Expenses - 1992 ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m Amwelladmin moved page 11 - 1992 ISDA Provision to Expenses - 1992 ISDA Provision |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{isda92manual|11}} |
Revision as of 16:29, 13 October 2023
1992 ISDA Master Agreement A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™
11 in all its glory
Related agreements and comparisons
Resources and Navigation
|
Overview
Observers will note that, but for the odd comma, Section 11 in the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA are identical. And deliciously brief. Not that they couldn’t be improved, of course; they just weren’t.
Summary
An indemnity is all very well ...
Bear in mind, also, that your operating theory here is that your counterparty is a Defaulting Party — i.e., for all intents and purposes, broke. So while it’s a fine thing, this indemnity might not be of much practical use.
Is it covered in the close-out calculation?
No. The “Expenses” referred to in this provision would not be captured by the definition of “Close-out Amount”[1] or “Early Termination Amount” because, Q.E.D., they arise only once that amount has been determined and the Non-Defaulting Party is in the process of collecting it.
Stamp Tax and Section 4(e)
In the limited circumstance of default, this section modifies the arrangement for who pays Stamp Tax as set out in Section 4(e) (which says it is the person whose tax residence precipitates it).
Premium content
Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics 👇
|
- The JC’s famous Nutshell™ summary of this clause
See also
References
- ↑ Or its 1992 equivalent, “the amount determined following early termination of a Terminated Transaction”.