Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Close-out Amount: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


Note the prominent requirement to achieve a “''[[reasonable]]''” ({{1992ma}}) or “[[commercially reasonable|''commercially'' reasonable]]” ({{2002ma}}) result. On what that latter lovely expression means see {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}.  Spoiler: it’s basically good for [[broker|brokers]] as long as they aren’t [[Non mentula esse|being total dicks]].
Note the prominent requirement to achieve a “''[[reasonable]]''” ({{1992ma}}) or “[[commercially reasonable|''commercially'' reasonable]]” ({{2002ma}}) result. On what that latter lovely expression means see {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}.  Spoiler: it’s basically good for [[broker|brokers]] as long as they aren’t [[Non mentula esse|being total dicks]].
There are some local variations which are worth bearing in mind:
==={{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}} and Italian counterparties===
See for more detail, here: [[Close-out Amount - ISDA Provision/Italian counterparties|Italian counterparties]]
===Releationship with Early Termination Amount===
For those curious about {{isdaprov|the difference between the Early Termination Amount and the Close-out Amount}} in the {{2002ma}}, look no further than back there, along the sentence you've just read. Go on.

Revision as of 13:06, 3 November 2021

From the you’ll be sorry you asked file. Have a butcher’s at the nutshell version on the right. If, having read that, you’re still not really feeling sorry or resentful, the full text (below) right might get your remorse radar pinging.

Note the prominent requirement to achieve a “reasonable” (1992 ISDA) or “commercially reasonable” (2002 ISDA) result. On what that latter lovely expression means see Barclays v Unicredit. Spoiler: it’s basically good for brokers as long as they aren’t being total dicks.