83,063
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdaanat|2(c)}} | {{isdaanat|2(c)}} | ||
===[[Settlement netting]]=== | ===[[Settlement netting]], not [[close-out netting]]=== | ||
Section 2(c) is about “settlement” or “payment” {{tag|netting}} — that is, the operational settlement of offsetting payments due on any day under the normal operation of the Agreement — and not the more drastic [[close-out netting]], which is the {{isdaprov|Early Termination}} of all {{isdaprov|Transactions}} under Section {{isdaprov|6}}. | |||
If you want close-out netting, see here: | If you want close-out netting, see here: | ||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}} | * {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}} | ||
=== | ===I mean, what is the point?=== | ||
[[ | Our [[Jolly contrarian|chief contrarian]] wonders what on earth the point of this section is, since [[settlement netting]] is a factual operational process for performing existing legal obligations, rather than any kind of variation of the parties’ rights and obligations. If you owe me ten pounds and I owe you ten pounds, and we agree to both keep our tenners, what cause of action arises? What loss is there? We have settled our existing obligations in different way. | ||
To be sure, if I pay you your tenner and you ''don’t'' pay me mine, that’s a different story — but then there is no [[settlement netting]] at all. The only time one would wish to enforce [[settlement netting]] it must, ipso facto, have actually happened, so what do you think you’re going to court to enforce? | |||
So, friends, this rather convoluted passage in that mighty industry standard is, as G. K. Chesterton once said - merely [[piss and wind]]. | So, friends, this rather convoluted passage in that mighty industry standard is, as G. K. Chesterton once said - merely [[piss and wind]]. |