EMIR does not specifically cover contracts concluded after 16 August 2012, but which have not yet been concluded by the reference date, and the market considered that such contracts should therefore be notified from the reference date. The GDR provides that the parties may include a number of calendars in the GDR: (i) the “voters list” (this list is mandatory and contains all the elections and information that the parties must carry out or paste concerning the provisions contained in the main part of the agreement (much like the list of an ISDA framework agreement)); (ii) a static timetable (optional, see paragraph 3 below); and/or (iii) a timetable for operational and procedural arrangements (which is also optional). Unlike the US Dodd-Frank Wall Street Consumer Reform and Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), EMIR does not apply any hierarchy to the responsibility for media coverage. Therefore, an EU fund or company is subject to the reporting obligation, whether it is acting with another EU company, an EU bank or even a counterparty to the TEC (e.g. B an American bank). In accordance with Article 9 of EMIR, `counterparties` must communicate to a registered or recognised trade repository the details of a derivative contract they conclude and any modification or termination of the contract no later than the following working day. However, much of the details of the reporting requirement are set out in technical standards that complement EMIR. The reporting requirement is the latest in a series of obligations imposed on derivative counterparties in Europe under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), which entered into force in August 2012 in response to the European Union`s commitments to subject the derivatives market to stronger regulation. The GDR is a separate declaration delegation agreement under English law4. 4 It provides, on the whole, that one party (the `registrant`) transmits on behalf of the other party (the `client`) certain data (`relevant data`) relating to certain derivative transactions (`relevant transactions`). For example, where a swap is made by a redemption counterparty established in the EU and a swap swap registered in the CFTC and the swap is subject to Dodd-Frank reporting and falls under the August 2012 ISDA-DF protocol, the counterparty must comply with the corresponding reporting obligation as a non-reporting counterparty described above under Protocol6 (as well as to report the swap itself in accordance with EMIR).
The agreement was also designed to ensure that these conditions will remain effective after Brexit. As noted in the webinar, ISDA and other professional organisations had written to ESMA requesting regulatory leniency regarding the start of the reporting requirement by financial counterparties for NFC-s on 18 June. . . .
Comments are closed.