82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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 dear old [[Jolly Contrarian]] ''has'' improved it for you: in the panel top left. | 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 dear old [[Jolly Contrarian]] ''has'' improved it for you: in the panel 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, [[Q.E.D.]], they arise only once that amount has been determined and the {{isdaprov|Non-Defaulting Party}} is in the process of collecting it | ===Not covered in the {{isdaprov|Close-out}} calculation?=== | ||
No. 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, [[Q.E.D.]], they arise only once that amount has been determined and the {{isdaprov|Non-Defaulting Party}} is in the process of collecting it. | |||
==={{isdaprov|Stamp Tax}} and Section {{isdaprov|4(e)}}=== | |||
In the limited circumstance of default, this section modifies the arrangement for who pays {{isdaprov|Stamp Tax}} as set out in Section {{isdaprov|4(e)}} (which says it is the person whose tax residence precipitates it). | |||
===Applies to {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}s, ''not'' to {{isdaprov|Termination Events}}=== | |||
This section applies only following an {{isdaprov|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]]. | |||
===An [[indemnity]] is all very well ...=== | |||
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. | 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. |