Offices; Multibranch Parties - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Section {{isdaprov|10}} of the {{isdama}} allows parties to specify whether they are [[Multibranch Parties - ISDA Provision|Multibranch Parties]]. Electing “[[Multibranch Parties - ISDA Provision|Multibranch Party]]” status allows you to transact out of the named [[branch]]es of the same [[legal entity]]. Details fans will immediately note that, from the point of view of legal and corporate philosophy — surely a subject dear to every attorney’s heart — the differing [[branch]]es of a [[legal entity]] have no distinct [[legal personality]] any more than does a person’s arm or leg have different personality from {{sex|her}} head. So being a “multibranch” party seems immaterial.

Yes — and no. A case where the operational reality trumps the legal theory. If you have a [[Multibranch ISDA]] that lists, say, Prague, The Sudan<ref>I know, I know. It was a joke.</ref> and Wellington, do you need to [[Onboarding|onboard]] the client in each of those jurisdictions? Students of [[onboarding]] will recognise this as a collossal disincentive to adding branches willy-nilly, but that legal implication will typically depend on an operational setup in the [[broker]]’s systems without which it won’t be possible to book a trade in that jurisdiction whatever the legal docs say. So look upon the legal contract as permissive; the thing that will drive your KYC obligations and trigger the onboarding onslaught will be opening an account in your systems at a later date.