82,891
edits
Template:M comp disc 2016 NY VM CSA 7: Difference between revisions
Template:M comp disc 2016 NY VM CSA 7 (view source)
Revision as of 17:19, 12 January 2022
, 12 January 2022no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Quite different to the default provision under the {{vmcsa}}, because like all NY CSAs, the {{nyvmcsa}} version is not a {{isdaprov|Transaction}}....") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Some interesting things here: | Some interesting things here: | ||
{{nyvmcsaprov|7(i)}}: '''Failure to Transfer Collateral''': note the {{nyvmcsa}} bakes in a two {{nyvmcsaprov|Local Business Day}} grace period. This is one LBD ''longer'' than the standard [[grace period]] baked into the {{2002ma}}, and one {{nyvmcsaprov|Local Business Day}} ''shorter'' that the standard [[grace period]] baked into the {{1992ma}}. Which is nice. The English law CSAs don’t have this problem, since they are deemed to be {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s under the ISDA, and therefore inherit the {{isdama}}’s Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}} [[grace period]]s. Which, you would have thought, ''has'' to be the more preferable arrangement. | {{nyvmcsaprov|7(i)}}: '''Failure to Transfer Collateral''': note the {{nyvmcsa}} bakes in a two {{nyvmcsaprov|Local Business Day}} grace period. This is one LBD ''longer'' than the standard [[grace period]] baked into the {{2002ma}}, and one {{nyvmcsaprov|Local Business Day}} ''shorter'' that the standard [[grace period]] baked into the {{1992ma}}. Which is nice. The English law CSAs don’t have this problem, since they are deemed to be {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s under the ISDA, and therefore inherit the {{isdama}}’s Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}} [[grace period]]s. Which, you would have thought, ''has'' to be the more preferable arrangement. But anyway, Americans (and those of you Brits with {{imcsd}}s, the same goes for you, thanks to Section {{imcsdprov|7}} I am afraid) '''your grace periods might not match'''. | ||
{{nyvmcsaprov|7(i)}}: '''Impermissable dealing''': this one is a doozy: the document, as standard, ''allows'' parties to [[rehypothecate]]. This default triggers if you have amended the document to say you cannot rehypothecate, but then you do anyway. Way to go, {{icds}}. | |||
{{nyvmcsaprov|7(i)}}: '''Other breach of Annex''': this is an analogue to the {{isdama}}’s sweep-up “{{isdaprov|Breach of Agreement}}” under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(ii)}} | |||