Indemnity: Difference between revisions
From ACT Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
imported>Doug Williamson (Link with Bond page.) |
imported>Doug Williamson (Add example from ACT CertICM Ch14, p14.9, relating to multilateral netting.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An obligation of one party to reimburse another party for losses which have occurred or which may occur. | An obligation of one party to reimburse another party for losses which have occurred or which may occur. | ||
==== Example ==== | |||
In the UK, banks may have a liability to the payer for the value of any funds which are ‘incorrectly diverted’ to a different bank account. | |||
This potential liability of the bank may arise under a multilateral netting system in a group of companies, in relation to third party receipts into the group's netting system. | |||
In the UK, banks would require an indemnity for any liability they may have for the value of funds which may have been ‘incorrectly diverted’ in this way. | |||
| Line 6: | Line 15: | ||
* [[Guarantee]] | * [[Guarantee]] | ||
* [[Indemnity clause]] | * [[Indemnity clause]] | ||
* [[Multilateral netting]] | |||
Revision as of 07:56, 20 May 2015
An obligation of one party to reimburse another party for losses which have occurred or which may occur.
Example
In the UK, banks may have a liability to the payer for the value of any funds which are ‘incorrectly diverted’ to a different bank account.
This potential liability of the bank may arise under a multilateral netting system in a group of companies, in relation to third party receipts into the group's netting system.
In the UK, banks would require an indemnity for any liability they may have for the value of funds which may have been ‘incorrectly diverted’ in this way.
