Template:Isda 1 comp: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdacomparisons|90827|90828|90830}} | {{isdacomparisons|90827|90828|90830}} | ||
he {{2002ma}} does the reader the service of acknowledging there might be terms defined in the schedule and not just Section {{{{{1}}}|14}} — as indeed there must — party-specific things like {{{{{1}}}|Party A}}, {{{{{1}}}|Party B}}, {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}, {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}, and no doubt you can think of others — but beyond this, the text of Section {{isdaprov|1}} in the {{2002ma}} is the same as Section {{isda92prov|1}} in the {{1992ma}}. | {{drop|T|he {{2002ma}}}} does the reader the service of acknowledging there might be terms defined in the schedule and not just Section {{{{{1}}}|14}} — as indeed there must — party-specific things like {{{{{1}}}|Party A}}, {{{{{1}}}|Party B}}, {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}, {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}, and no doubt you can think of others — but beyond this, the text of Section {{isdaprov|1}} in the {{2002ma}} is the same as Section {{isda92prov|1}} in the {{1992ma}}. | ||
The {{1987ma}} was broadly the same, though there was no “single agreement” subclause (c) — that is built instead into the Preamble. By 1992 {{icds}} deemed this important enough to deserve its own place in Section {{isda92prov|1(c)}}, and there it stayed for the {{2002ma}}. | The {{1987ma}} was broadly the same, though there was no “single agreement” subclause (c) — that is built instead into the Preamble. By 1992 {{icds}} deemed this important enough to deserve its own place in Section {{isda92prov|1(c)}}, and there it stayed for the {{2002ma}}. | ||
Latest revision as of 12:36, 15 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
The 2002 ISDA does the reader the service of acknowledging there might be terms defined in the schedule and not just Section {{{{{1}}}|14}} — as indeed there must — party-specific things like {{{{{1}}}|Party A}}, {{{{{1}}}|Party B}}, {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}}, {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}}, and no doubt you can think of others — but beyond this, the text of Section 1 in the 2002 ISDA is the same as Section 1 in the 1992 ISDA.
The 1987 ISDA was broadly the same, though there was no “single agreement” subclause (c) — that is built instead into the Preamble. By 1992 ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ deemed this important enough to deserve its own place in Section 1(c), and there it stayed for the 2002 ISDA.