Failure by either Party to deliver - GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
Note also the clear exclusion of indirect and [[consequential loss]]es, as well as losses to which the Transferee is contributorily [[negligent]]. If you are thinking I just made up the [[adjective]] “contributorily”, and were about to conclude I’m maybe a bit ''[[reckless]]''<ref>I expect [[Mediocre lawyer|careful attorneys]] to be rolling around on the floor laughing at this ''bon mot''.</ref>* you might be interested to know it is actually a [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contributorily word].
Note also the clear exclusion of indirect and [[consequential loss]]es, as well as losses to which the Transferee is contributorily [[negligent]]. If you are thinking I just made up the [[adjective]] “contributorily”, and were about to conclude I’m maybe a bit ''[[reckless]]''<ref>I expect [[Mediocre lawyer|careful attorneys]] to be rolling around on the floor laughing at this ''bon mot''.</ref>* you might be interested to know it is actually a [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contributorily word].


===Replacement costs and ISDA hedging language===
===Default interest===
Does it make sense to replace this clause with some convoluted shtick about the costs of replacement transactions or otherwise hedging the innocent party’s exposure? To determine follow this flow chart:  
Are references here to interest to, like ''default'' interest under Clause 11.7? And if so are we in a world of LIBOR remediation?
 
Well, this old fellow’s opinion is no. 11.7 is specific to costs following actual close out on an {{gmslaprov|Event of Default}} (a buy-in ''isn’t'' an {{gmslaprov|Event of Default}}), and only on professional expenses. The vibe here is ''you reimburse me my ''actual'' costs''. So, the ''actual interest'' cost I incurred in funding the securities I bought in, rather than some abstract derivative notion of my costs represented by a [[benchmark]].
 
===Replacement costs and [[ISDA]] [[hedging]] language===
Does it make sense to replace this clause with some convoluted shtick about the costs of {{isdaprov|Replacement Transaction}}s or otherwise hedging the innocent party’s exposure? To determine follow this flow chart:  


[[File:GS Tree.png|frameless|470px|center|Not called the [[vampire squid]] for nothing, you know.]]
[[File:GS Tree.png|frameless|470px|center|Not called the [[vampire squid]] for nothing, you know.]]