|
Tags: Replaced Manual revert |
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{quote|
| |
| Oh, this section {{isdaprov|6(b)(iv)}} stuff <br>
| |
| Is sure stirring up some ghosts for me. <br>
| |
| She said, “There’s one thing you gotta learn <br>
| |
| Is not to be afraid of it.” <br>
| |
| I said, “No, I like it, I like it, it’s good.” <br>
| |
| She said, “You like it now — <br>
| |
| But you’ll learn to ''love'' it later”
| |
| :— Robbie Robertson<ref>Okay he didn’t say the bit about Section {{isdaprov|6(b)(iv)}}</ref>}}
| |
|
| |
| {{isda 6(b)(iv) comp|isdaprov}} | | {{isda 6(b)(iv) comp|isdaprov}} |
|
| |
| The additions for {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} in the {{2002ma}} afford spectacular insight into the paranoid mind of {{icds}}, and the sort of rabbit hole one can find oneself falling down if one tries to over-think disaster scenarios. The contingencies the new wording addresses — none of which really bear much resemblance to the commercial world — are as follows:
| |
| *What happens if a party early terminates only some, but not all, {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s — which, sure, it is entitled to do but nonetheless, in most cases, would be a [[dick move]]: here the terminating party must give two extra {{isdaprov|Local Business Day}}s’ notice over what it would have to give if it were terminating all {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s, to allow the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}} to respond to the notice closing out the remaining {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s.
| |
| *Being clear that where an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} or {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} relates to a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}, only the beneficiary<ref> That is, the counterparty to the person whose {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} is suddenly illegal.</ref> of the afforded by that {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} can call for early termination. This stands to reason since the guaranteed party does not itself suffer any loss as a result of the failure of that credit support document, so should not be entitled to use it as an excuse to terminate Transactions (well — not unless and until that beneficiary has been a dick as contemplated above and terminated only ''some'' of the {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s. At this point, all bets are off.
| |