From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ===Multiple Transaction Payment Netting===
| |
| “'''{{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}}'''” is a defined term introduced in the {{2002ma}} in place of the more clunky {{1992isda}} language set out in Section {{isdaprov|2(c)}}.
| |
|
| |
|
| In the {{1992isda}}, to specify that netting across transactions would apply, you must '''disapply''' Section {{isdaprov|2(c)(ii)}}. Counterintuitive, but true (because otherwise netting only applies ''in respect of the same {{isdaprov|Transaction}}'').
| |
|
| |
| That is partly why, in the {{2002isda}} they introduced the more intuitive {{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}} concept. So now you can say “{{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}} does (or does not) apply”.
| |
|
| |
| Of course, the one person who is going to have ''no'' clue about how transaction netting works at an operational level is [[negotiator]] expected to thrash this out in the doc.
| |
|
| |
| Now, seeing as (per above) payment netting is an operational fact not a legal right as such, and it doesn’t ''need'' to be in the contract, and your [[negotiator]] will care not one row of buttons whether or not {{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}} applies or not, you might think it wise to put something diffident like “''The parties will agree any Multiple Transaction Payment Netting arrangements separately as an operational matter''.”
| |
Latest revision as of 10:21, 24 December 2023