Template:Isda 5(a)(viii) comp: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{icds}} giveth and {{icds}} taketh away. As it neatly excises one square of flannel here, it inserts another one, further itemising ways in which a company might reorganise itself, there. In practical terms — ones that might make a difference were they to be considered by the King’s Bench Division, that is — no real change between {{1992ma}} and {{2002ma}}." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{icds}} giveth and {{icds}} taketh away. | {{isdacomparisons|90845|90846|90847}} | ||
{{icds}} giveth and {{icds}} taketh away. | |||
In 1992, {{icds}} added references to a party’s {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}s and {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}s — the {{1987ma}} did not have a concept of a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}} at all (though it does contemplate {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}s). | |||
In 2002 some further enhancements: {{icds}} had contrived some different ways of describing how a company might reorganise itself (specifically, “reorganisation, reincorporation or reconstitution”). It also, uncharacteristically, deletes the text “by operation of law or pursuant to an agreement reasonably satisfactory to the other party to this Agreement”. This removes an unnecessary restriction on the foregoing event (the surviving entity failing to assume all the obligations under the ISDA) so makes sense: the squad here is just correcting its own verbal profligacy. | |||
Latest revision as of 09:21, 16 September 2024
Redlines
- 1987 ⇒ 1992: Redline of the ’92 vs. the ’87: comparison (and in reverse)
- 1992 ⇒ 2002: Redline of the ’02 vs. the ’92: comparison (and in reverse)
- 1987 ⇒ 2002: Redline of the ’92 vs. the ’87: comparison (and in reverse)
Discussion
ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ giveth and ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ taketh away.
In 1992, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ added references to a party’s {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}s and {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}s — the 1987 ISDA did not have a concept of a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}} at all (though it does contemplate {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}s).
In 2002 some further enhancements: ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ had contrived some different ways of describing how a company might reorganise itself (specifically, “reorganisation, reincorporation or reconstitution”). It also, uncharacteristically, deletes the text “by operation of law or pursuant to an agreement reasonably satisfactory to the other party to this Agreement”. This removes an unnecessary restriction on the foregoing event (the surviving entity failing to assume all the obligations under the ISDA) so makes sense: the squad here is just correcting its own verbal profligacy.