Custody and Bankruptcy-Remote Structures, Explained
Where collateral is held, and by whom, determines whether pledged shares are safe if the lender encounters financial difficulty. Bankruptcy-remote custody arrangements are the institutional standard for protecting client assets throughout the loan lifecycle.
The core question: where do the shares sit
In any securities-backed lending transaction, one of the most important structural decisions concerns custody of the collateral. Shares can be held directly by the lender in its own accounts, held by an independent third-party custodian, or segregated within a special-purpose vehicle. Each arrangement carries different consequences if the lender becomes insolvent. When shares are held in the lender’s own accounts without segregation, they may be available to the lender’s general creditors in an insolvency, exposing the borrower to loss even though the loan is fully secured from the borrower’s perspective. An independent custodian arrangement, by contrast, holds the collateral outside the lender’s estate, so insolvency proceedings against the lender should not affect the borrower’s ability to recover the shares upon repayment.
What bankruptcy-remote means in practice
A bankruptcy-remote structure is one designed so that a defined pool of assets is legally ring-fenced from the insolvency risk of any party in the transaction chain. In the custody context, this typically means that pledged shares are held by a regulated, independent custodian in a segregated account, subject to a custody agreement that expressly prevents the custodian from using the assets to satisfy its own obligations or those of the lender. The custodian’s mandate is purely administrative: to hold, record, and transfer securities in accordance with authenticated instructions. If the lender fails, the custodian continues to hold the shares for the account of whoever is legally entitled to them under the facility agreement — whether that is the borrower upon repayment or an enforcement sale process.
Special-purpose vehicles and asset segregation
Some lenders use a special-purpose vehicle to hold collateral. The SPV is a separate legal entity with no other assets or liabilities, making it structurally bankruptcy-remote from both the lender and any other group entity. The SPV owns nothing other than the pledged securities, so even if the lender group encounters wider financial distress, the SPV’s assets are not available to the group’s creditors. This approach is common in structured finance and is increasingly adopted in securities-backed lending for larger facilities. It adds a layer of legal and administrative complexity but provides a high degree of asset protection. Borrowers with large or strategically important pledged positions should enquire whether an SPV custody structure is appropriate for their transaction.
Regulatory and jurisdictional considerations
The effectiveness of any bankruptcy-remote structure depends heavily on the legal jurisdiction governing the custody arrangement and the enforceability of the relevant agreements under applicable insolvency law. Jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, and Delaware have well-developed statutory frameworks that support asset segregation and ring-fencing. In other jurisdictions, the position may be less certain. Borrowers should seek independent legal advice as to whether the proposed custody arrangement provides the protection it purports to offer under the law of the jurisdiction most likely to govern any insolvency proceedings. Black Haven works with counsel experienced in cross-border custody and insolvency law to structure facilities that offer robust protection to clients.
Questions to ask before signing
Before accepting a lending proposal, borrowers should ask four key questions about custody. First, where will the shares be held, and by whom? Second, is the custodian independent of the lender? Third, is the account segregated so that the custodian cannot use the shares for its own purposes? Fourth, what happens to the shares in the event of the lender’s insolvency, and is this position confirmed by legal opinion in the relevant jurisdiction? A lender that cannot provide satisfactory answers to these questions — or that declines to discuss them — should give a sophisticated borrower pause. Transparency about custody arrangements is a hallmark of an institution that takes client asset protection seriously.
Frequently asked.
01What is a bankruptcy-remote custody structure?
02Does Black Haven use independent custodians?
03Should I seek my own legal advice on custody arrangements?
Keep reading.
Dividends, Corporate Actions and Your Pledge
Understanding how dividends and corporate events interact with a pledged share position protects your economics throughout the loan.
Read → Recourse · May 18, 2020Why Non-Recourse Matters in a Sell-Off
The distinction between recourse and non-recourse lending becomes starkly clear when markets fall sharply — and it can mean the difference between a managed outcome and a financial crisis.
Read →A position to talk through?
Send a confidential enquiry, and a senior principal will reply within one business day.