Template:M summ Credit Derivatives 4.2: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
*Doesn’t cover [[credit support provider]]s (being an ISDA concept, not hugely relevant to debt securities) or {{cddprov|guarantor}}s (but that is converted elsewhere, directly).
*Doesn’t cover [[credit support provider]]s (being an ISDA concept, not hugely relevant to debt securities) or {{cddprov|guarantor}}s (but that is converted elsewhere, directly).
*Simplified provision (d) which is less bothered about who institutes the proceedings, and less particular about the types of formal insolvency process one can go through, so is a bit more “[[fair large and liberal]]”.
*Simplified provision (d) which is less bothered about who institutes the proceedings, and less particular about the types of formal insolvency process one can go through, so is a bit more “[[fair large and liberal]]”.
*No catch-all “analogous proceedings” rider at the end to sweep up weirdo jurisdictions.
*No catch-all “or takes any steps in furtherance of the above” rider at the end to sweep up a loss of nerve or weirdo jurisdictions.

Revision as of 11:21, 24 April 2023

Differences with Section 5(a)(vii):

  • Doesn’t cover credit support providers (being an ISDA concept, not hugely relevant to debt securities) or guarantors (but that is converted elsewhere, directly).
  • Simplified provision (d) which is less bothered about who institutes the proceedings, and less particular about the types of formal insolvency process one can go through, so is a bit more “fair large and liberal”.
  • No catch-all “or takes any steps in furtherance of the above” rider at the end to sweep up a loss of nerve or weirdo jurisdictions.