Pravna priroda Sporazuma o netiranju i preduslovi njegove izvršivosti

Abstract

Netiranje predstavlja jedan od instrumenata upravljanja rizikom i kao takav pozitivno utiče na bilans stanja ugovornih strana, s obzirom da mogućnost prebijanja potraživanja smanjuje izloženost riziku i umanjuje potrebni kapital, dok sa druge strane smanjuje transakcione troškove, naročito troškove saldiranja. Efektivnost sporazuma o netingu i ugovornih odredbi o netiranju međusobnih obaveza, kao i pravni tretman ovog mehanizma, još od kraja osamdesetih godina ovog veka otvoreno je pitanje, sa globalnom tendencijom njegovog priznavanja. Osnovne dileme koje su se postavljale i koje se još uvek postavljaju pred zakonodavca i regulatorne organe na finansijskom tržištu naročito se odnose na izvršivost netinga u slučaju stečaja jedne od ugovornih strana, kao i sa time povezanog tretmana netiranja za potrebe obračuna adekvatnosti kapitala. Uprkos širokoj upotrebi sporazuma o netiranju potraživanja, izvršivost odredbi o ovom modalitetu prebijanja u prošlosti je u razvijenim zemljama bila neizvesna, naročito zbog efekta propisa o stečaju. Mnoge zemlje su u međuvremenu obogatile svoje zakonodavstvo novim pravilima koja se odnose na prebijanje potraživanja u pogledu finansijskih terminskih poslova, bilo izmenama zakona o stečaju, propisa kojima se reguliše finansijski sistem, ili donošenjem novih zakona u kojima se ova specifična materija reguliše kao posebna celina. U kontekstu stečajnog postupka, moderna prava danas dozvoljavaju mogućnost likvidacionog netinga, obično u pogledu određenih finansijskih instrumenata, naročito finansijskih derivata. Specifične odredbe o netingu predstavljaju odstupanje od opštih principa stečajnog prava. Cilj regulatorne reforme nije da se time stvori privilegovana grupa poverilaca na štetu ostalih poverilaca, već da se obezbedi pravna sigurnost na finansijskom tržištu. U ovom radu autor ukazuje na pravnu prirodu ovog finansijskog termina, njegove osnovne oblike, ukazuje na neke nedoslednosti u pogledu razlikovanja instituta prebijanja i odredbi o netiranju u pravu EU i otvara pitanja da li su sporazumi o netiranju izvršivi u našem pravu.

Netting is a risk management tool and as such it benefits the financial position of both parties, taking into account that the possibility to set off mutual claims decreases risk exposure and the capital requirement, whereas it also lowers transaction costs, notably those related to settlement. Efficacy of netting agreements and netting clauses, as well as the legal treatment of this mechanism, stands as an open question since eighties, with a global tendency towards its acceptance. The main dilemmas which were put and are still put in front of the legislator and the regulatory agencies on financial markets relate to its enforceability in case of bankruptcy and the related treatment of netting for capital adequacy purposes. In spite of the widespread use of this agreements, however, the enforceability of contractual and netting rights is sometimes uncertain, which is mainly because the law governing insolvency proceedings may, as a matter of policy or tradition, refuse to recognize such rights. Many countries have reflected the special role of netting in the financial markets by introducing special exceptions to their normal insolvency rules. In an insolvency context, modern law may generally permit close-out netting, or solely for designated financial instruments especially in the field of derivatives. This specific netting legislation is a carve-out from the general principles of insolvency law, which is in roman legal system traditionally pro-debtor. The rationale is not so much to create a privileged class of claimants to the detriment of the remaining creditors but to recognize that the current legal solution, based on the principle of equal treatment of creditors, is inconsistent with the contractual and legal certainty required by modern financial markets. In this Paper the author analyses the meaning of the term 'netting' and its legal nature, identifies various legal uncertainties on the enforceability of contractual set-off and netting agreements that result from certain provisions of the Insolvency Regulation, the Banks Winding-up Directive and the Collateral Directive and opens a question whether netting is enforceable under Serbian law.