82,911
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdaanat|11}} | {{isdaanat|11}} | ||
Observers will note that, but for the odd comma, the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}} are identical. And deliciously brief. Not that they ''couldn’t'' be improved, of course; they just weren’t. The dear old [[Jolly Contrarian]] ''has'' improved it for you: in the panel top left. | Observers will note that, but for the odd comma, Section {{isdaprov|11}} in the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}} are identical. And deliciously brief. Not that they ''couldn’t'' be improved, of course; they just weren’t. The dear old [[Jolly Contrarian]] ''has'' improved it for you: in the panel top left. | ||
===Not covered in the {{isdaprov|Close-out}} calculation?=== | ===Not covered in the {{isdaprov|Close-out}} calculation?=== | ||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==={{isdaprov|Stamp Tax}} and Section {{isdaprov|4(e)}}=== | ==={{isdaprov|Stamp Tax}} and Section {{isdaprov|4(e)}}=== | ||
In the limited circumstance of default, this section modifies the arrangement for who pays {{isdaprov|Stamp Tax}} as set out in Section {{isdaprov|4(e)}} (which says it is the person whose tax residence precipitates it). | In the limited circumstance of default, this section modifies the arrangement for who pays {{isdaprov|Stamp Tax}} as set out in Section {{isdaprov|4(e)}} (which says it is the person whose tax residence precipitates it). | ||
===Applies to {{isdaprov| | ===Applies to {{isdaprov|Events of Default}}, ''not'' {{isdaprov|Termination Events}}=== | ||
This section applies only following an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, and not on a termination following an Termination Event. There is some cognitive dissonance there: while Events of Default in the main are meant to be more worthy of outrage than Termination Events — thereby justifying stentorian measures to recover losses and costs as a result — some {{isdaprov|Termination Events}}, and most {{isdaprov|Additional Termination Events}} — are credit- and solvency-related, thus equally deserving of the kind of opprobrium that would warrant on on-slapping of an [[indemnity]]. | This section applies only following an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, and not on a termination following an Termination Event. There is some cognitive dissonance there: while Events of Default in the main are meant to be more worthy of outrage than Termination Events — thereby justifying stentorian measures to recover losses and costs as a result — some {{isdaprov|Termination Events}}, and most {{isdaprov|Additional Termination Events}} — are credit- and solvency-related, thus equally deserving of the kind of opprobrium that would warrant on on-slapping of an [[indemnity]]. | ||
===An [[indemnity]] is all very well ...=== | ===An [[indemnity]] is all very well ...=== | ||
Bear in mind, also, that your operating theory here is that your counterparty is a Defaulting Party — i.e., it is broke. So while it's a fine thing, this [[indemnity]] might not be of much practical use. | Bear in mind, also, that your operating theory here is that your counterparty is a Defaulting Party — i.e., it is broke. So while it's a fine thing, this [[indemnity]] might not be of much practical use. |