|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | There's quite a bit more over at [[set-off]] and even more than that at [[netting.]] |
|
| |
|
| | | {{assignment and set off}} |
| ===Effect on {{tag|Netting}} and {{tag|Set-Off}}===
| |
| Could a right to assign by way of security could upset close out {{tag|netting}} such that one should, prohibit any assignment by way of security of any rights under a master netting agreement (such as an {{isdama}} or a {{gmsla}}), the answer is no:
| |
| #.An assignment by way of security is a preferred claim in the assignor’s {{tag|insolvency}} over the realised value of certain rights, rather than a direct transfer of those rights to the assignee: the assignor is still obliged to the counterparty, not the assignee, and any claim the assignee would have against the counterparty would be by way of subrogation of the assignor’s claim.
| |
| #.“''Nemo dat quod non habet''” – the counterparty’s rights cannot be improved by assignment, and it being a [[single agreement]] on termination of the agreement the assignee’s claim is to the termination amount determined under the Agreement, which involves terminating all transactions and determining he aggregate mark-to-market and applying netting.
| |
|
| |
| At the point of closeout, the assignee’s right is to any termination payment payable to the Counterparty. Therefore any assignment of rights is logically subject to the netting, as opposed to potentially destructive of it.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===See also=== | | ===See also=== |
| *[[Close-out netting]] | | *[[Close-out netting]] |