Set-off: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Set-off (view source)

Revision as of 10:36, 27 September 2021

354 bytes added , 27 September 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{box|
+{{g}}[[Net-net]], there are three concepts to bear in mind: [[close-out netting]], [[settlement netting]], and [[set-off]]. Related, but different things.
-For setting off of exposures under a master agreement versus other general exposures against the counterparty, see:
-*{{isdaprov|Set-off}} ({{isda}})
-*{{gmslaprov|Set-off}} ({{gmsla}})
-*There is no general right of set-off in a {{gmra}}
-}}
-You may have come to the set-off page, but chances are, you're really interested in {{tag|Netting}}.
+*If you are an [[ISDA ingénue]] you may have come to the [[set-off]] page by accident. Chances are, you’re really interested in close-out {{tag|netting}}.
+*If you are an [[ISDA ninja]], you’ll know the difference, so welcome.
-At its simplest, a right of set-off exists where there are cross-claims for money between a creditor and a debtor. The effect of a set-off is that both claims are discharged to the extent that they are of an equal amount, and the balance becomes owing to the party who was owed the larger amount.
+Don’t forget the specific article about {{isdaprov|Set-off}} in Section {{isdaprov|6(f)}} of the {{2002ma}}
-But, really, it's all about {{tag|netting}}.
+===Easy, tiger.===
+{{Set off capsule}}
-So go on. Be on your way now.
+See, for example, {{isdaprov|Set-off}} in the {{2002ma}} under Section {{isdaprov|6(f)}}. So you don’t just do it for the hell of it.
-Ohh, all right. A ''bit''.
+===General terms===
+That said, at its simplest, a right of set-off exists where there are cross-claims for money between a creditor and a debtor. The effect of a set-off is that both claims are discharged to the extent that they are of an equal amount, and the balance becomes owing to the party who was owed the larger amount.
-====Contractual set-off====
+==Set-off and netting==
+{{set-off and netting}}
+===[[Set off]] and [[subrogation]] under a [[guarantee]]===
+{{subrogation setoff}}
+==The varieties and mysteries of set-off==
+===Contractual set-off===
 Where each party to a transaction owes the other they may agree that, instead of making separate payments, the party due to make the larger payment should simply pay the difference. Set off provisions in the {{isdama}} and {{gmsla}} tend to go a lot wider, and allow (on default) a non-defaulting party to offset amounts owing against any liabilities of any kind owed by the defaulting party. This is clearly a drastic step and ordinarily would only be exercised as an utter last resort. See:
 *{{gmslaprov|Set-off}} ({{tag|GMSLA}})
 *{{isdaprov|Set-off}} ({{tag|ISDA}})
+===[[Insolvency set-off]]===
-====Equitable set-off====
+''You can’t contract out of [[insolvency set-off]] under {{t|English law}}.''
+{{insolvency set-off capsule}}
+===Banker’s right to [[combination of accounts|combine accounts]]===
+{{combination of accounts capsule}}
+===[[Equitable set-off]]===
 This is a self-help remedy available to a debtor whose cross-claim arises from the same transaction (or a closely related transaction) as the original debt. Under this device a debtor simply deducts its claim from the debt it owes and tenders any balance to the creditor. The sums in question must be due or, if representing unliquidated damages, a [[good faith]] and reasonable assessment of the loss. (Contrast with set off at law, which requires the claims to be determined by judgment of the courts).
-In {{casenote|Geldof Metaalconstructie|Carves}} [2010] EWCA Civ 667 the leading judgment confirmed the equitable test as being whether the "cross-claim is ... so closely connected with the claimant’s demand that it would be manifestly unjust to allow it to enforce payment without taking into account the cross-claim".
+In {{casenote|Geldof Metaalconstructie|Carves}} [2010] EWCA Civ 667 the leading judgment confirmed the equitable test as being “whether the cross-claim is ... so closely connected with the claimant’s demand that it would be manifestly unjust to allow it to enforce payment without taking into account the cross-claim.”
-====[[Banker’s set-off]]====
-This arises where a customer has multiple bank accounts some of which are in debit and some in credit. It is also known as the [[combination of accounts]]. It is arguably available in any situation where one party has multiple accounts with another.
-====Insolvency set-off====
+===Cross-affiliate set-off===
-The mandatory rules of insolvency set-off are cannot be varied by agreement. In an insolvency, account must be taken of the mutual dealings between the creditor and the bankrupt. Sums due from one must be set off against the sums due from the other, except that sums due from the bankrupt cannot be included if when incurred the creditor had notice of:
+{{crossaffiliate setoff}}
-*a resolution or petition to wind-up (if a company);
-*an application for an administration order or of notice of intention to appoint an administrator (if a company); or
-*a pending bankruptcy petition (if a natural person).
-All claims, including future, contingent and unliquidated sums, must be brought into account.
+==[[Chicken Licken]]’s Guide{{tm}} to things that might defeat [[set off]]==
 {{assignment and set off}}
+{{collateral and set off}}
-====See also====
+{{sa}}
+*For setting off of exposures under a master agreement versus other general exposures against the counterparty, see:
+**{{isdaprov|Set-off}} ({{isda}})
+**{{gmslaprov|Set-off}} ({{gmsla}})
+**There is no general right of set-off in a {{gmra}}
+*For the [[net-net]] valuation technique, go read [https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Security-Analysis-Sixth-Foreword-Warren-Buffett-Editions/0071592539 Graham on ''Security Analysis''], and in no other circumstances utter [[net-net|that expression]].
 *[[Netting]]
+{{ref}}
+__NOTOC__