82,891
edits
Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 2(e): Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "There isn’t a Section 6(g), but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section 2(a)(iii) was. The idea was to allow the victim — {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, however you want to call it — to preempt the condition precedent, and say, well use it or lose it within 90 days — the titular Condition End Date. Well, the moment passed, but there are those...") Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There isn’t a Section 6(g), but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section 2(a)(iii) was. | [[6(g) - ISDA Provision|There]] isn’t a Section 6(g), but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section 2(a)(iii) was. | ||
The idea was to allow the victim — {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, however you want to call it — to preempt the condition precedent, and say, well use it or lose it within 90 days — the titular Condition End Date. | The idea was to allow the victim — {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, however you want to call it — to preempt the condition precedent, and say, well use it or lose it within 90 days — the titular Condition End Date. | ||
Well, the moment passed, but there are those who have adopted this as a standard in their schedules — good sports, for the most part — but regulator angst has long since moved on, as did [[legal eagle]] appetite to amend swathes of standard contracts for a contingency no-one in their right mind would use, or for that matter can make head or tail of. | Well, the moment passed, but there are those who have adopted this as a standard in their schedules — good sports, for the most part — but regulator angst has long since moved on, as did [[legal eagle]] appetite to amend swathes of standard contracts for a contingency no-one in their right mind would use, or for that matter can make head or tail of. | ||