Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Close-out Amount: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Note the prominent requirement to achieve a “''[[reasonable]]''” ({{1992ma}}) or “[[commercially reasonable|''commercially'' reasonable]]” ({{2002ma}}) result. On what that latter lovely expression means see {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}. Spoiler: it’s basically good for [[broker|brokers]] as long as they aren’t [[Non mentula esse|being total dicks]]. | Note the prominent requirement to achieve a “''[[reasonable]]''” ({{1992ma}}) or “[[commercially reasonable|''commercially'' reasonable]]” ({{2002ma}}) result. On what that latter lovely expression means see {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}. Spoiler: it’s basically good for [[broker|brokers]] as long as they aren’t [[Non mentula esse|being total dicks]]. | ||
Revision as of 13:06, 3 November 2021
From the you’ll be sorry you asked file. Have a butcher’s at the nutshell version on the right. If, having read that, you’re still not really feeling sorry or resentful, the full text (below) right might get your remorse radar pinging.
Note the prominent requirement to achieve a “reasonable” (1992 ISDA) or “commercially reasonable” (2002 ISDA) result. On what that latter lovely expression means see Barclays v Unicredit. Spoiler: it’s basically good for brokers as long as they aren’t being total dicks.