Borrower’s Warranties - GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{gmslaanat|14}}{{gmsla2000anat|14}}{{There are no representations in the gmsla}}
{{gmslaanat|14}}{{gmsla2000anat|14}}{{There are no representations in the gmsla}}
===Remedies for breach of {{gmslaprov|Borrower’s Warranties}}===
An interesting fact — “interesting” being a relative concept, and in this case we are comparing interest levels with the fact that “[[and, as the case may be, or]]” appears 33 times in the [[Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive]] — is that a breach of the last of these {{gmslaprov|Borrower’s Warranties}}, {{gmslaprov|14(e)}}, namely that the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}}’s primary purpose is not to exercise voting rights under {{gmslaprov|Loaned Securities}}, is not an {{gmslaprov|Event of Default}}, whereas the breach of the other {{gmslaprov|Borrower’s Warranties}} will be.


An interesting fact — “interesting” being a relative concept, and in this case we are comparing levels of interest with the fact that “[[and, as the case may be, or]]” appears 33 times in the text of the [[Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive]] — is that a breach of the last of these {{gmslaprov|Borrower’s Warranties}}, {{gmslaprov|14(e)}}, namely that the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}}’s primary purpose is not to exercise voting rights under {{gmslaprov|Loaned Securities}}, is not an {{gmslaprov|Event of Default}}, whereas the breach of the other {{gmslaprov|Borrower’s Warranties}} will be.
Our best guess is that because this is a silly [[warranty]] in the first place, and it is nigh-on impossible to prove that it was false, unless the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} is stupid enough to admit it. A [[representation]] or [[warranty]] as to what one ''intends'' to do — what possible use is that?
 
Our best guess is that because this is a silly [[warranty]] in the first place, and it is nigh-on impossible to prove that it was false, unless the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} is stupid enough to admit it. A representation or warranty as to what one intends to do — what possible use is that?


:''We’d free the incarcerate race of man
:''We’d free the incarcerate race of man

Revision as of 15:57, 29 August 2019

GMSLA Anatomy™


In a Nutshell Clause 14:

14. Borrower’s Warranties
Each Borrower hereby warrants and undertakes on a continuing basis for time immemorial, that:

14(a) it licenced, approved and authorised to perform its obligations under this Agreement;
14(b) it is not otherwise restricted from borrowing Securities and performing its obligations under this Agreement;
14(c) it is can give full unencumbered legal and beneficial ownership of Collateral to Lender;
14(d) it is acting as principal; and
14(e) it is not borrowing for the primary purpose of voting on Loaned Securities.

view template

2010 GMSLA full text of Clause 14:

14. Borrower’s Warranties
Each Party hereby warrants and undertakes to the other on a continuing basis to the intent that such warranties shall survive the completion of any transaction contemplated herein that, where acting as a Borrower:

14(a) it has all necessary licences and approvals, and is duly authorised and empowered, to perform its duties and obligations under this Agreement and will do nothing prejudicial to the continuation of such authorisation, licences or approvals;
14(b) it is not restricted under the terms of its constitution or in any other manner from borrowing Securities in accordance with this Agreement or from otherwise performing its obligations hereunder;
14(c) it is absolutely entitled to pass full legal and beneficial ownership of all Collateral provided by it hereunder to Lender free from all liens, charges and encumbrances;
14(d) it is acting as principal in respect of this Agreement; and
14(e) it is not entering into a Loan for the primary purpose of obtaining or exercising voting rights in respect of the Loaned Securities.

view template


2010 GMSLA: Full wikitext · Nutshell wikitext | GMLSA legal code | GMSLA Netting

Pledge GMSLA: Hard copy (ISLA) · Full wikitext · Nutshell wikitext |
1995 OSLA: OSLA wikitext | OSLA in a nutshell | GMSLA/PGMSLA/OSLA clause comparison table
From Our Friends On The Internet: Guide to equity finance | ISLA’s guide to securities lending for regulators and policy makers

Navigation
2010 GMSLA 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · Schedule · Agency Annex · Addendum for Pooled Principal Agency Loans

2018 Pledge GMSLA 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · Schedule · Agency Annex

Stock lending agreement comparison: Includes navigation for the 2000 GMSLA and the 1995 OSLA

Index: Click to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

2000 GMSLA Anatomy™


In a Nutshell Clause 14:

Template:Nutshell GMSLA 2000 14 view template

2000 GMSLA full text of Clause 14:

Template:GMSLA 2000 14 view template


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

No Representations in the 2010 GMSLA

Enthusiastic minds might have noticed that, unlike the Global Master Repurchase Agreement and the ISDA Master Agreement, there are no “Representations” as such in the 2010 GMSLA.

But there are Warranties, and these — except in one arcane and theoretically[1] important way — amount to the same thing.

Precis: A representation is a pre-contractual statement which induces your entry into a contract but is not part of the contract. One’s remedy for misrepresentation is thus not damages, but the avoidance of the contract altogether. You are put in the place you would have been in had you never entered the contract at all.

A warranty is a contractual term, the remedy for breach of which is damages under the contract.

The potential value of these two remedies may be different, which is why one sees “representations and warranties”: this gives an innocent party maximum optionality to stick the naughty party with whatever is the worse measure of loss. As to why the 2010 GMSLA did away with this option — who can say? Perhaps the nature of stock lending contracts are such that there is no real difference in remedy.

Remedies for breach of Borrower’s Warranties

An interesting fact — “interesting” being a relative concept, and in this case we are comparing interest levels with the fact that “and, as the case may be, or” appears 33 times in the Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive — is that a breach of the last of these Borrower’s Warranties, 14(e), namely that the Borrower’s primary purpose is not to exercise voting rights under Loaned Securities, is not an Event of Default, whereas the breach of the other Borrower’s Warranties will be.

Our best guess is that because this is a silly warranty in the first place, and it is nigh-on impossible to prove that it was false, unless the Borrower is stupid enough to admit it. A representation or warranty as to what one intends to do — what possible use is that?

We’d free the incarcerate race of man
That such a doom endures
Could only you unlock my skull
Or I creep into yours
—Ogden Nash

See also

  1. But not practically, unless you are some kind of super spod. See ouur disquisition on the differences in the representations and warranties section.