Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 3(c): Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Reference to {{isdaprov|Affiliate}}s can be controversial, particularly for hedge fund managers. More generally, absence of litigation it is roundly pointless repre...")
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(Replaced content with "{{isda 3(a) summ|isdaprov}}")
Tag: Replaced
Line 1: Line 1:
Reference to {{isdaprov|Affiliate}}s can be controversial, particularly for [[hedge fund]] managers.
{{isda 3(a) summ|isdaprov}}
 
More generally, [[absence of litigation]] it is roundly pointless [[representation]], but seeing as (other than unaffiliated Hedge Fund managers) no-one really complains about it, it is best to just leave well alone. It is one for the {{t|life’s too short}} file.
 
But if you do see your life stretching away unendingly to the horizon, and you haven’t got anything else in the calendar in the next half hour, go west, young man. Or woman.

Revision as of 15:40, 30 December 2023

An observant negotiator (is there any other kind?) handling a 1992 ISDA might wish to add a new agency rep as Section 3(a)(vi). In 2002, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ obviously thought this was such a good idea that they added a brand-new “no-agency” rep to the 2002 ISDA, only they can’t have felt it was basic enough to go in the Basic Representations, so they put it in a new clause all by itself at Section 3(g).

But you don’t need a bespoke “no-agency” rep if you’re on a 2002 ISDA, if that’s what you’re wondering.

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:M_summ_2002_ISDA_3(c)&oldid=81603"