|
|
Line 1: |
Line 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> | | {{Manual|MSG|2000|6.1|Clause|6.1|short}} |
| ''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.
| |
| | |
| In the 2010 {{gmsla}} it the wording is modified (Clauses {{gmslaprov|6.2}} and {{gmslaprov|6.3}}) to provide “... ''that would '''be''' received ''...”
| |
| {{income paid in relation to securities}}
| |
| {{2000 gmsla Loaned Securities}}
| |
| {{GMSLA compensation for mismanagement}}
| |
| {{sa}}
| |
| *{{gmsla2000prov|Income}}
| |