Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 3(a): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "An observant negotiator (is there any other kind?) handling a {{1992ma}} might wish to add a new agency rep as Section {{isdaprov|3(a)(vi)}}. The framers of the {{isdama}}..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An observant [[negotiator]] (is there any other kind?) handling a {{1992ma}} might wish to add a new agency rep as Section {{ | An observant [[negotiator]] (is there any other kind?) handling a {{1992ma}} might wish to add a new agency rep as Section {{isda92prov|3(a)(vi)}}. In 2002, {{icds}} obviously thought this was such a good idea that they added a brand-new “no-agency” rep to the {{2002ma}}, only they can’t have felt it was basic enough to go in the {{isdaprov|Basic Representations}}, so they put it in a new clause all by itself at Section {{isdaprov|3(g)}}. | ||
But you don’t need a bespoke no-agency rep if you’re on a {{2002ma}}, if that’s what you’re wondering. | But you don’t need a bespoke no-agency rep if you’re on a {{2002ma}}, if that’s what you’re wondering. | ||
Revision as of 19:15, 2 February 2020
An observant negotiator (is there any other kind?) handling a 1992 ISDA might wish to add a new agency rep as Section 3(a)(vi). In 2002, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ obviously thought this was such a good idea that they added a brand-new “no-agency” rep to the 2002 ISDA, only they can’t have felt it was basic enough to go in the Basic Representations, so they put it in a new clause all by itself at Section 3(g).
But you don’t need a bespoke no-agency rep if you’re on a 2002 ISDA, if that’s what you’re wondering.