Covered Transaction - VM CSA Provision: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{fullanat|csa|Covered Transaction|2016}}
{{csaanat|Covered Transaction|2016}}
{{csaprov|Covered Transaction}}s as a concept only arrives in the {{2016csa}}. Until then, the neatest way of describing whether a given set of {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s are covered or not is to say something like:  
{{vmcsaprov|Covered Transaction}}s as a concept only arrives in the {{2016csa}}. Until then, the neatest way of describing whether a given set of {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s are covered or not is to say something like:  
[SPECIFY] Transactions will [not] be relevant for purposes of determining ““Exposure”” under the {{csa}}.
[SPECIFY] Transactions will [not] be relevant for purposes of determining ““Exposure”” under the {{csa}}.

Revision as of 04:42, 27 December 2019

2016 VM CSA Anatomy™


In a Nutshell Section Covered Transaction:

Template:Nutshell 2016 CSA Covered Transaction view template

2016 VM CSA full text of Section Covered Transaction:

Covered Transaction” has the meaning specified in Paragraph 11(b). view template

Related Agreements
Click here for the text of Section Covered Transaction in the 1995 English Law CSA
Click here for the text of Section Covered Transaction in the 2016 English Law VM CSA
Click [[{{{3}}} - NY VM CSA Provision|here]] for the text of the equivalent, Section [[{{{3}}} - NY VM CSA Provision|{{{3}}}]] in the 2016 NY Law VM CSA
Comparisons
Template:Csadiff Covered Transaction
{{nycsadiff {{{3}}}}}

Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.


Covered Transactions as a concept only arrives in the 2016 VM CSA. Until then, the neatest way of describing whether a given set of Transactions are covered or not is to say something like: “ [SPECIFY] Transactions will [not] be relevant for purposes of determining ““Exposure”” under the 1995 CSA. ”