Counterparts and Confirmations - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
There is an impassioned essay about the idiocy of [[counterparts]] clauses elsewhere<ref>In the [[counterparts]] article, as a matter of fact.</ref>. | There is an impassioned essay about the idiocy of [[counterparts]] clauses elsewhere<ref>In the [[counterparts]] article, as a matter of fact.</ref>. | ||
Note also the addition of [[e-mail]] as a means of communication to the 2002 version (email not really having been a “thing” in 1992). This caused all kinds of fear and loathing amongst the judiciary, when asked about it, as can be seen in the frightful case of {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}.Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. | Note also the addition of [[e-mail]] as a means of communication to the 2002 version (email not really having been a “thing” in 1992). This caused all kinds of [[fear and loathing]] amongst the judiciary, when asked about it, as can be seen in the frightful case of {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}.Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. | ||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} |
Revision as of 15:35, 18 May 2017
ISDA Anatomy™
(view template)
|
Commentary
There is an impassioned essay about the idiocy of counterparts clauses elsewhere[1].
Note also the addition of e-mail as a means of communication to the 2002 version (email not really having been a “thing” in 1992). This caused all kinds of fear and loathing amongst the judiciary, when asked about it, as can be seen in the frightful case of Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc.Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
See also
References
- ↑ In the counterparts article, as a matter of fact.