82,903
edits
21(14) - AIFMD Provision: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{aifmdanat|21(14)}} | |||
A provision which seems to require an {{aifmdprov|AIF}} being able to directly sue a sub-custodian located in a [[third country]]. Eek! (But fear not: there's a twist...) | A provision which seems to require an {{aifmdprov|AIF}} being able to directly sue a sub-custodian located in a [[third country]]. Eek! (But fear not: there's a twist...) | ||
Of interest are the criteria set out in Article {{aifmdprov|21(11)(d)(ii)}}, right? If met, the strictures of this paragraph do not apply. These are, even in weird and wonderful jurisdictions, a fairly low bar over which to execute a Fosbury flop: That it be subject to "effective" prudential regulation — seems a bit of a value judgment — to have ''some'' minimum {{tag|capital}} requirements (without saying how much...), and to be ''audited''. | |||
Of interest are the criteria set out in Article {{aifmdprov|21(11)(d)(ii)}}, right? If met, the strictures of this paragraph do not apply. | |||
Which is just as well, because the provisions of {{aifmdprov|21(14)}} are otherwise onerous. | |||
These are, even in weird and wonderful jurisdictions, a fairly low bar over which to execute a Fosbury flop: That it be subject to "effective" prudential regulation | |||