Manufactured Payments - 2000 GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{gmsla2000anat|6.1}}
{{gmsla2000anat|6.1}}'''''Disambiguation''': This is the 2000 {{gmsla}} provision. For the 2010 equivalent it’s Clauses {{gmslaprov|6.2}} and {{gmslaprov|6.3}} of the 2010 GMSLA.''<br>
''See also the definition of “{{gmsla2000prov|Income}}” under the {{2000gmsla}}, whihc superficially appears wide but should, in our humble view, to be limited.''
''See also the definition of “{{gmsla2000prov|Income}}” under the {{2000gmsla}}, which superficially appears wide but should, in our humble view, to be limited.''


What is the significance of the wording “... ''would have been entitled to receive''...”? What if the {{gmslaprov|Issuer}} is obliged to make the payment, but doesn’t? Does the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} of such a stock [[guarantee]] the {{gmslaprov|Issuer}}’s performance? It is hard to see how this is intended, but that is one way you could read the wording.
What is the significance of the wording “... ''would have been entitled to receive''...”? What if the {{gmslaprov|Issuer}} is obliged to make the payment, but doesn’t? Does the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} of such a stock [[guarantee]] the {{gmslaprov|Issuer}}’s performance? It is hard to see how this is intended, but that is one way you could read the wording.

Navigation menu