82,891
edits
Change in Law - Equity Derivatives Provision: Difference between revisions
Change in Law - Equity Derivatives Provision (view source)
Revision as of 12:57, 10 January 2019
, 10 January 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Uber pedants may also try to argue that there should be some obligation on the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} to take [[reasonable]] steps to avoid a [[Change in law - Equity Derivatives Provision|change in law]]. This is silly, [[Chicken Licken]]ish behaviour. I mean, what are you meant to do? Lobby Congress? Remember, “{{eqderivprov|Hedge Positions}}” is wider and more generic than “any particular hedge position that you happen to have on” at the time the law changes. If you can change your hedging strategy, you are not subject to a {{eqderivprov|Change in Law}}. So resist this drafting, but [[I'm not going to die in a ditch about it|don’t die in a ditch about it]]. | Uber pedants may also try to argue that there should be some obligation on the {{eqderivprov|Hedging Party}} to take [[reasonable]] steps to avoid a [[Change in law - Equity Derivatives Provision|change in law]]. This is silly, [[Chicken Licken]]ish behaviour. I mean, what are you meant to do? Lobby Congress? Remember, “{{eqderivprov|Hedge Positions}}” is wider and more generic than “any particular hedge position that you happen to have on” at the time the law changes. If you can change your hedging strategy, you are not subject to a {{eqderivprov|Change in Law}}. So resist this drafting, but [[I'm not going to die in a ditch about it|don’t die in a ditch about it]]. | ||
===Omission of “[[Prong Y]]” | ===Omission of “[[Prong Y]]”=== | ||
The industry has generally moved to omit the “{{eqderivprov|Increased Cost of Hedging}}” | The industry has generally moved to omit [[Prong Y]] — the “material increase in costs” limb of this definition — because it is dealt with already in “{{eqderivprov|Increased Cost of Hedging}}”. | ||
But, if you were splitting hairs | But, if you were splitting hairs, you might say that not all “materially increased” costs a party may incur “in performing its obligations under such {{eqderivprov|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." | ||