82,891
edits
Manufactured Payments - 2000 GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions
Manufactured Payments - 2000 GMSLA Provision (view source)
Revision as of 14:00, 28 May 2019
, 28 May 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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. | ||
In the 2010 {{gmsla}} it the wording is modified (Clauses {{gmslaprov|6.2}} and {{gmslaprov|6.3}}) to provide “... ''that would '''be''' received ''...” | |||