|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{manual|MI|2002|9(e)|Section|9(e)|medium}} | | {{manual|MI|2002|9(e)|Section|9(e)|medium}} |
| ===Section {{isdaprov|9(e)(ii)}} {{isdaprov|Confirmation}}s''' ===
| |
|
| |
| {{trade versus confirmation}}
| |
|
| |
| Note also the addition of [[e-mail]] as a means of communication to the 2002 version (email not really having been a “thing” in 1992). This caused all kinds of [[fear and loathing]] amongst the judiciary, when asked about it, as can be seen in the frightful case of {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}.Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
| |
|
| |
| ==== [[Timely confirmation]] regulations and deemed consent====
| |
| Both {{t|EMIR}} and [[Dodd Frank]] have [[timely confirmation]] requirements obliging parties to have confirmed their scratchy tape recordings within a short period (around 3 days). This fell out of a huge backlog in confirming structured [[credit derivatives]] trades following the Lehman collapse.
| |
|
| |
| ===Section {{isdaprov|9(e)(i)}} '''[[Counterpart]]s'''===
| |
| There is an impassioned essay about the idiocy of [[counterparts]] clauses elsewhere<ref>In the [[counterparts]] article, as a matter of fact.</ref>.
| |
|
| |
| {{sa}}
| |
| *[[Mistake]]
| |
| *[[Counterparts]]
| |
| *[[Greenclose]]
| |
|
| |
| {{ISDA 2002 Section 9 TOC}}
| |
| {{ref}}
| |