Template:Isda 3(d) summ: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*'''It’s cobblers''': one ''can'' provide the {{isdaprov|Specified Information}}, on time, but it can be a total pile of ''horse ordure''. Now, here is a [[trick for young players]]: if your {{isdaprov|Specified Information}} is, or turns out to be, false, you have no remedy ''unless'' you have designated that it is “subject to the Section {{isdaprov|3(d)}} [[representation]]”. That is the one that promises it is accurate and not misleading.<ref>{{isdaprov|Accuracy of Specified Information}}.</ref> | *'''It’s cobblers''': one ''can'' provide the {{isdaprov|Specified Information}}, on time, but it can be a total pile of ''horse ordure''. Now, here is a [[trick for young players]]: if your {{isdaprov|Specified Information}} is, or turns out to be, false, you have no remedy ''unless'' you have designated that it is “subject to the Section {{isdaprov|3(d)}} [[representation]]”. That is the one that promises it is accurate and not misleading.<ref>{{isdaprov|Accuracy of Specified Information}}.</ref> | ||
Now you might ask what good an item of {{isdaprov|Specified Information}} can possibly be, if Section {{isdaprov|3(d)}} ''didn’t apply and it could be just made up on the spot without fear of sanction or retribution — as a youngster the [[JC]] certainly asked that question, and has repeated it over many years, and is yet to hear a good answer — but all we can presume is that in its tireless quest to cater for the unguessable predilections of the negotiating community, ISDA has left this preposterous option open ''just in case''. It wouldn’t be the first time. <br> | Now you might ask what good an item of {{isdaprov|Specified Information}} can possibly be, if Section {{isdaprov|3(d)}} ''didn’t'' apply and it could be just made up on the spot without fear of sanction or retribution — as a youngster the [[JC]] certainly asked that question, and has repeated it over many years, and is yet to hear a good answer — but all we can presume is that in its tireless quest to cater for the unguessable predilections of the negotiating community, ISDA has left this preposterous option open ''just in case''. It wouldn’t be the first time. <br> | ||
Revision as of 15:48, 21 November 2019
What’s that Section 3(d) representation malarkey?
If one is required to “furnish” Specified Information under Section 4, two things can go wrong:
- No show: one can fail to provide it, at all, in which case there is a Breach of Agreement, but be warned: the period before one can enforce such a failure, judged by the yardstick of modern financial contracts, is long enough for a whole kingdom of dinosaurs to evolve and be wiped out; or
- It’s cobblers: one can provide the Specified Information, on time, but it can be a total pile of horse ordure. Now, here is a trick for young players: if your Specified Information is, or turns out to be, false, you have no remedy unless you have designated that it is “subject to the Section 3(d) representation”. That is the one that promises it is accurate and not misleading.[1]
Now you might ask what good an item of Specified Information can possibly be, if Section 3(d) didn’t apply and it could be just made up on the spot without fear of sanction or retribution — as a youngster the JC certainly asked that question, and has repeated it over many years, and is yet to hear a good answer — but all we can presume is that in its tireless quest to cater for the unguessable predilections of the negotiating community, ISDA has left this preposterous option open just in case. It wouldn’t be the first time.