Template:M summ Equity Derivatives 12.9(a)(ii): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=== | ===“[[Change in Law - Equity Derivatives Provision|It]] has become illegal”=== | ||
For those inclined to look even gift horses in the mouth, this provision may appear to leave some things unsaid. | For those inclined to look even gift horses in the mouth, this provision may appear to leave some things unsaid. | ||
What if it has become illegal to hold {{eqderivprov|Shares}} | ====Some ''other'' way of holding {{eqderivprov|Shares}}==== | ||
What if it has become illegal to hold {{eqderivprov|Shares}} ''the way the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} is holding them'', but it remains legal to hold them some ''other'' way? For example, if Shares needed to be listed on a certain {{eqderivprov|Exchange}}, or cleared across a certain clearinghouse? At first blush this seems fanciful but before you laugh don’t forget this was one of the potential consequences of [[Brexit means Brexit|Brexit]] — and for the Swissies — when the EU share trading obligation row blew up in 2019. | |||
Even leaving aside the direction that one must act in [[good faith]] in arriving at one’s conclusion, it is hard to see how one could say it was “''illegal'' to hold {{eqderivprov|Shares}}” if in fact one ''could'' legally hold those {{eqderivprov|Shares}} some other way. So this one’s a bit silly. | |||
====''Other'' hedges, without {{eqderivprov|Shares}}, still possible==== | |||
What if one could [[hedge]] via [[futures]], [[derivatives]], [[GDR]]s or some other instrument without significant extra cost or inconvenience? Would that still count as a {{eqderivprov|Change in Law}}, just because you couldn't hedge with actual {{eqderivprov|Shares}}? | |||
But is “hold, acquire or dispose of ''{{eqderivprov|Shares}}'' relating to such {{eqderivprov|Transaction}}” too narrow when a {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} may be able to hedge some other way (i.e., via [[futures]], [[swaps]], [[depositary receipts]] and so on)? | |||
Well, as fussy as it may seem, it is hard to fault in its basic logic. The scope entertained by {{icds}} does seem a shade narrow, talking as it does only of {{eqderivprov|Shares}} and not other instruments by which one could [[hedge]] an exposure. Not even our old friend the [[good faith]] rider can win the day here, since the clause only talks about acquiring, holding or disposing of {{eqderivprov|Shares}} themselves. On the other hand, if a jurisdiction has declared the very act of holding a physical {{eqderivprov|Share}} illegal, it is hard to see anyone in the jurisdiction offering a swap on it, so this may be more of a theoretical than a practical objection, especially where it is a [[synthetic equity swap]] where the hedging party has no incentive not to accommodate its client if it can source an alternative legal, somehow-derivative, [[hedge]]. | |||
You may be [[inclined]], therefore, gracefully to concede. We don’t think you’ll have to do this often, this is a bit of an aficionado’s point. So, [[knee-slide and jet wings]] to the whoever the [[negotiator]] was who thought of it. | |||
Latest revision as of 22:49, 5 August 2023
“It has become illegal”
For those inclined to look even gift horses in the mouth, this provision may appear to leave some things unsaid.
What if it has become illegal to hold Shares the way the Hedging Party is holding them, but it remains legal to hold them some other way? For example, if Shares needed to be listed on a certain Exchange, or cleared across a certain clearinghouse? At first blush this seems fanciful but before you laugh don’t forget this was one of the potential consequences of Brexit — and for the Swissies — when the EU share trading obligation row blew up in 2019.
Even leaving aside the direction that one must act in good faith in arriving at one’s conclusion, it is hard to see how one could say it was “illegal to hold Shares” if in fact one could legally hold those Shares some other way. So this one’s a bit silly.
What if one could hedge via futures, derivatives, GDRs or some other instrument without significant extra cost or inconvenience? Would that still count as a Change in Law, just because you couldn't hedge with actual Shares?
But is “hold, acquire or dispose of Shares relating to such Transaction” too narrow when a Hedging Party may be able to hedge some other way (i.e., via futures, swaps, depositary receipts and so on)?
Well, as fussy as it may seem, it is hard to fault in its basic logic. The scope entertained by ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ does seem a shade narrow, talking as it does only of Shares and not other instruments by which one could hedge an exposure. Not even our old friend the good faith rider can win the day here, since the clause only talks about acquiring, holding or disposing of Shares themselves. On the other hand, if a jurisdiction has declared the very act of holding a physical Share illegal, it is hard to see anyone in the jurisdiction offering a swap on it, so this may be more of a theoretical than a practical objection, especially where it is a synthetic equity swap where the hedging party has no incentive not to accommodate its client if it can source an alternative legal, somehow-derivative, hedge.
You may be inclined, therefore, gracefully to concede. We don’t think you’ll have to do this often, this is a bit of an aficionado’s point. So, knee-slide and jet wings to the whoever the negotiator was who thought of it.