Manufactured Payments - 2000 GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions

Manufactured Payments - 2000 GMSLA Provision (view source)

11 bytes added , 28 May 2019

no edit summary

82,892

edits

Revision as of 13:06, 28 May 2019 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 13:07, 28 May 2019 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{gmsla2000anat\|6.1}}		{{gmsla2000anat\|6.1}}
	What is the significance of the wording ~~“would~~ have been entitled to ~~receive”~~. What if the {{gmslaprov\|Issuer}} is obliged to make the payment, but doesn’t? Does the {{gmslaprov\|Borrower}} of such a stock [[guarantee]] the {{gmslaprov\|Issuer}}’s performance? It is hard to see how this is intended, but that is one way you could read the wording.		What is the significance of the wording “... ''would have been entitled to receive''...”? What if the {{gmslaprov\|Issuer}} is obliged to make the payment, but doesn’t? Does the {{gmslaprov\|Borrower}} of such a stock [[guarantee]] the {{gmslaprov\|Issuer}}’s performance? It is hard to see how this is intended, but that is one way you could read the wording.