Template:Csa expenses: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Paragraph {{csaprov|8}} of the {{vmcsa}} is identical to the [[8 - CSA Provision|equivalent]] in the {{csa}}. Being a function of the [[common law]] of [[contract]], not to mention common sense — why would someone else be liable for your costs and expenses of performing a contract unless it specifically said they would be? — it falls into the goes without saying category. But {{icds}} said it anyway. | Paragraph {{csaprov|8}} of the {{vmcsa}} is identical to the [[8 - CSA Provision|equivalent]] in the {{csa}}. Being a function of the [[common law]] of [[contract]], not to mention common sense — why would someone else be liable for your costs and expenses of performing a contract unless it specifically said they would be? — it falls into the goes without saying category. But {{icds}} said it anyway. | ||
===NY law CSA=== | ===NY law CSA=== | ||
The {{nyvmcsa}} is largely the same — it carries on in {{ | The {{nyvmcsa}} is largely the same — it carries on in {{nyvmcsaprov|10(b)}} and {{nyvmcsaprov|10(c)}} to rabbit on a bit about {{nyvmcsaprov|Posted Collateral}} — but, curiously, neglects to specifically call out [[stamp duty]]. Not ''that'' curiously: {{nyvmcsa}}s tend to be largely parochial affairs, and there aren’t specfic stamp duties payable on US equities (the relevant tax is under section [[871(m)]]). Since risk of ''foreign'' stamp duties isn’t such a big deal, and the language in {{vmcsa}} is only an [[incluso]] and doesn’t change the meaning of the provision anyway, it doesn’t make any difference. <br> | ||
Revision as of 10:08, 15 January 2020
English law CSAs
Paragraph 8 of the 2016 VM CSA is identical to the equivalent in the 1995 CSA. Being a function of the common law of contract, not to mention common sense — why would someone else be liable for your costs and expenses of performing a contract unless it specifically said they would be? — it falls into the goes without saying category. But ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ said it anyway.
NY law CSA
The 2016 NY Law VM CSA is largely the same — it carries on in 10(b) and 10(c) to rabbit on a bit about Posted Collateral — but, curiously, neglects to specifically call out stamp duty. Not that curiously: 2016 NY Law VM CSAs tend to be largely parochial affairs, and there aren’t specfic stamp duties payable on US equities (the relevant tax is under section 871(m)). Since risk of foreign stamp duties isn’t such a big deal, and the language in 2016 VM CSA is only an incluso and doesn’t change the meaning of the provision anyway, it doesn’t make any difference.