Certain Rights and Remedies - NY CSA Provision
ISDA 1994 New York Law Credit Support Annex
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ Rights and Remedies in a Nutshell™
Original text
Resources and Navigation
|
Comparisons
security interest CSAs: The 1994 NY CSA and 2016 NY VM CSA versions, both being under New York law and of broadly the same intent, barring the scattering of (VM)s all over the shop, are predictably similar, with one difference: the 2016 NY VM CSA contemplates the interplay of a regulatory margin VM CSA with any other CSA for non-regulated business, so has to deal with “any Cash amounts and the Cash equivalent of any non-Cash items posted to the Pledgor by the Secured Party as margin under any Other CSA (other than any Other CSA Excluded Credit Support)”. See this comparison.
title transfer CSAs: There is no “Certain rights and Remedies” clause under either of the title transfer CSAs, so any stray references to them redirect to their security interest CSA equivalents
IM CSD: The 2018 English law IM CSD, being under English law with all its own peculiarities about taking security, and also not really contemplating rehypothecation and that strikes against the heart and soul of regulatory IM, is quite different.
Basics
Secured Party’s Rights and Remedies
The circumstances in which the Secured Party can exercise its rights and remedies under the pledge following an Event of Default or Specified Condition with respect to the Pledgor, such as set-off, liquidation, and customary and statutory rights, without prior notice to the Pledgor.
Pledgor’s Rights and Remedies
Of course, it is a bilateral contract, and the Pledgor might be the Non-defaulting Party and Secured Party being the one going through its existential crisis. They are broadly the same rights that the Secured Party can exercise if the shoe is on the other foot. The difference is that the Secured Party must give back collateral, rather than it being sold (which figures) and if it is not so transferred, set off and withhold payments otherwise due to the Secured Party.
Why wouldn’t the Posted Collateral be returned? Rehypothecation for one reason: if the Secured Party has reused the Collateral by punting it out into the market, even under a repo, being a Defaulting Party it may well not be able to get it back.
Deficiencies and Excess Proceeds
All versions do the same thing: Once the security has been exercised, proceeds realised and the outstanding amount due settled, the Secured Party must return any excess of the realised proceeds to the posting party, and if there is a shortfall after the security has been realised and applied against the debt, the posting party remains liable for it. This is all good standard security-taking stuff.
Final Returns
All versions get to more or less the same place: Once all Obligations are fully settled (with an exception for Taxes — we suppose because they could be imposed retrospectively, so it’s impossible to discharge them definitively — the Secured Party has to give the Posted Credit Support back.
This ought to happen automatically where we are talking about variation margin — Q.E.D., if your Obligations are all settled you have no Exposure so your counterparty has no grounds to hold Posted Credit Support — but for Independent Amounts or initial margin posted under an 2018 English law IM CSD, this is not necessarily the case: the CSA itself might specify an independent Independent Amount that is not conditional on any Transaction. (This is not how most dealers handle initial margin on their swaps — it tends to be Transaction-specific — but this is how the original CSAs were conceived at the time of the First Men.)
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👇
|