83,739
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Functionally, the definitions of | Functionally, the definitions of “Force Majeure” under Clause {{efetaprov|7.1}} the [[EFET Allowances Annex|EFET Annex]] and Clause {{ietaprov|13}} of the [[IETA Master Agreement|IETA]], and “{{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}}” under {{euaprov|(d)(i)(4)}} of the {{euadefs}} are the same. | ||
Here is a {{diff|77069|77068}} between IETA and EFET, and here is a {{diff||}} between EFET and ISDA. | Here is a {{diff|77069|77068}} between IETA and EFET, and here is a {{diff||}} between EFET and ISDA. | ||
The differences are to account for the architecture and nomenclature of the different master agreements, though the IETA has a conflict clause favouring Suspension Event over Force Majeure/Settlement Disruption Event, which the EFET does not. The equivalent under the {{euadefs}} is called a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}} because there is already a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} under the {{2002ma}} so the ’squad had to call their version something else. | The differences are to account for the architecture and nomenclature of the different master agreements, though the IETA has a conflict clause favouring Suspension Event over Force Majeure/Settlement Disruption Event, which the EFET does not. The equivalent under the {{euadefs}} is called a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}} because there is already a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} under the {{2002ma}} so the ’squad had to call their version something else. |