|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Manual|MSG|2010|9.3|Clause|9.3|medium}} | | {{Manual|MSG|2010|9.3|Clause|9.3|short}} |
| | |
| Note also the clear exclusion of indirect and [[consequential loss]]es, as well as losses to which the Transferee is contributorily [[negligent]]. If you are thinking I just made up the [[adjective]] “contributorily”, and were about to conclude I’m maybe a bit ''[[reckless]]''<ref>I expect [[Mediocre lawyer|careful attorneys]] to be rolling around on the floor laughing at this ''bon mot''.</ref>* you might be interested to know it is actually a [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contributorily word].
| |
| | |
| ===Default interest===
| |
| Are references here to interest to, like ''default'' interest under Clause {{gmslaprov|11.7}}? And if so are we in a world of {{t|LIBOR}} remediation?
| |
| | |
| Well, this old fellow’s opinion is no. Clause {{gmslaprov|11.7}} of the {{gmsla}} is specific to costs following ''actual'' [[close out]] on an {{gmslaprov|Event of Default}} (a {{gmslaprov|Buy-in}} ''isn’t'' an {{gmslaprov|Event of Default}}), and only on professional expenses. The vibe here is ''you reimburse me my ''actual'' costs''. So, the ''actual interest'' cost I incurred in funding the securities I bought in, rather than some abstract derivative notion of my costs represented by a [[benchmark]].
| |
| | |
| ===Replacement costs and [[ISDA]] [[hedging]] language===
| |
| Does it make sense to replace this clause with some convoluted shtick about the costs of {{isdaprov|Replacement Transaction}}s or otherwise hedging the innocent party’s exposure? To determine follow this flow chart:
| |
| | |
| [[File:GS Tree.png|frameless|470px|center|Not called the [[vampire squid]] for nothing, you know.]]
| |
| {{sa}}
| |
| *[[Goldman]]
| |
| *[[Chicken licken]]
| |
| *{{wasteprov|Over-processing}}
| |
| {{ref}}
| |