Template:M comp disc 2002 ISDA Specified Entity: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Same concept in both versions of the {{isdama}} only with different clause numberings. Specified Entity is relevant to: *{{isdaprov|DUST}} *{{isdaprov|Cross Default}} *{{isdap..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Replaced content with "{{isda Specified Entity comp|isdaprov}}" Tag: Replaced |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isda Specified Entity comp|isdaprov}} | |||
Latest revision as of 16:15, 2 January 2024
They got their over-engineering right in the first go round, and the “Specified Entity” concept is largely the same in the 2002 ISDA as it was in the 1992 ISDA. The Absence of Litigation clause got a makever on 2002 to include Specified Entities, too — in 1992 it only mentioned Affiliates. Good, huh?
Fun fact: in the 1992ma, it says “Specified Entity has the meanings” — plural — “specified in the Schedule.” By 2002, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ had come back to its senses. JC mentions this only to demonstrate his own unfathomable attention to detail, and to point up a want of fastidiousness on the part of the fastidiousest cabal known to law.