some specifications for the aforementioned deed of pledge

[uta]

Thank you for your kind help, and i dare ask you to have a look at the
expanded context. A purely non-linguistic question: how is it that the Bank
may have "several claims" against the Principal? Have i got it right that
the Principal here is the party X, as it pledged its assets as collateral
to secure that the obligations of the party Y with the Bank should be
carried out? or is it the party Y that invested the party X with the powers
to act as an intermediate - which is my assumption, for i do not find the
ground for this anywhere in the text.

Here're the 1st and the 3d clauses of this deed of pledge i'm at:

1. We the undersigned X (hereinafter referred to as the Pledgor) declare
that we hereby assign and pledge in favor of Bank A (hereinafter referred
to as the Bank) as security for all present and future claims arising out
of business relationships, that the Bank has or might assert against Y
(hereinafter referred to as the Debtor) all negotiable instruments, etc.
which are now or which may be, directly or indirectly, in posession of the
Bank, whether deposited with it or deposited anywhere else in its name but
on our behalf.

3. The pledge is not only to cover the principal's claims of the Bank A but
also the accrued and current interests, commissions, as well as custody
fees, sales, expenses, etc. In the case of several claims... etc..

Thank you.

[V]

Sorry, Uta, but I am afraid that even this is still insufficient for us to understand the structure of this pledge.
Importantly, WHO IN THE PLEDGE AGREEMENT YOU ARE TRANSLATING IS THE PRINCIPAL?
Look at the Definitions clause...

[V]

Come to think of it, maybe... ju-u-ust possibly... X выступает в качестве поручителя по обязательствам У перед Банком, и тогда, МОЖЕТ БЫТЬ, Принципалом здесь по юридической небрежности обозвали сам Банк?
И тогда не исключено, что Principal's claim of the Bank (actually, it would have been legally more kosher to say "The claims which the Bank may have in its capacity as Principal") - просто употреблено здесь в смысле "те права требования, которые могут (в рамках данного правоотношения поручительства) возникнуть у Банка по отношению к У, как у ( в качестве) Принципала в настоящем правоотношении".
Но ОЧЕНЬ ненадёжно - подлежит перепроверке...