Template:Gmsla 11.7 comp: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''But see also Clause {{{{{1}}}|15}}, where this throwaway reference really bites.''' | '''But see also Clause {{{{{1}}}|15}}, where this throwaway reference really bites.''' | ||
===Special guest appearance: 2000 GMSLA=== | |||
We don’t spend too much time looking at the 2000 GMSLA any more, seeing as nor does anyone else, but we were asked to look at this clause, so here it is. Clause {{gmsla2000prov|10.7}} of the 2000 GMSLA was slightly more dependent on LIBOR than its 2010 successor as can be seen in this {{diff|57300|55633}}. Changes are largely improvements: the 2010 assumes the parties will agree something else, relying on [[LIBOR]] only as a fallback (prescient in 2010!); it falls back to overnight and not one-month LIBOR (given the callable nature of stock loans that makes a lot more sense), and the 2000 version had a genuinely gruesome 44-line coda which seemed to be some sort of half-hearted attempt at linear interpolation for shorter periods which the 2010 version, by relying on the overnight rate, was able to jettison entirely with no great loss. | |||
Latest revision as of 14:11, 7 June 2021
In its headlong rush to pursue the path of least resistance, the tremendous opportunity the 2018 Pledge GMSLA presented to ISLA’s crack drafting squad™ for once and for all to rid this form of its unfortunate reference to LIBOR went missed. Pity really.
But see also Clause {{{{{1}}}|15}}, where this throwaway reference really bites.
Special guest appearance: 2000 GMSLA
We don’t spend too much time looking at the 2000 GMSLA any more, seeing as nor does anyone else, but we were asked to look at this clause, so here it is. Clause 10.7 of the 2000 GMSLA was slightly more dependent on LIBOR than its 2010 successor as can be seen in this comparison. Changes are largely improvements: the 2010 assumes the parties will agree something else, relying on LIBOR only as a fallback (prescient in 2010!); it falls back to overnight and not one-month LIBOR (given the callable nature of stock loans that makes a lot more sense), and the 2000 version had a genuinely gruesome 44-line coda which seemed to be some sort of half-hearted attempt at linear interpolation for shorter periods which the 2010 version, by relying on the overnight rate, was able to jettison entirely with no great loss.