82,891
edits
Template:Isda 6(b)(iii) comp: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Be careful here: Under the {{1992ma}}, if your {{isdaprov|Failure To Pay}} is also an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} it is treated as an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}: if there are two {{i...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Be careful here: Under the {{1992ma}}, if your {{isdaprov|Failure | Be careful here: Under the {{1992ma}}, if your {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}} is also an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} it is treated as an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}: if there are two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}} you will face a significant delay when closing out. A bit of a {{t|trick for young players}}. | ||
Note also that reference to {{isdaprov|Illegality}} has been excised from the {{2002ma}} version. They changed this because, in practice, it turned out to too be hard to implement a transfer or amendment ''after'' an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}. Folks realised that if an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} happens you don’t want to have to wait 30 days to terminate, especially if you can’t rely on {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} to withhold payments in the meantime. | Note also that reference to {{isdaprov|Illegality}} has been excised from the {{2002ma}} version. They changed this because, in practice, it turned out to too be hard to implement a transfer or amendment ''after'' an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}. Folks realised that if an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} happens you don’t want to have to wait 30 days to terminate, especially if you can’t rely on {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} to withhold payments in the meantime. | ||