Template:M comp disc 2000 GMSLA 9.4: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Differently worded than the equivalent, Clause {{gmslaprov|9.3}} in the {{gmsla}}, but they probably get to much the same place: these are “re...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[9.4 - 2000 GMSLA Provision|Differently]] worded than the equivalent, Clause {{gmslaprov|9.3}} in the {{gmsla}}, but they probably get to much the same place: these are “reasonable” costs — meaning you can’t just pluck any old number from the sky or call up your buddy to sell you the securities at an outrageous markup, but — per {{ | [[9.4 - 2000 GMSLA Provision|Differently]] worded than the equivalent, Clause {{gmslaprov|9.3}} in the {{gmsla}}, but they probably get to much the same place: these are “reasonable” costs — meaning you can’t just pluck any old number from the sky or call up your buddy to sell you the securities at an outrageous markup, but — per {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}} the courts will not second guess a dealer on the question of what was a reasonable price, absent obviously egregious behaviour. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:59, 4 November 2021
Differently worded than the equivalent, Clause 9.3 in the 2010 GMSLA, but they probably get to much the same place: these are “reasonable” costs — meaning you can’t just pluck any old number from the sky or call up your buddy to sell you the securities at an outrageous markup, but — per Barclays v Unicredit the courts will not second guess a dealer on the question of what was a reasonable price, absent obviously egregious behaviour.