Template:M comp disc 1994 NY CSA 3: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Some structural changes, to reflect that a {{csa}} is title transfer arrangement (hence “{{csaprov|Transferee}}” and “{{csaprov|Transferor}}”) while the {{nycsa}} is a [[pledge]] and [[rehypothecation]] arrangement — i.e., as the JC likes to call it, “title transfer for Americans” — and refers to {{ | Some structural changes, to reflect that a {{csa}} is title transfer arrangement (hence “{{csaprov|Transferee}}” and “{{csaprov|Transferor}}”) while the {{nycsa}} is a [[pledge]] and [[rehypothecation]] arrangement — i.e., as the JC likes to call it, “title transfer for Americans” — and refers to {{nycsaprov|Pledgor}} and {{nycsaprov|Secured Party}}. | ||
Thus, also, the “{{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}}” in the {{csa}} is “all {{nycsaprov|Posted Credit Support}} held by the {{nycsaprov|Secured Party}}” in the {{nycsa}}. The English law document gets itself all tangled up in as-yet-undelivered-but-pending Return Amounts and so on. Thius may have sonething to do with the nature of pledged collateral, which is only “held” against title transfer collateral which is outright “owned”. It may also just be outright pedantry, on the part of {{icds}}, UK branch, of course. I don’t know. | Thus, also, the “{{csaprov|Credit Support Balance}}” in the {{csa}} is “all {{nycsaprov|Posted Credit Support}} held by the {{nycsaprov|Secured Party}}” in the {{nycsa}}. The English law document gets itself all tangled up in as-yet-undelivered-but-pending Return Amounts and so on. Thius may have sonething to do with the nature of pledged collateral, which is only “held” against title transfer collateral which is outright “owned”. It may also just be outright pedantry, on the part of {{icds}}, UK branch, of course. I don’t know. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:42, 21 October 2021
Some structural changes, to reflect that a 1995 CSA is title transfer arrangement (hence “Transferee” and “Transferor”) while the 1994 New York law CSA is a pledge and rehypothecation arrangement — i.e., as the JC likes to call it, “title transfer for Americans” — and refers to Pledgor and Secured Party.
Thus, also, the “Credit Support Balance” in the 1995 CSA is “all Posted Credit Support held by the Secured Party” in the 1994 New York law CSA. The English law document gets itself all tangled up in as-yet-undelivered-but-pending Return Amounts and so on. Thius may have sonething to do with the nature of pledged collateral, which is only “held” against title transfer collateral which is outright “owned”. It may also just be outright pedantry, on the part of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™, UK branch, of course. I don’t know.