(a) Qualifying master netting agreements. In order to recognize an agreement as a qualifying master netting agreement as defined in § 249.3, a Board-regulated institution must:

Ask a legal question, get an answer ASAP!
Click here to chat with a lawyer about your rights.

(1) Conduct sufficient legal review to conclude with a well-founded basis (and maintain sufficient written documentation of that legal review) that:

(i) The agreement meets the requirements of the definition of qualifying master netting agreement in § 249.3; and

(ii) In the event of a legal challenge (including one resulting from default or from receivership, bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding) the relevant judicial and administrative authorities would find the agreement to be legal, valid, binding, and enforceable under the law of the relevant jurisdictions; and

(2) Establish and maintain written procedures to monitor possible changes in relevant law and to ensure that the agreement continues to satisfy the requirements of the definition of qualifying master netting agreement in § 249.3.

(b) Operational deposits. In order to recognize a deposit as an operational deposit as defined in § 249.3:

(1) The related operational services must be performed pursuant to a legally binding written agreement, and:

(i) The termination of the agreement must be subject to a minimum 30 calendar-day notice period; or

(ii) As a result of termination of the agreement or transfer of services to a third-party provider, the customer providing the deposit would incur significant contractual termination costs or switching costs (switching costs include significant technology, administrative, and legal service costs incurred in connection with the transfer of the operational services to a third-party provider);

(2) The deposit must be held in an account designated as an operational account;

(3) The customer must hold the deposit at the Board-regulated institution for the primary purpose of obtaining the operational services provided by the Board-regulated institution;

(4) The deposit account must not be designed to create an economic incentive for the customer to maintain excess funds therein through increased revenue, reduction in fees, or other offered economic incentives;

(5) The Board-regulated institution must demonstrate that the deposit is empirically linked to the operational services and that it has a methodology that takes into account the volatility of the average balance for identifying any excess amount, which must be excluded from the operational deposit amount;

(6) The deposit must not be provided in connection with the Board-regulated institution’s provision of prime brokerage services, which, for the purposes of this part, are a package of services offered by the Board-regulated institution whereby the Board-regulated institution, among other services, executes, clears, settles, and finances transactions entered into by the customer or a third-party entity on behalf of the customer (such as an executing broker), and where the Board-regulated institution has a right to use or rehypothecate assets provided by the customer, including in connection with the extension of margin and other similar financing of the customer, subject to applicable law, and includes operational services provided to a non-regulated fund; and

(7) The deposits must not be for arrangements in which the Board-regulated institution (as correspondent) holds deposits owned by another depository institution bank (as respondent) and the respondent temporarily places excess funds in an overnight deposit with the Board-regulated institution.