82,910
edits
Eligible Contract Participant: Difference between revisions
Eligible Contract Participant (view source)
Revision as of 11:27, 14 December 2018
, 14 December 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Eligible Contract Participant''' is a concept under the US [[Commodity Exchange Act]]. | '''Eligible Contract Participant''' is a concept under the US [[Commodity Exchange Act]]. Relevant also should be clearing futures for US persons under a Part 30 Exemption, because it determines whether or not you have to hold the US customer's cash margin as client money. (see https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CASS/12/2.html) | ||
===Definition=== | ===Definition=== | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
==The Alternative “Factual Rep"== | ==The Alternative “Factual Rep"== | ||
Every now and then you come across a counterparty in some far-flung backwater (continental {{tag|Europe}}, for example) who expresses bafflement or even affrontery at the thought of subjugating itself to the law of the [[:Category:US Securities Regulation|Americans]]. That this might happen takes some [[U.S. Attorney|Americans]] by surprise. Then again, that it takes [[U.S. Attorney|Americans]] by surprise takes everyone ''else'' by surprise. It is a fruitless task trying to get the bottom of who is most justifiably surprised (but, for the record, it’s us).No matter: there is a sensible compromise. Simply have that counterparty give a rep to the factual content of the ECP rep. For example: | Every now and then you come across a counterparty in some far-flung backwater (continental {{tag|Europe}}, for example) who expresses bafflement or even affrontery at the thought of subjugating itself to the law of the [[:Category:US Securities Regulation|Americans]]. That this might happen takes some [[U.S. Attorney|Americans]] by surprise. Then again, that it takes [[U.S. Attorney|Americans]] by surprise takes everyone ''else'' by surprise. It is a fruitless task trying to get the bottom of who is most justifiably surprised (but, for the record, it’s us). No matter: there is a sensible compromise. Simply have that counterparty give a rep to the factual content of the ECP rep. For example: | ||
:“Each Party represents and warrants to the other Party that [DELETE ONE OR OTHER] it has, or is guaranteed by an entity that has, assets exceeding $10 million] [its net worth exceeds $1 million and it is entering into the contract in connection with its business].” | :“Each Party represents and warrants to the other Party that [DELETE ONE OR OTHER] it has, or is guaranteed by an entity that has, assets exceeding $10 million] [its net worth exceeds $1 million and it is entering into the contract in connection with its business].” | ||