Template:Isda 4 summ: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
A hodge-podge of “state the bleeding obvious” rules, breach of some of which justifies (eventual) close-out as a “breach of agreement” — agreeing to provide the credit information you have patiently listed in your schedule, flagrantly breaking the law, carelessly losing one’s regulatory authorisations — and random tax provisions and indemnities (providing the necessary tax forms to minimise tax, and pay tax if you don’t) .
A hodge-podge of “state the bleeding obvious” rules, breach of some of which justifies (eventual) close-out as a “breach of agreement” — agreeing to provide the credit information you have patiently listed in your schedule, flagrantly breaking the law, carelessly losing one’s regulatory authorisations — and random tax provisions and indemnities (providing the necessary tax forms to minimise tax, and pay tax if you don’t).


These are the ''dull'' agreements — which by and large ''don’t'' justify close-out.
These are the ''dull'' agreements — which by and large ''don’t'' justify close-out.
{{summ part {{{1}}}|4(a)}}
{{summ part {{{1}}}|4(b)}}
{{summ part {{{1}}}|4(c)}}
{{summ part {{{1}}}|4(d)}}
{{summ part {{{1}}}|4(e)}}

Latest revision as of 13:20, 7 September 2024

A hodge-podge of “state the bleeding obvious” rules, breach of some of which justifies (eventual) close-out as a “breach of agreement” — agreeing to provide the credit information you have patiently listed in your schedule, flagrantly breaking the law, carelessly losing one’s regulatory authorisations — and random tax provisions and indemnities (providing the necessary tax forms to minimise tax, and pay tax if you don’t).

These are the dull agreements — which by and large don’t justify close-out.