Template:M summ EUA Annex (d)(ii): Difference between revisions

[[Failure to Deliver - Emissions Annex Provision|This]] one is sure to have those with a liberal arts education pleading  for mercy — but one thing we can say is this is a delivery failure that doesn’t arise through caprice of governments, regulators, market dislocation, or the overwhelming lack political will to care less about carbon emissions any more. This is where the Seller has, to put it bluntly, stuffed up.

Here is the question we put to all EU Emissions Allowance Ninjas out there — and there must be some, Lord only knows there must; it can’t just be ''me'' out here wrestling with this, can it? Can it? CAN IT? — why is a {{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}} — one that specifically ''isn’t'' caused by some mendacious circumstance outside the Delivering Party’s control, like a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}, or {{euaprov|Suspension}} of the European infrastructure, {{euaprov|Abandonment of Scheme}}, {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} or any of those other things — why is an ''inexcusable'' {{euaprov|Failure to Deliver}} an {{euaprov|Emissions Allowance}} when due not just a normal old Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}} {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} like it would be for any other asset class? Or, perhaps, ''is it'', a normal old ISDA {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, but as an alternative? Blunt close-out doesn’t seem to be excluded as an alternative, at any rate.