Relevant Jurisdiction - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Manual|MI|2002|Relevant Jurisdiction|'''Definition of'''|short}} | {{Manual|MI|2002|Relevant Jurisdiction|'''Definition of'''|Relevant Jurisdiction|short}} |
Revision as of 04:46, 16 April 2020
2002 ISDA Master Agreement
'Definition of' Relevant Jurisdiction in a Nutshell™ Use at your own risk, campers!
Full text of Definition of Relevant Jurisdiction
Related agreements and comparisons
|
Content and comparisons
Relevant Jurisdiction carries the same non-meaning in the 2002 ISDA as it did in the 1992 ISDA. Which is nice.
Summary
Relevant Jurisdiction is a special artefact in the ISDA canon because, insofar as the ISDA Master Agreement proper is concerned, it is the only piece of text that falls definitively below the Biggs threshold. It isn’t used in the ISDA Master Agreement itself at all.
HOLD YOUR LETTERS, PEDANTS. Yes, it is true, it does feature in the printed form in the Part 2 Payer Representations. But these are, by their terms, voluntary, optional and malleable commercial terms, that the parties may strike out or adjust, leaving the Relevant Jurisdiction dangling there behind the ISDA’s woolly posterior, like a dag that may not be shorn. The irony! Relevant to what?! Nothing!
You might ask why this definition — which is tedious, sure, but hardly a backbreaker — couldn’t have been wrapped into the text of the actual representation in Part 2