Template:Isdadiff 3(g): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "''There isn’t an equivalent to Section {{isdaprov|3(g)}} in the {{1992ma}} but parties used to routinely crowbar one in as an additional representation under a new Section {..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''There isn’t an equivalent to Section {{isdaprov|3(g)}} in the {{1992ma}} but parties used to routinely crowbar one in as an additional representation under a new Section {{isda92prov|3(a)(vi)}}.'' | ''There isn’t an equivalent to Section {{isdaprov|3(g)}} in the {{1992ma}} but parties used to routinely crowbar one in as an additional representation under a new Section {{isda92prov|3(a)(vi)}}. In a spooky piece of anticipation (and since latter-day 2002 refuseniks just copy paste the 2002 clause into their {{1992ma}}), they’re the same, as this {{diff|40211|40210}} will demonstrate.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 10:08, 23 February 2020
There isn’t an equivalent to Section 3(g) in the 1992 ISDA but parties used to routinely crowbar one in as an additional representation under a new Section 3(a)(vi). In a spooky piece of anticipation (and since latter-day 2002 refuseniks just copy paste the 2002 clause into their 1992 ISDA), they’re the same, as this comparison will demonstrate.