|
|
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{isdaanat|11}} | | {{newisdamanual|11}} |
| Observers will note that, but for the odd comma, the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}} are identical. And deliciously brief. Not that they ''couldn’t'' be improved, of course; they just weren’t. The Jolly Contrarian has improved it for you: top left.
| |
| | |
| The {{isdaprov|Expenses}} referred to in this provision would not be captured by the definition of "'''{{isdaprov|Close Out Amount}}'''" or "'''{{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}}'''" because, [[qed]], they arise only once that amount has been determined and the non-defaulting party is in the process of collecting it.
| |
| | |
| Note this modification of the arrangement for Stamp Duty set out in Section 4(e). Note also this applies only on an Event of Default, and not on a termination following an Termination Event. There is some cognitive dissonance there: while Events of Default in the main are meant to be more worthy of outrage than Termination Events — thereby justifying stentorian measures to recover losses and costs as a result — some {{isdaprov|Termination Events}}, and most {{isdaprov|Additional Termination Events}} — are credit- and solvency-related, thus equally deserving of the kind of opprobrium that would warrant on on-slapping of an [[indemnity]].
| |
| | |
| Bear in mind, also, that your operating theory here is that your counterparty is a Defaulting Party — i.e., it is broke. So while it's a fine thing, this [[indemnity]] might not be of much practical use.
| |