mega888 apk Account Agreement Hague Convention | gusdog

Main menu:

September 2021
« Apr   Oct »


Account Agreement Hague Convention

1. Perfection is done by control, but the right chosen in the account agreement is that of a non-UCC jurisdiction. To determine the applicable law, the agreement focuses on the account agreement between the securities intermediary and the account holder. The right retained in the account agreement or the law defined elsewhere for the matters of perfection and priority referred to in Article 2(1) of the agreement shall apply, provided that the securities intermediary has, at the time of the conclusion of the account contract by the parties, an office holding securities accounts in the chosen jurisdiction. This is called the “Qualifying Office” test. For multiunit nations such as the United States, the qualifying office test is completed when the investment intermediary has an office in a unit or state within the multi-unit nation. (b) identified by an account number, bank code or other specific means of identification such as securities account maintenance in that State. Much more can be said about the Convention. It deals with legal choice issues that go beyond guarantee rights on securities on securities credited with a deposit, and there are other nuances. The Convention itself and an explicit report on the provisions of the Convention are available on the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. In addition, the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code has published a draft report on the Convention, available on the website of the American Law Institute. According to the principles of the Convention, any reference to the `court of the securities intermediary` is not relevant for the further development of a guarantee by supervision. For example, if the account agreement is governed by English law, but it provides that New York is the “Securities Intermediary`s Jurisdiction” within the meaning of the UZK, the basic rules of choice of agreement – unless the account agreement is amended – will govern the perfection and priority of a guarantee right over the securities on credited securities of the deposit.

even though, under articles 8 and 9, perfection and control by control would be subject to new York substantive law. In Article 4(3), the Convention expressly provides that it applies in the specific case where an account holder applies: this LawFlash provides some brief general information about the Agreement, sets out the choice rules of the Agreement applicable to a right to safeguard securities credited with a deposit, describes the steps now provided for existing secured transactions (and i of the planning of new ones). and indicates where additional information on the Convention is available. The fundamental issue during the negotiations was to determine a test that would precisely locate a jurisdiction for each set of circumstances that would be the jurisdiction whose law would apply. The analysis resulted in the fact that it is often impossible for financial institutions with many offices to draw attention to a particular site. Delegates concluded that a test on which an attempt was made to effectively locate a given deposit would lead to an unacceptable level of impossibility or uncertainty. [1] See Convention of 5 July 2006 on the law applicable to certain rights relating to securities held with an intermediary, available here: The Convention establishes rules of choice for the improvement and priority of a guarantee right over “securities credited with a deposit”. This expression corresponds to a guarantee interest under Art. 8 and 9 for “guarantee rights” on securities credited with a deposit. .

. .