Liability for delegation - UCITS V Provision: Difference between revisions

Liability for delegation - UCITS V Provision (view source)

Revision as of 08:45, 31 July 2019

162 bytes added , 31 July 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{ucits5anat|24}}''Comare with Art {{aifmdprov|21(12)}} of [[AIFMD]]''. <br>
-Not pretty, if you are a  {{ucits5prov|depositary}}, and that means not pretty if you are a delegate either. Since the depostiary can't discharge its responsibility for looking after assets by delegating that to a prime broker or other subcustodian, prome brokers should expect to be asked to provide eye-watering [[indemnities]] to the depositaries by whom they are delegated the custody function.
+Not pretty, if you are a  {{ucits5prov|depositary}}, and that means not pretty if you are a delegate either. Since the {{ucits5prov|depositary}} can’t discharge its safekeeping liability when delegating it even by means of full assumption of liability by the delegate (as is possible under AIFMD {{aifmdprov|21(12)}}, [[delegate]]s should expect to be asked to provide eye-watering [[indemnities]] to the depositary should they lose assets they are looking after on the {{ucits5prov|depositary}}’s behalf.
-Seeing as a [[prime broker]] can’t generally [[rehypothecate]] UCITS assets, it kind of makes you wonder why a prime broker would want to hold the assets in the first place.
+Seeing as a [[prime broker]] can’t generally [[rehypothecate]] UCITS assets<ref>See Art {{ucits5prov|22(7)}}</ref>, it kind of makes you wonder why a [[prime broker]] would want to hold the assets in the first place.
 {{External event beyond its reasonable control}}
 ===Careful===
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *Art {{aifmdprov|21(12)}} of [[AIFMD]]
 *[[Delegation]] under {{t|AIFMD}}.
+{{ref}}