Offices; Multibranch Parties - 1992 ISDA Provision
|
1992 ISDA Master Agreement
Section 10 in a Nutshell™ Use at your own risk, campers!
Full text of Section 10
Related agreements and comparisons
|
Content and comparisons
A bit of development from the 1992 ISDA to cater for the more fiddlesome nature of the 2002 ISDA (in particular the effect of Illegality and Force Majeure events that affect some branches of a Multibranch Party but not others).
Summary
Section 10 of the ISDA Master Agreement allows parties to specify whether they are Multibranch Parties. Electing “Multibranch Party” status allows you to transact out of the named branches of the same legal entity.
Section 10(a)
A seldom-regarded but basically potty representation thrown in to allow parties to represent that if it trades through a minor branch, recourse against it will be no different from the recourse it would have had it traded though its head office.
Law students of all vintages will remember from Company Law class that this is necessarily the case: this is what the legal fiction of the “corporate legal personality” is designed to do: create a new, unitary “person” who is liable at law, can sue and be sued, live, love and survive independently of its stakeholders, for anything done in the name of that company — as long as intra vires and properly authorised by the company, regardless of where and through whose agency it is done.
Now it may be the case that certain primitive jurisdictions, for certain primitive entity types, this is not the case but, if so, the answer ought to be do not trade with entities like that or, if you really must, do not trade with entities like that out of branches that won’t bind the legal entity.
There is a chicken-and-egg problem here: if you do, then Q.E.D. the entity is not bound. Yes, you may be left with an action for damages (in tort — there is no contract, remember) for misrepresentation, but we think the better approach is for your onboarding and credit sanctioning teams to do their due diligence before you start trading, and avoid trading with entities like this.
Section 10(b)
The one place where all this lofty talk about “legal personhood” and “it not mattering a jot which part of a corporate organisation makes the promise to be bound by the contract” falls about is when it comes to taxation. Taxation authorities don’t care about holistic entities, only the bits of them that are in their jurisdiction and over whose income and outgoing they have power to tax.
So, while it might not matter to you or your counterparty which bit of your organisation “did the deed” or “reaped its rewards”, it will matter to their respective tax departments, and the taxing authorities to which appendages of the entity are beholden. Yes, the net tax burden on the whole entity is the same, but one still tries to “optimise” that burden as best one can, by arranging things to be as far beyond the reach of nefarious excise authorities as can be plausibly arranged. Don’t @ me folks: I don’t make the rules.
Section 10(c)
Again, a provision largely there to keep the respective tax departments happy. Each books the transaction depending on certain tax representations from the other; if the other then changes Offices or some such thing in a way that upsets that careful tax analysis, well —
Simple: just don’t fiddle with Offices and Branches post execution. Why would you? (Unless to correct an error you made on the Trade Date ... )
General discussion
Details fans will immediately note that, from the point of view of legal and corporate philosophy — surely a subject dear to every attorney’s heart — the differing branches of a legal entity have no distinct legal personality any more than does a person’s arm or leg have different personality from her head. So being a “multibranch” party seems immaterial.
Taxation
Those details fans will have overlooked the strange, parallel universe of taxation. Here physical presence and not legal personality is what matters. Specifying that your counterparty may trade from its offices in, for example, Prague, Kabul or The Sudan[1] may impact the tax payable on payments under the relevant transactions under the ISDA. Where both parties are multibranch parties and have numerous overseas branches, a complex multilateral analysis of all the different permutations is assured.
It is basically a withholding tax gross-up risk. If withholding tax arises on a payment made through your office in Tel Aviv, and the counterparty hasn’t provided evidence of an exemption from withholding, it may argue that we have to gross-up the payment because we did not disclose that we would make payments from Tel Aviv and had we, they would have proved their exemption. So failing to disclose that ILS payments will originate from Israel, may be a material misrepresentation by omission.
Therefore, a double-jeopardy: counterparties may refuse to make the necessary Payee Tax Representation because they didn’t think it would be needed. So, no Payee Tax Representation + no Multibranch ISDA election = potential withholding tax gross up or a possible Misrepresentation Event of Default.
Now you could disclose the branch in a Confirmation (but good luck remembering to do that, and you may not have one in an electronically booked Transaction), or you could inject more detailed representations in Part 5 — but none is as simple as putting “Tel Aviv” in the Multibranch election.
Must you complete onboarding in each jurisdiction though?
Yes — and no. A case where the operational reality trumps the legal theory. If you have a Multibranch ISDA that lists, say, Prague, The Sudan[2] and Wellington, do you need to onboard the client in each of those jurisdictions? Students of onboarding will recognise this as a collossal disincentive to adding branches willy-nilly, but that legal implication will typically depend on an operational setup in the broker’s systems without which it won’t be possible to book a trade in that jurisdiction whatever the legal docs say. So look upon the legal contract as permissive; the thing that will drive your KYC obligations and trigger the onboarding onslaught will be opening an account in your systems at a later date.
Netting
While, by dint of the legal personality, it wouldn’t make any difference under English or New York law, and really shouldn’t anywhere else, there are those jurisdictions which are not so theoretically pure in their conceptualisation of the corporate form. Your counterparty may have the misfortune to be incorporated in such a place.
If so, the validity of close-out netting against that entity may indeed depend on the branch from which it transacts - and indeed there is a possibility that the governing law of the jurisdiction of the branch may endeavour to intervene (particularly relevant if it has assets). Another reason, perhaps, to disapply the “multibranch party” for a counterparty incorporated in such a jurisdiction. The way to check this is at the netting opinion review sheet contains the following question:
- Does the opinion confirm that close-out netting under the agreement is enforceable notwithstanding the inclusion of branches in non-netting jurisdictions? Yes/No