From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ===Multiple Transaction Payment Netting===
| |
| “'''{{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}}'''” is a defined term introduced in the {{2002ma}} in place of the more clunky {{1992isda}} language set out in Section {{isda92prov|2(c)}}.
| |
|
| |
|
| In the {{1992isda}}, to specify that netting across transactions would apply, you must '''disapply''' Section {{isda92prov|2(c)(ii)}}. Counterintuitive, but true (because otherwise netting only applies ''in respect of the same {{isdaprov|Transaction}}'').
| |
|
| |
| That is partly why, in the {{2002isda}} they introduced the more intuitive {{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}} concept. So now you can say “{{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}} does (or does not) apply”.
| |
|
| |
| Of course, the one person who is going to have ''no'' clue — or, for that matter, care — about how transaction netting works at an operational level is [[negotiator]] expected to thrash this out in the document.
| |
|
| |
| Now, seeing as (per above) payment netting is an operational fact not a legal right as such, and it doesn’t ''need'' to be in the contract, and your [[negotiator]] will care not one row of buttons whether or not {{isdaprov|Multiple Transaction Payment Netting}}, or its 1992 predecessor, applies or not, you might think it wise to put something diffident like “''The parties will agree to any Multiple Transaction Payment Netting arrangements separately as an operational matter''.”
| |
|
| |
| I know, I know: I’m a total Mr. Buzzkill. But look, it’s for the good of your own long-term mental health.
| |
Latest revision as of 10:21, 24 December 2023