Template:Isda 2(a)(iii) premium: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "*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 purp..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*How and when 2(a)(iii) is or, more to the point ''not'', triggered. | *Mechanics: | ||
*The confusion | :*How and when 2(a)(iii) is or, more to the point ''not'', triggered. | ||
*The confusion arising from not knowing when | :*The confusion arising from no-one knowing whether 2(a)(iii) applies. | ||
*The JC’s | :*The confusion arising from not knowing when it applies. | ||
*The JC’s | :*The JC’s theory about why anyone thought 2(a)(iii) was a good idea in the first place. | ||
*How Section 2(a)(iii) held up during the sanctions extravaganza when Russia invaded Ukraine (hint: it didn’t help!) | :*The JC’s view that, even if once upon a time it was, Section 2(a)(iii) is no longer fit for purpose. | ||
*How Section 2(a)(iii) operates in the case of non-payment-or-delivery defaults. | :*How Section 2(a)(iii) held up during the sanctions extravaganza when Russia invaded Ukraine (hint: it didn’t help!) | ||
*How corporate buyers of fully paid options might feel about 2(a)(iii) (hint: not happy!) | *Regulatorry issues | ||
:*Why regulators don’t like 2(a)(iii) | |||
:*What the courts think of 2(a)(iii) — in a nutshell, they are ''confused'' | |||
:*A table comparing the six major decisions on the clause | |||
*Practical issues: | |||
:*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!) | |||
:*Amendments corporates might think about making if they want to feel happier |
Revision as of 11:42, 30 December 2023
- Mechanics:
- How and when 2(a)(iii) is or, more to the point not, triggered.
- The confusion arising from no-one knowing whether 2(a)(iii) applies.
- The confusion arising from not knowing when it applies.
- The JC’s theory about why anyone thought 2(a)(iii) was a good idea in the first place.
- The JC’s view 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!)
- Regulatorry issues
- Why regulators don’t like 2(a)(iii)
- What the courts think of 2(a)(iii) — in a nutshell, they are confused
- A table comparing the six major decisions on the clause
- Practical issues:
- 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!)
- Amendments corporates might think about making if they want to feel happier