LegalHub: theory: Difference between revisions

Here is a challenge: one day, out of the blue, ask any of these people who insist that it is important to explain, exactly, what [[cross default]] is and how it works. On the spot. No phone-a-friend. No ask-the-audience. Expect blank looks and notebooks.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_the_Silent_Age.</ref>

Now ask yourself this: it it better to keep that peripheral right to [[cross default]] with all the [[tedious]] arguments it invites — whether default or acceleration, as to level and symmetry of [[Threshold Amount - ISDA Provision|thresholds]], what counts as [[indebtedness]], what sorts of [[grace period]]s should be allowed, whether to include [[derivatives]], [[deposits]], or to carve out operational errors or settlement failures, and move the people who handle this and like issues out to Hanoi — all of that to cater for a contingency ''that has never arisen in the history of the derivatives market'' — or just ''strike it out of your contract forms altogether''? As long as [[cross default]] seems like a competitive advantage; as long as we think our boilerplate is some kind of proprietary technology, we consign ourselves to a permanent arms race ''with our own shadows''.