Headings - 1992 ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "{{manual|MI|1992|9(g)|Section|9(g)|short}}"
 
(No difference)

Revision as of 16:56, 15 April 2020

1992 ISDA Master Agreement
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™

Resources and navigation

Resources Wikitext | Nutshell wikitext | 2002 ISDA wikitext | 2002 vs 1992 Showdown | 2006 ISDA Definitions | 2008 ISDA
Navigation Preamble |

1(a) (b) (c) | 2(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) | 3(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) | 4(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) | 55(a) Events of Default: 5(a)(i) Failure to Pay or Deliver 5(a)(ii) Breach of Agreement 5(a)(iii) Credit Support Default 5(a)(iv) Misrepresentation 5(a)(v) Default Under Specified Transaction 5(a)(vi) Cross Default 5(a)(vii) Bankruptcy 5(a)(viii) Merger Without Assumption 5(b) Termination Events: 5(b)(i) Illegality 5(b)(ii) Tax Event 5(b)(iii) Tax Event Upon Merger 5(b)(iv) Credit Event Upon Merger 5(b)(v) Additional Termination Event (c) | 6(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) | 7 | 8(a) (b) (c) (d) | 9(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) | 10 | 11 | 12(a) (b) | 13(a) (b) (c) (d) | 14 |

Index: Click to expand:

Section 9(g) in a Nutshell

Use at your own risk, campers!
9(g) Headings. Headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and should not be considered when interpreting this Agreement.

Full text of Section 9(g)

9(g) Headings. The headings used in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and are not to affect the construction of or to be taken into consideration in interpreting this Agreement.

Related agreements and comparisons

Related Agreements
Click here for the text of Section 9(g) in the 2002 ISDA
Comparisons
The two versions of Section 9(g) are identical.

Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Content and comparisons

This clause is identical in the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.

Template

Summary

So suddenly, in Section 9(g) of all places, the members of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ wake up out of their collective fever dream, and this is what they say: It’s like, “okay, so we wrote them; we did put them here — hands up, we admit it — but we don’t mean anything by them”. And what is a fellow to make of the headings before Section 9 that, short days ago, being a logical fellow, I read, enjoyed and imbued with symbolic meaning? Am I supposed to just throw that crystalline construct away now? It just seems such a waste.

Don’t you just love lawyers?

Template

See also

Template

References