82,891
edits
Template:Ucits delegaton versus aifmd delegation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Template:Ucits delegaton versus aifmd delegation (view source)
Revision as of 11:22, 25 July 2019
, 25 July 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Delegation of safekeeping under {{t|UCITS}} and {{t|AIFMD}} look kind of similar don’t they?=== | ===Delegation of safekeeping under {{t|UCITS}} and {{t|AIFMD}} look kind of similar don’t they?=== | ||
Yes, they do. The textual differences | Yes, they do. The textual differences betwixt {{t|UCITS}} (Art {{ucits5prov|22a}}) and {{t|AIFMD}} (Art {{aifmdprov|21(11)}}) are ''largely'' formal, or ''[[mutatis mutandis]]'' style. The main substantive differences are: | ||
*A {{t|UCITS}} {{ucits5prov|depositary}} is not allowed to reuse the UCITS’ assets at all, rather that only with prior notification and consent as under AIFMD; | *A {{t|UCITS}} {{ucits5prov|depositary}} is not allowed to reuse the UCITS’ assets at all, rather that only with prior notification and consent as under AIFMD; | ||
*A {{t|UCITS}} {{ucits5prov|depositary}}must take all necessary steps to ensure UCITS’ assets aren’t caught up in the bankruptcy estate of an insolvent custodian; | *A {{t|UCITS}} {{ucits5prov|depositary}}must take all necessary steps to ensure UCITS’ assets aren’t caught up in the bankruptcy estate of an insolvent custodian; | ||
*Where a non-EEA jurisdiction requires use of a local custodian and no local entities satisfy the delegation requirements, {{t|UCITS}} investors must be notified of the risks of such a delegation and not just the fact or, and circumstances justifying, it. | *Where a non-EEA jurisdiction requires use of a local custodian and no local entities satisfy the delegation requirements, {{t|UCITS}} investors must be notified of the risks of such a delegation and not just the fact or, and circumstances justifying, it. | ||