Template:M summ EUA Annex (d)(ii): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Failure to Deliver - Emissions Annex Provision|This]] one is sure to have those with a liberal arts education pleading for mercy — but one thing we can say is this is a delivery failure that doesn’t arise through caprice of governments, regulators, market dislocation, or the overwhelming lack political will to care less about carbon emissions any more. This is where the Seller has, to put it bluntly, stuffed up. | [[Failure to Deliver - Emissions Annex Provision|This]] one is sure to have those with a liberal arts education pleading for mercy — but one thing we can say is this is a delivery failure that doesn’t arise through caprice of governments, regulators, market dislocation, or the overwhelming lack political will to care less about carbon emissions any more. This is where the Seller has, to put it bluntly, stuffed up. | ||
Here is the question we put to all EU Emissions Allowance Ninjas out there — and there must be some, Lord only knows there must; it can’t just be me out here wrestling with this. Surely it can’t. (Can it? CAN IT?) — why is a {{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}} — here a failure to deliver that specifically ''isn’t'' a result of a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}, or {{euaprov|Suspension}} of the European infrastructure, Abandonment of | ==={{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}} is not an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}=== | ||
Here is the question we put to all EU Emissions Allowance Ninjas out there — and there must be some, Lord only knows there must; it can’t just be me out here wrestling with this. Surely it can’t. (Can it? CAN IT?) — why is a {{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}} — here a failure to deliver that specifically ''isn’t'' a result of a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}, or {{euaprov|Suspension}} of the European infrastructure, {{euaprov|Abandonment of Scheme}}, {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} or any of those other things —why is a {{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}} an {{euaprov|Emissions Allowance}} when it is due, without externality you can blame it on, not a normal old Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}} {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} {{euaprov|Event of Default}} like it would be for any other asset class? | |||
If anyone knows, do {{write in}}. | |||
Revision as of 13:35, 19 July 2022
This one is sure to have those with a liberal arts education pleading for mercy — but one thing we can say is this is a delivery failure that doesn’t arise through caprice of governments, regulators, market dislocation, or the overwhelming lack political will to care less about carbon emissions any more. This is where the Seller has, to put it bluntly, stuffed up.
Failure to Deliver is not an Event of Default
Here is the question we put to all EU Emissions Allowance Ninjas out there — and there must be some, Lord only knows there must; it can’t just be me out here wrestling with this. Surely it can’t. (Can it? CAN IT?) — why is a Failure to Deliver — here a failure to deliver that specifically isn’t a result of a Settlement Disruption Event, or Suspension of the European infrastructure, Abandonment of Scheme, Force Majeure or any of those other things —why is a Failure to Deliver an Emissions Allowance when it is due, without externality you can blame it on, not a normal old Section 5(a)(i) Failure to Pay or Deliver Event of Default like it would be for any other asset class?
If anyone knows, do write in.