Template:M premium 2002 ISDA 2(a)(iii): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "*The mechanics of how and when 2(a)(iii) is triggered and the conceptual confusion arising from that *How this all relates to non-payment-or-delivery defaults *How corporate buyers of fully paid options tend to feel about 2(a)(iii), and the sorts of amendments they tend to make *Why regulators don’t like 2(a)(iii) *What the courts think of 2(a)(iii)" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* | *How and when 2(a)(iii) is or, more to the point ''not'', triggered. | ||
*How | *The confusion, fear and loathing that can arising from no-one knowing whether 2(a)(iii) applies. | ||
*How corporate buyers of fully paid options | *The confusion arising from not knowing when the condition precedent is meant to apply. | ||
*The JC’s idiosyncratic theory about why anyone thought 2(a)(iii) was a good idea in the first place. | |||
*The JC’s impassioned argument that, even if once upon a time it was, Section 2(a)(iii) is no longer fit for purpose. | |||
*How Section 2(a)(iii) held up during the sanctions extravaganza when Russia invaded Ukraine (hint: it didn’t help!) | |||
*How Section 2(a)(iii) operates in the case of non-payment-or-delivery defaults. | |||
*How corporate buyers of fully paid options might feel about 2(a)(iii) (hint: not happy!) and the sorts of amendments they might think about making if they want to feel happier | |||
*Why regulators don’t like 2(a)(iii) | *Why regulators don’t like 2(a)(iii) | ||
*What the courts think of 2(a)(iii) | *What the courts think of 2(a)(iii) | ||
Revision as of 14:47, 10 May 2023
- How and when 2(a)(iii) is or, more to the point not, triggered.
- The confusion, fear and loathing that can arising from no-one knowing whether 2(a)(iii) applies.
- The confusion arising from not knowing when the condition precedent is meant to apply.
- The JC’s idiosyncratic theory about why anyone thought 2(a)(iii) was a good idea in the first place.
- The JC’s impassioned argument that, even if once upon a time it was, Section 2(a)(iii) is no longer fit for purpose.
- How Section 2(a)(iii) held up during the sanctions extravaganza when Russia invaded Ukraine (hint: it didn’t help!)
- How Section 2(a)(iii) operates in the case of non-payment-or-delivery defaults.
- How corporate buyers of fully paid options might feel about 2(a)(iii) (hint: not happy!) and the sorts of amendments they might think about making if they want to feel happier
- Why regulators don’t like 2(a)(iii)
- What the courts think of 2(a)(iii)