Yes — and no. A case where operational reality surpasses the theory of law. If you have a multi-branch ISDA that, for example, lists Prague, Den Sudan[2] and Wellington, do you have to be on board the client in each of these legal systems? Students of onboarding will recognize this as a collossal deterrent for the addition of willy-nilly branches, but this legal involvement will generally depend on an operational configuration in the broker`s systems, without which it will not be possible to book a trade in that jurisdiction, whatever the legal documents say. Consider the legal contract as permissive; The object that animates your kyc commitments and triggers the onboarding assault will open an account in your systems at a later date. Some banks will attempt to include catch all formulations that stipulate that each branch can enter into transactions under the agreement if indicated in a confirmation. I would reject that kind of proposal. While it may be convenient not to update the schedule if a new branch is added or if you want to expand trading to other branches, the legal and tax analysis must be done by the relevant departments before making transactions with new branches. Merchants cannot trade with a branch and rely on confirmation without this analysis being done and the name of the branch being agreed and formally recorded in the trade and credit documents. The bank concerned is mentioned among the contracting parties to the agreement and the branches on which it is willing to negotiate are listed in Part 4, point d) of the calendar. It is therefore important to limit branches to those that carry out a certain number of trades rather than to propose transactions where trade can only take place once in a blue moon, if at all. It is also essential to conduct a legal analysis of each branch covered in Part 4, point (d).
They should be checked for a „clean“ legal opinion (ISDA on warrant or other means) that the closure of the networks is effective in the jurisdiction of that branch. Indeed, if a local liquidator tried to put the fortune of an insolvent local branch, you might have a stronger legal position than if you had that insurance. These fans of details will have neglected the strange parallel world of taxation. It is the physical presence that counts, not the legal personality. The indication that your counterparty can negotiate from its offices, for example. B in Prague, Kabul or Sudan[1], may affect the tax payable on payments made in connection with the corresponding TRANSACTIONs under the ISDA. Where both parties are multi-party and have numerous overseas branches, a complex multilateral analysis of all the various permutations is provided. Therefore, a double danger: counterparties may refuse to make the Paye Tax Representation necessary because they did not think it would be necessary. Therefore, no Payee Tax Representation – no multi-choice ISDA – withheld at the potential gross source or a possible event of misrepresentation of the delay.