Template:Csa Dispute Resolution comp: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''1994 CSA (NY) v 1995 CSA (Engliush)''': Largely comparable, as this {{diff|85099|85096}} should tell you.
'''1994 CSA (NY) v 1995 CSA (English)''': Largely equivalent, as this {{diff|85099|85096}} should tell you. Things that are different are:


'''1995 CSA v 2016 VM CSA (English law)''': But for a subsection dealing with what should happen if you are on the 1992csa and not the 2002csa (which in 1995, had not been invented), they are functionally the same. Here is a {{diff|85096|37030}}.
''In the 1994 NY version'': the paragraph formatting is an absolute shower, and for reasons known best to itself, {{icds}} felt compelled to add “(or Swap Transaction)” after the word “Transaction” wherever it appears.
 
''In the 1995 UK version'': “Transfer” is not a defined term and there is a “No Event of Default” subclause (seeing as the {{1995csa}} is a Transaction under the ISDA, whereas the {{1994csa}} is not.
 
'''1995 CSA v 2016 VM CSA (English law)''': But for a subsection dealing with what should happen if you are on the {{1992isda}} and not the {{2002isda}} (which in 1995, had not been invented), they are functionally the same. Here is a {{diff|85096|37030}}.
 
'''1994 CSA v 2016 NY VM CSA (NY law)''': But for a similar subsection dealing with what should happen if you are on the  {{1992isda}} and not the {{2002isda}} (which in 1995, had not been invented), the [[Original Gangsta CSA|OG CSA]] and VM CSA under NY law are functionally the same. Here is a {{diff|85108|85099}}.
 
'''2016 VM CSA v 2018 IM CSD (English law)''': Similar again, without the agonising over the edition of the {{isdama}} you are using — possibly because it is not a Transaction under either of them?), but yet disowning the possibility of an Event of Default for non-payment in the event of a collateral dispute. So that is a bit flummoxing. But I bet there is a reason.
{{diff|85123|37030}}

Latest revision as of 14:56, 7 May 2024

1994 CSA (NY) v 1995 CSA (English): Largely equivalent, as this comparison should tell you. Things that are different are:

In the 1994 NY version: the paragraph formatting is an absolute shower, and for reasons known best to itself, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ felt compelled to add “(or Swap Transaction)” after the word “Transaction” wherever it appears.

In the 1995 UK version: “Transfer” is not a defined term and there is a “No Event of Default” subclause (seeing as the 1995 CSA is a Transaction under the ISDA, whereas the 1994 NY CSA is not.

1995 CSA v 2016 VM CSA (English law): But for a subsection dealing with what should happen if you are on the 1992 ISDA and not the 2002 ISDA (which in 1995, had not been invented), they are functionally the same. Here is a comparison.

1994 CSA v 2016 NY VM CSA (NY law): But for a similar subsection dealing with what should happen if you are on the 1992 ISDA and not the 2002 ISDA (which in 1995, had not been invented), the OG CSA and VM CSA under NY law are functionally the same. Here is a comparison.

2016 VM CSA v 2018 IM CSD (English law): Similar again, without the agonising over the edition of the ISDA Master Agreement you are using — possibly because it is not a Transaction under either of them?), but yet disowning the possibility of an Event of Default for non-payment in the event of a collateral dispute. So that is a bit flummoxing. But I bet there is a reason. comparison

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:Csa_Dispute_Resolution_comp&oldid=85131"