|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| A hodge-podge of “state the bleeding obvious” rules, breach of some of which justifies (eventual) close-out as a “breach of agreement” — flagrantly breaking the law, carelessly losing one’s regulatory authorisations — and random tax provisions and indemnities, which by and large ''don’t'' justify close-out.
| | {{isda 4 summ|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| '''Section {{isdaprov|4(a)}}''': {{specified information capsule|isdaprov}}
| |
| | |
| '''Section {{isdaprov|4(b)}}''': {{isda 4(b) summ|isdaprov}}
| |
| | |
| '''Section {{isdaprov|4(c)}}: Hardly controversial that one must obey the law, but note this apparently inoffensive [[covenant]] converts that general public obligation into a [[Contractual damages|private civil one]], with definitive commercial consequences to your counterparty, hence the couching of the language in terms of materiality (twice) and specific ability to perform obligations under the {{isdama}}.
| |
| | |
| '''Section {{isdaprov|4(e)}}''': Basically, if there is any {{isdaprov|Stamp Tax}} imposed because of my existence or residence in a certain jurisdiction, whether imposed on me or you, I’ll pay it, unless it would have been imposed on you too. If we’re both in the same {{isdaprov|Stamp Tax Jurisdiction}}, the liability lies where it falls.
| |
Latest revision as of 16:57, 13 October 2023
A hodge-podge of “state the bleeding obvious” rules, breach of some of which justifies (eventual) close-out as a “breach of agreement” — agreeing to provide the credit information you have patiently listed in your schedule, flagrantly breaking the law, carelessly losing one’s regulatory authorisations — and random tax provisions and indemnities (providing the necessary tax forms to minimise tax, and pay tax if you don’t).
These are the dull agreements — which by and large don’t justify close-out.