Template:Isda Specified Entity comp: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "They got their over-engineering right in the first go round, and the “{{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}}” concept is largely the same in the {{2002ma}} as it was in the {{1992ma..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
They got their over-engineering right in the first go round, and the “{{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}}” concept is largely the same in the {{2002ma}} as it was in the {{1992ma}}. The {{{{{1}}}|Absence of Litigation}} clause got a makever on 2002 to include {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entities}}, too — in 1992 it only mentioned {{{{{1}}}|Affiliates}}. Good, huh? | They got their over-engineering right in the first go round, and the “{{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}}” concept is largely the same in the {{2002ma}} as it was in the {{1992ma}}. The {{{{{1}}}|Absence of Litigation}} clause got a makever on 2002 to include {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entities}}, too — in 1992 it only mentioned {{{{{1}}}|Affiliates}}. Good, huh? | ||
Fun fact: in the 1992ma, it says “Specified Entity has the meaning''s''” — plural — “specified in the Schedule.” By 2002, {{icds}} had come back to its senses. JC mentions this only to demonstrate his own unfathomable attention to detail, and to point up a want of fastidiousness on the part of the fastidiousest cabal known to law. | |||
Latest revision as of 08:38, 23 August 2024
They got their over-engineering right in the first go round, and the “{{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}}” concept is largely the same in the 2002 ISDA as it was in the 1992 ISDA. The {{{{{1}}}|Absence of Litigation}} clause got a makever on 2002 to include {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entities}}, too — in 1992 it only mentioned {{{{{1}}}|Affiliates}}. Good, huh?
Fun fact: in the 1992ma, it says “Specified Entity has the meanings” — plural — “specified in the Schedule.” By 2002, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ had come back to its senses. JC mentions this only to demonstrate his own unfathomable attention to detail, and to point up a want of fastidiousness on the part of the fastidiousest cabal known to law.