Template:Nutshell UCITS V 22a(3)

22a(3). The depositary may delegate safekeeping functions only where that delegate:

(a) is competent to look after the assets of the UCITS given to it;
(b) where it holds custodiable assets, the delegate is properly prudentially regulated in its it its own jurisdiction and regularly audited on its custody holdings;
(c) effectively segregates the UCITS assets from its own assets and those of the depositary so they can be clearly identified as belonging to clients of the depositary[1];
(d) takes steps to ensure that if it is insolvent, the UCITS’s assets that it holds are isolated from its creditors; and
(e) complies generally with Articles 22(2), 22(5), 22(7) and 25.
Where local rules require financial instruments to be held by a local custodian and none are effectively regulated or audited, the depositary may delegate to a non-compliant local custodian only as far as is required by those local rules, and only as long as there are no compliant local custodians, and only where:
(a) the UCITS investors are informed of these circumstances and the associated risks before they invest;
(b) the UCITS management company has instructed the depositary to make the delegation.
The delegate may sub-delegate on the same terms. In such a case, Article 24(2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the relevant parties.
  1. Does this leave the door open for omnibus segregation of different funds managed by the same depositary?