27.5 - GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
Nor will painting a live camel with lentil soup.
Nor will painting a live camel with lentil soup.


but what it might to is cause confusion, angst, and alarm among the [[legal eagles]], which in itself might prolong your negotiation for months. I am not just saying that. We know of one negotiation where the last outstanding point was “can we add a requirement for the mutual consent of both parties before appointing a third party vendor?”
But what it ''might'' do is cause confusion, angst, and alarm among the [[legal eagles]] staffing the [[negotiation]], which in itself might prolong your agony for months. I am not just saying that. We know of one [[negotiation]] where the last outstanding point — for eight months, apparently — was “can we add a requirement for the mutual consent of both parties before anyone appoints a third party vendor?”
 
Sigh. In this day and age, third party vendors (the likes of MarkIt, Equilend, Thompson Reuters and so on) are a baked-in feature of the stock loan market. This is a bit like requiring consent from your car vendor before taking it to a service station for petrol.


{{islacds}} might think on this from a [[behavioural economics]] perspective: If this clause did not exist, no-one would imagine it needed limiting: it doesn’t say anywhere that you ''can’t'' use a third party vendor if that’s what you want to do, and, in the world of commerce, provided you don’t transgress your positive [[contractual obligation|contractual obligations]], you are free to do as you please. But, by saying it, you ask a silly question and invite a silly answer. Few assiduous attorneys will pass up the free opportunity to give one of those.
{{islacds}} might think on this from a [[behavioural economics]] perspective: If this clause did not exist, no-one would imagine it needed limiting: it doesn’t say anywhere that you ''can’t'' use a third party vendor if that’s what you want to do, and, in the world of commerce, provided you don’t transgress your positive [[contractual obligation|contractual obligations]], you are free to do as you please. But, by saying it, you ask a silly question and invite a silly answer. Few assiduous attorneys will pass up the free opportunity to give one of those.

Navigation menu