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 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{isdaanat|9(e)}} | ||
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>. | ||
Revision as of 11:59, 8 August 2018
ISDA Anatomy™
view template
view template
|
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.