Template:Ucits delegaton versus aifmd delegation: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:Ucits delegaton versus aifmd delegation (view source)

Revision as of 16:50, 25 July 2019

332 bytes added , 25 July 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==={{t|UCITS}} Art {{ucits5prov|22a}} looks a lot like {{t|AIFMD}} Art {{aifmdprov|21(11)}} doesn’t it?===
+===Custody delegation under {{t|UCITS}} and {{t|AIFMD}} looks kind of similar doesn’t it?===
-Yes, it does. the textual differences are largely formal, or [[mutatis mutandis]] style. The main substantive differences are:
+Yes, it does. The textual differences betwixt {{t|UCITS}} (Art {{ucits5prov|22a}}) and {{t|AIFMD}} (Art {{aifmdprov|21(11)}}) are ''largely'' formal, or ''[[mutatis mutandis]]''  in style. The substantive differences are that a {{t|UCITS}} {{ucits5prov|depositary}}:
-*A UCITS {{ucits5prov|depositary}} is not allowed to reuse the UCITS’ assets at all, rather that only with prior notification and consent as under AIFMD;
+*cannot [[reuse]] the UCITS’ assets ''at all'', whereas an AIFMD {{aifmdprov|depositary}} can, with prior notification and consent;
-*A UCITS depositary must take all necessary steps to ensure UCITS’ assets aren’t caught up in the bankruptcy estate of an insolvent custodian
+*must take all necessary steps to ensure {{t|UCITS}}’ assets aren’t caught up in the bankruptcy estate of an insolvent delegate custodian — there isn’t an equivalent provision under {{t|AIFMD}}, though perhaps you might imply it;
-*UCITS investors must be notified of the risks of delegation and not just the circumstances justifying it.
+*must notify {{t|UCITS}} investors of the risks of delegation where a non-EEA jurisdiction requires use of a local custodian and no local entities satisfy the delegation requirements and not just the fact of, and circumstances justifying, it.