian has no skin in the game;
      • Custodian may well have no knowledge one way or another;
      • Things will be moving super-fast..
  • If Pledgor loses any money as a result:
    • The Pledgor has an open-and-shut action against Custodian (Q.E.D.)
    • The Pledgor has no action against Pledgee.
  • Doubtful Custodian has a contractual breach claim against Pledgee, because it was complicit in the breach. Therefore:
    • Custodian can only recover against Pledgee by way of indemnity – since Pledgee hasn't breached.
    • Practically if Pledgee doesn’t give the indemnity, expect two consequences:
      • Custodian will refuse point blank to follow Pledgee's instructions to take control, or
      • Custodian will insist on an indemnity from Pledgee anyway before taking any action.
  • Pledgee can control the liability under the indemnity easily:
    • Don’t take control of the collateral when it is not entitled to
    • The liability is in any case determinate – it is the contractual damages that the Pledgor can claim from Custodian as a result.
      • Assuming Pledgee doesn’t go bust, Pledgee can return the collateral and maybe suffer some buy in costs but that’s realistically 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.


see also