| Revision as of 21:06, 5 July 2006 editJustAGal (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers172,788 editsm acount ---> account← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:40, 21 July 2006 edit undoEpeefleche (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The '''Place of the Relevant Intermediary Approach''', or '''PRIMA''', is a ] rule applied to the proprietary aspects of ] transactions, especially ] ]. It is an alternative approach to the historically important ], and |
The '''Place of the Relevant Intermediary Approach''', or '''PRIMA''', is a ] rule applied to the proprietary aspects of ] transactions, especially ] ]. It is an alternative approach to the historically important ], and was a in its earliest form the basis for the initial draft of the ]. | ||
| Unlike the look-through approach, PRIMA does not look through the various tiers of intermediaries to the underlying securities. Rather, it stops at the level of the intermediary immediately above the parties to the pledge or transfer. Its important advantage is that it subjects an investor's interest in securities to the law of a single ], even where evidence of underlying securities is situated in many different countries, or where various issuers in a single portfolio is involved. This provides certainty and clarity for all parties involved. | Unlike the look-through approach, PRIMA does not look through the various tiers of intermediaries to the underlying securities. Rather, it stops at the level of the intermediary immediately above the parties to the pledge or transfer. Its important advantage is that it subjects an investor's interest in securities to the law of a single ], even where evidence of underlying securities is situated in many different countries, or where various issuers in a single portfolio is involved. This provides certainty and clarity for all parties involved. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| It is a matter of debate whether PRIMA constitutes a development of the traditional '']'' principle or should be regarded as a new concept. | It is a matter of debate whether PRIMA constitutes a development of the traditional '']'' principle or should be regarded as a new concept. | ||
| PRIMA |
PRIMA was adopted in a number of ]s as the conflict of laws rule to be applied to the proprietary aspects of collateral transactions. Furthermore, it is at present being considered for enactment in various other jurisdictions. | ||
| == Type I PRIMA == | == Type I PRIMA == | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| == Type II PRIMA == | == Type II PRIMA == | ||
| In the ], a different PRIMA solution has been adopted. Under Art 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the applicable law is not determined by reference to the location of the asset. Instead, parties to the relevant account agreement are able to choose the applicable law. This solution, no longer linked to the ''lex rei sitae'', is still a PRIMA solution as its focus is at the level of the relevant intermediary. | In the ], a different PRIMA solution has been adopted. Under Art 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the applicable law is not determined by reference to the location of the asset. Instead, parties to the relevant account agreement are able to choose the applicable law. This solution, no longer linked to the ''lex rei sitae'', is still a PRIMA solution as its focus is at the level of the relevant intermediary. In actuality, though, it is not PRIMA, since it does not focus on the place of the intermediary at all -- but rather on the law chosen by the intermediary and its client (which may bear no relation whatsoever to the place of the intermediary). | ||
| == Formulating a modified version of PRIMA == | == Formulating a modified version of PRIMA == | ||
| In January ], at ], PRIMA was unanimously adopted as the |
In January ], at ], PRIMA was unanimously adopted as the initial basis for the ]. The next two years of negotiations were spent determining an appropriate formulation of the doctrine, which at the end of the day diverged from PRIMA. | ||
| The fundamental issue during negotiations was to determine a test that would accurately locate the relevant |
The fundamental issue during negotiations was to determine a test that would accurately locate one location to serve as the relevant law. Given the complexities of modern securities transactions, securities accounts cannot be said to be maintained in a single location. Neither Art 9(2) of the Settlement Finality Directive nor Article 9 of the Collateral Directive provide an acceptable solution. The result of the analysis at the Hague Convention was that for large financial institutions with many offices, it is often not possible to point to one particular location. Delegates concluded that a test that tried to actually locate a particular securities account would result in an unacceptable level of uncertainty. | ||
| Over time a new approach was developed that was a mix of Type I and Type II PRIMA. Under this compromise approach: | Over time a new approach was developed that was a mix of Type I and Type II PRIMA. Under this compromise approach: | ||
Revision as of 05:40, 21 July 2006
The Place of the Relevant Intermediary Approach, or PRIMA, is a conflict of laws rule applied to the proprietary aspects of security transactions, especially collateral transactions. It is an alternative approach to the historically important look-through approach, and was a in its earliest form the basis for the initial draft of the Hague Securities Convention.
Unlike the look-through approach, PRIMA does not look through the various tiers of intermediaries to the underlying securities. Rather, it stops at the level of the intermediary immediately above the parties to the pledge or transfer. Its important advantage is that it subjects an investor's interest in securities to the law of a single jurisdiction, even where evidence of underlying securities is situated in many different countries, or where various issuers in a single portfolio is involved. This provides certainty and clarity for all parties involved.
It is a matter of debate whether PRIMA constitutes a development of the traditional lex rei sitae principle or should be regarded as a new concept.
PRIMA was adopted in a number of jurisdictions as the conflict of laws rule to be applied to the proprietary aspects of collateral transactions. Furthermore, it is at present being considered for enactment in various other jurisdictions.
Type I PRIMA
The so-called Type I PRIMA dates back to the late 1960s, in Belgium. Under Belgian law, the interest in respect of the underlying securities held by an investor and recorded on the books of its intermediary is treated as a different asset from the underlying securities. Thus the Belgian approach is an application of PRIMA, as well as being linked to the lex rei sitae tradition.
Such an approach causes problems in some legal systems, notable of which are those of Japan and Germany. Under both their systems, an investor would be treated as the direct owner of the underlying securities even though the security is held through tiers of intermediaries. The direct ownership in the underlying securities makes it difficult to argue that the location of the asset is at the level of an intermediary.
Adoption in Europe
Article 9(2) of the European Union's Settlement Finality Directive of 1998 introduced PRIMA in all European Union member states. In Germany, where investors have direct ownership rights in underlying securities, implementing Art 9(2) into domestic law has severed the connection with the traditional lex rei sitae approach.
In 2002, the European Community passed the European Union's Collateral Directive, which is also based on a Type I application of PRIMA. Under Art 9, characterisation, perfection and other issues relating to the provisions of securities as collateral are governed by the law of the State where the securities account is maintained. The majority of member states have yet to implement this directive.
Type II PRIMA
In the United States, a different PRIMA solution has been adopted. Under Art 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the applicable law is not determined by reference to the location of the asset. Instead, parties to the relevant account agreement are able to choose the applicable law. This solution, no longer linked to the lex rei sitae, is still a PRIMA solution as its focus is at the level of the relevant intermediary. In actuality, though, it is not PRIMA, since it does not focus on the place of the intermediary at all -- but rather on the law chosen by the intermediary and its client (which may bear no relation whatsoever to the place of the intermediary).
Formulating a modified version of PRIMA
In January 2001, at the Hague, PRIMA was unanimously adopted as the initial basis for the Hague Securities Convention. The next two years of negotiations were spent determining an appropriate formulation of the doctrine, which at the end of the day diverged from PRIMA.
The fundamental issue during negotiations was to determine a test that would accurately locate one location to serve as the relevant law. Given the complexities of modern securities transactions, securities accounts cannot be said to be maintained in a single location. Neither Art 9(2) of the Settlement Finality Directive nor Article 9 of the Collateral Directive provide an acceptable solution. The result of the analysis at the Hague Convention was that for large financial institutions with many offices, it is often not possible to point to one particular location. Delegates concluded that a test that tried to actually locate a particular securities account would result in an unacceptable level of uncertainty.
Over time a new approach was developed that was a mix of Type I and Type II PRIMA. Under this compromise approach:
- the account holder and relevant intermediary may choose in the account agreement the law to govern the issues under the Convention;
- this choice will be respected under the Hague Convention provided that the chosen law is of a place where the relevant intermediary has an office that is involved in the maintenance of securities accounts (a "qualifying office").