6(j) - GMRA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{fullanat|gmra|6(j)|2000}} | {{fullanat|gmra|6(j)|2000}} | ||
This is the {{gmra}}'s version of a [[flawed asset]] provision—similar, you will note, to the {{isdama}}’s vaunted Section 2(a)(iii). | This is the {{gmra}}'s version of a [[flawed asset]] provision—similar, you will note, to the {{isdama}}’s vaunted Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}}. Unlike the ISDA version, it's toggle-able, suggesting the framers of the {{gmra}} were somewhat embarrassed to include it. Rightly, because a [[flawed asset]] clause doesn’t make a colossal amount of sense in an intrinsically margined, callable transactions like a [[repo]] agreement. | ||
Oddly, the {{gmsla}} doesn't have a [[flawed asset]] provision (the closest it gets is Paragraph {{gmslaprov|8.6}}), even though in most every other respect, it’s very similar to the {{gmra}}. | Oddly, the {{gmsla}} doesn't have a [[flawed asset]] provision (the closest it gets is Paragraph {{gmslaprov|8.6}}), even though in most every other respect, it’s very similar to the {{gmra}}. | ||
Revision as of 15:54, 7 March 2018
|
GMRA Anatomy™
6(j) If the parties have specified in Annex I hereto that this paragraph 6(j) shall apply, each obligation of a party under this Agreement (other than an obligation arising under paragraph 10) is subject to the condition precedent that none of those events specified in paragraph 10(a) which are identified in Annex I hereto for the purposes of this paragraph 6(j) (being events which, upon the serving of a Default Notice, would be an Event of Default with respect to the other party) shall have occurred and be continuing with respect to the other party.
|
This is the Global Master Repurchase Agreement's version of a flawed asset provision—similar, you will note, to the ISDA Master Agreement’s vaunted Section 2(a)(iii). Unlike the ISDA version, it's toggle-able, suggesting the framers of the Global Master Repurchase Agreement were somewhat embarrassed to include it. Rightly, because a flawed asset clause doesn’t make a colossal amount of sense in an intrinsically margined, callable transactions like a repo agreement.
Oddly, the 2010 GMSLA doesn't have a flawed asset provision (the closest it gets is Paragraph 8.6), even though in most every other respect, it’s very similar to the Global Master Repurchase Agreement.