27.5 - GMSLA Provision

From The Jolly Contrarian
Revision as of 14:42, 21 January 2020 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
GMSLA Anatomy™


In a Nutshell Clause 27.5:

27.5 Automation: where this paragraph applies, each party may use third party vendors to process Loans and may disclose relevant Loan data to those vendors.
view template

2010 GMSLA full text of Clause 27.5:

27.5 The Parties agree that where paragraph Schedule 12 of the Schedule indicates that this paragraph 27.5 applies, each may use the services of a third party vendor to automate the processing of Loans under this Agreement and that any data relating to such Loans received from the other Party may be disclosed to such third party vendors.
view template

2010 GMSLA: Full wikitext · Nutshell wikitext | GMLSA legal code | GMSLA Netting

Pledge GMSLA: Hard copy (ISLA) · Full wikitext · Nutshell wikitext |
1995 OSLA: OSLA wikitext | OSLA in a nutshell | GMSLA/PGMSLA/OSLA clause comparison table
From Our Friends On The Internet: Guide to equity finance | ISLA’s guide to securities lending for regulators and policy makers

Navigation
2010 GMSLA 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · Schedule · Agency Annex · Addendum for Pooled Principal Agency Loans

2018 Pledge GMSLA 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · Schedule · Agency Annex

Stock lending agreement comparison: Includes navigation for the 2000 GMSLA and the 1995 OSLA

Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.


Classic over-communication from {{islacds}. Nothing in the 2010 GMSLA says you can’t use a third party vendor,</ref>In Mike’s immortal words from the Nasty episode, “Well it wouldn’t, would it? I mean, it doesn’t say “ensure you don’t chop up your video machine with an axe, put all the bits in a plastic bag and bung them down the lavatory.”</ref> and there are no confidentiality provisions, so plainly, this clause is not needed.

“But it won’t hurt to include it”, that drafting squadmust have thought.

Nor will painting a live camel with lentil soup.

but what it might to is cause confusion, angst, and alarm among the legal eagles, which in itself might prolong your negotiation for months. I am not just saying that. We know of one negotiation where the last outstanding point was “can we add a requirement for the mutual consent of both parties before appointing a third party vendor?”

ISLA’s crack drafting squad™ might think on this from a behavioural economics perspective: If this clause did not exist, no-one would imagine it needed limiting: it doesn’t say anywhere that you can’t use a third party vendor if that’s what you want to do, and, in the world of commerce, provided you don’t transgress your positive contractual obligations, you are free to do as you please. But, by saying it, you ask a silly question and invite a silly answer. Few assiduous attorneys will pass up the free opportunity to give one of those.

See also

References