Unauthorised Transfer - Emissions Annex Provision

EU Emissions Allowance Transaction Annex to the 2005 ISDA Commodity Definitions A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ Unauthorised Transfer in a Nutshell™ The JC’s Nutshell™ summary of this term has moved uptown to the subscription-only ninja tier. For the cost of ½ a weekly 🍺 you can get it here. Sign up at Substack. You can even ask questions! Ask about it here. Unauthorised Transfer in all its glory Unauthorised Transfer: Means the transfer by debiting of any Allowance from an account holder’s Holding Account and the crediting of a Holding Account of another person, where such transfer is not initiated by the relevant authorised representative or additional authorised representative (as referred to in the Registries Regulation) of the first account holder. edit Comparison See our natty emissions comparison table between the IETA, EFET and ISDA versions of emissions trading docs Resources and Navigation Index: Click ᐅ to expand: ISDA Emissions TOC EUA Annex - Premium Emissions Pro tip: for tons of information about EU ETS and EU financial services regulation see Michał Głowacki’s magnificent emissions-euets.com website. Emissions trading documentation ISDA: EU Anatomy • EU Wikitext • EU Nutshell (premium) • UK Anatomy • UK Wikitext (to be merged into EU Anatomy) IETA: IETA Master Agreement • IETA Wikitext • IETA Nutshell (premium) EFET: EFET Allowances Appendix • EFET Allowances Wikitext • EFET Nutshell (premium) Premium version of this page

Overview

edit

The definition of Unauthorised Transfer is more or less the same in all three emissions trading documentation regimes. Compare:
ISDA: Unauthorised Transfer
IETA: Unauthorised Transfer
EFET: Unauthorised Transfer
The definition of Affected Allowances is more or less the same in all three emissions trading documentation regimes. Compare:
ISDA: Affected Allowances
IETA: Affected Allowances
EFET: Affected Allowances

Summary

edit

This is Carbon Squad’s round-about way of saying the Allowances you have been delivered, good sir, are hot. Nicked. Half-inched. Fell off the back of an electric truck. Stolen.

Once this regrettable state of affairs has been confirmed by an Appropriate Source, your Allowances become “Affected Allowances”, and the poor sap from whom they were stolen, becomes an Original Affected Party.

If they are nicked then the “No Encumbrances” representation that accompanied their delivery to you has turned out to be false, and there are unwind consequences.

It’s all so bloodless, isn’t it?

Well the bits that don’t resemble the ritualised murder of the English language, that is. We have tried in or premium content section to boil this down to what it is trying to say, but honestly, it is hard to know. It looks like one of those parlour games where you have to describe something really mundane without using any verbs or the letter “e”.

We think the Enbumbrance Loss Amount arises (a) if the Delivering Party acted in bad faith or (b) it didn’t, and the Receiving Party shipped a claim from an Original Affected Party or just anyone else (who? Search me) and despite using its best efforts to knock the claim back, it was unsuccessful. So it is passing on an actually incurred losses.

Premium content

Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics 👇

edit

• The JC’s famous Nutshell™ summary of this clause

Template:M premium EUA Annex Unauthorised Transfer

See also

edit