|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Manual|MSG|2010|6.2|Clause|6.1|medium}}''For the equivalent provision under the {{2000gmsla}} see Paragraph [[6 - 2000 GMSLA Provision]].''<br> | | {{Manual|MSG|2010|6.2|Clause|6.1|medium}} |
| | |
| In other words the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} pays what the {{gmslaprov|Lender}} would have received net, by reference to the Lender's own situation. This means that the {{gmslaprov|Lender}} doesn't need to worry about different rates of tax or withholding applying to the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}}. The {{gmslaprov|Borrower}}, being the person who wanted to borrow the securities, takes the risk of untoward taxes related to its own position (as opposed to the {{gmslaprov|Lender}}’s position) — if the tax is one the {{gmslaprov|Lender}} would have suffered anyway, the {{gmslaprov|Borrower}} doesn't have to account for this.
| |
| | |
| Makes sense, really.
| |
| {{Income paid in relation to securities}}
| |
| {{GMSLA compensation for mismanagement}}
| |
| | |
| ===Limitation periods===
| |
| What about [[Limitation Act 1980|limitation periods]]? Unlikely to help: if the amount only becomes due ten years after the original incident that gave rise to it — modern commercial [[litigation]] does tend to rumble on a bit — but, in the elegant words of Section 5 of the [[Limitation Act 1980]]<ref>The [[Limitation Act 1980]] was the subject of a 320 page law commission monograph in 2015 — [http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/lc270_Limitation_of_Actions.pdf knock yourself out] — so clearly ''someone'' sees the opportunity to change the law.</ref>, “an action founded on simple {{tag|contract}} shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the [[cause of action]] accrued”. No cause of action existed until the court award was made, so the clock only just started running.
| |
| {{sa}}
| |
| *[[Limitation Act 1980]]
| |
| {{ref}}
| |