Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Relevant Jurisdiction: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Relevant Jurisdiction is a special artefact in the ISDA canon because, insofar as the {{isdama}} proper is concerned, it is the only piece of text that falls definitively below the Biggs threshold." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Relevant Jurisdiction is a special artefact in the ISDA canon because, insofar as the {{isdama}} proper is concerned, it is the only piece of text that falls definitively below the [[Biggs constant|Biggs threshold]]. | {{isdaprov|Relevant Jurisdiction}} is a special artefact in the ISDA canon because, insofar as the {{isdama}} proper is concerned, it is the only piece of text that falls definitively below the [[Biggs constant|Biggs threshold]]. It isn’t used in the {{isdama}} itself ''at all''. | ||
HOLD YOUR LETTERS, PEDANTS. Yes, it is true, it does feature in the printed form in the [[Schedule Payer Tax Representations - ISDA Provision|Part 2 Payer Representations]]. But these are, by their terms, voluntary, optional and malleable commercial terms, that the parties may strike out or adjust, leaving the {{isdaprov|Relevant Jurisdiction}} dangling there behind the ISDA’s woolly posterior, like a dag that may not be shorn. The irony! Relevant to what?! Nothing! | |||
You might ask why this definition — which is tedious, sure, but hardly a backbreaker — couldn’t have been wrapped into the text of the actual representation in Part [[Schedule Payer Tax Representations - ISDA Provision|2]] | |||
Latest revision as of 14:36, 27 June 2023
Relevant Jurisdiction is a special artefact in the ISDA canon because, insofar as the ISDA Master Agreement proper is concerned, it is the only piece of text that falls definitively below the Biggs threshold. It isn’t used in the ISDA Master Agreement itself at all.
HOLD YOUR LETTERS, PEDANTS. Yes, it is true, it does feature in the printed form in the Part 2 Payer Representations. But these are, by their terms, voluntary, optional and malleable commercial terms, that the parties may strike out or adjust, leaving the Relevant Jurisdiction dangling there behind the ISDA’s woolly posterior, like a dag that may not be shorn. The irony! Relevant to what?! Nothing!
You might ask why this definition — which is tedious, sure, but hardly a backbreaker — couldn’t have been wrapped into the text of the actual representation in Part 2