Template:Isda 3(d) summ: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 10: Line 10:
Now you might ask what good an item of {{{{{1}}}|Specified Information}} can possibly be, if Section {{{{{1}}}|3(d)}} ''didn’t'' apply and it could be just made up on the spot without fear of retribution — as a youngster, the [[JC]] certainly asked that question, and has repeated it over many years, and is yet to hear a good answer — but all we can presume is that in its tireless quest to cater for the unguessable predilections of the [[Negotiator|negotiating community]], {{icds}} left this preposterous option open ''just in case''. It wouldn’t be the first time.   
Now you might ask what good an item of {{{{{1}}}|Specified Information}} can possibly be, if Section {{{{{1}}}|3(d)}} ''didn’t'' apply and it could be just made up on the spot without fear of retribution — as a youngster, the [[JC]] certainly asked that question, and has repeated it over many years, and is yet to hear a good answer — but all we can presume is that in its tireless quest to cater for the unguessable predilections of the [[Negotiator|negotiating community]], {{icds}} left this preposterous option open ''just in case''. It wouldn’t be the first time.   


A trawl through the [[SEC]]’s “Edgar” archive<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ISDA+Master+Agreement%22+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.sec.gov You are welcome.]</ref> reveals that the sorts of things to which “Covered by Section 3(d) Representation” results in a “No.” outcome are rare but not non-existent. It is things like “Legal opinion from counsel concerning due authorization, enforceability and related matters, addressed to the other party and reasonably acceptable to such other party”, “Credit support documents”.
A trawl through the [[SEC]]’s “Edgar” archive<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ISDA+Master+Agreement%22+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.sec.gov You are welcome.]</ref> reveals that the sorts of things to which “[[Covered by Section 3(d) Representation]]” results in a “No.” outcome are rare but not non-existent. It is things like “Legal opinion from counsel concerning due authorization, enforceability and related matters, addressed to the other party and reasonably acceptable to such other party”, “Credit support documents”.


The other little fiddle — and it ''is'' a little fidgety fiddle — is to remark of annual reports that, yes, they ''are'' covered by that Section 3(d) representation, ''but'' with a [[proviso]]:
The other little fiddle — and it ''is'' a little fidgety fiddle — is to remark of annual reports that, yes, they ''are'' covered by that Section 3(d) representation, ''but'' with a [[proviso]]:
{{quote|“Yes; ''provided that'' the phrase “is, as of the date of the information, true, accurate and complete in every material respect” in Section {{{{{1}}}|3(d)}} shall be deleted and the phrase “fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations as of their respective dates and for the respective periods covered thereby” shall be inserted in lieu thereof.”}}
{{quote|“Yes; ''provided that'' the phrase “is, as of the date of the information, true, accurate and complete in every material respect” in Section {{{{{1}}}|3(d)}} shall be deleted and the phrase “fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations as of their respective dates and for the respective periods covered thereby” shall be inserted in lieu thereof.”}}

Navigation menu