82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The industry has generally moved to omit the “{{eqderivprov|Increased Cost of Hedging}}” aspects of this definition (because it is dealt with there). | The industry has generally moved to omit the “{{eqderivprov|Increased Cost of Hedging}}” aspects of this definition (because it is dealt with there). | ||
But, if you were splitting hairs about it, you might say that not all “materially increased” costs a party may incur “in performing its obligations under such Transaction” will necessarily relate to hedging, so a {{ | But, if you were splitting hairs about it, you might say that not all “materially increased” costs a party may incur “in performing its obligations under such Transaction” will necessarily relate to hedging, so a {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} (and, when it comes to it, a ''non-{{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}}'') should stand its ground on omitting “[[Prong Y]]”. | ||
Those who do not have the stomach for this fight may see this expressed as: "Applicable, provided that Section {{eqderivprov|12.9(a)(ii)(Y)}} of the {{eqderivprov|Equity Definitions}} does not apply." | Those who do not have the stomach for this fight may see this expressed as: "Applicable, provided that Section {{eqderivprov|12.9(a)(ii)(Y)}} of the {{eqderivprov|Equity Definitions}} does not apply." |