82,891
edits
Template:M gen Equity Derivatives 12.9(b)(i): Difference between revisions
Template:M gen Equity Derivatives 12.9(b)(i) (view source)
Revision as of 15:15, 18 January 2023
, 18 January 2023no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Your counterparties — or at any rate, their legal departments — may enjoy the intellectual challenge of jousting over the precise number of days’ no...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Your counterparties — or at any rate, their [[legal department|legal departments]] — may enjoy the intellectual challenge of jousting over the precise number of days’ notice one must give before decreeing and acting upon a {{eqderivprov|Change in Law}} or {{eqderivprov|Insolvency Filing}}. The practical reality here is that a sensible [[broker]] will be in touch with affected clients and will manage out of such a position by some kind of consent without reaching for a copy of the agreement, and a ''non''-sensible broker won’t have [[clients]] for very long, but that is not how [[legal eagles]] are conditioned to think. | Your counterparties — or at any rate, their [[legal department|legal departments]] — may enjoy the intellectual challenge of jousting over the precise number of days’ notice one must give before decreeing and acting upon a {{eqderivprov|Change in Law}} or {{eqderivprov|Insolvency Filing}}. The practical reality here is that a sensible [[broker]] will be in touch with affected clients and will manage out of such a position by some kind of consent without reaching for a copy of the agreement, and a ''non''-sensible broker won’t have [[clients]] for very long, but that is not how [[legal eagles]] are conditioned to think. | ||
{{icds}} drafting over-reach to mention, for the sheer bloody-minded satisfaction if it: the [[incluso]] in the definition of {{eqderivprov|Cancellation Amount}} so:— “... including payments and deliveries that would, but for the {{eqderivprov|Extraordinary Event}}, have been required after termination,” is unnecessary because the {{eqderivprov|Change in Law}}, {{eqderivprov|Hedging Disruption}} or other {{eqderivprov|Extraordinary Event}}s and {{eqderivprov|Additional Disruption Event}}s relate to the underlier and associated hedge transaction not the Transaction itself. Not that it makes any difference, of course. | {{icds}} drafting over-reach to mention, for the sheer bloody-minded satisfaction if it: the [[incluso]] in the definition of {{eqderivprov|Cancellation Amount}} so:— “... including payments and deliveries that would, but for the {{eqderivprov|Extraordinary Event}}, have been required after termination,” is unnecessary (or at the very least stating the bleeding obvious) because the {{eqderivprov|Change in Law}}, {{eqderivprov|Hedging Disruption}} or other {{eqderivprov|Extraordinary Event}}s and {{eqderivprov|Additional Disruption Event}}s relate to the underlier and associated hedge transaction not the Transaction itself. Not that it makes any difference, of course. | ||