82,891
edits
Template:M summ EUA Annex Settlement Disruption: Difference between revisions
Template:M summ EUA Annex Settlement Disruption (view source)
Revision as of 16:22, 24 January 2023
, 24 January 2023no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{M summ EUA Annex (d)(i)(4)(D)}} | {{M summ EUA Annex (d)(i)(4)(D)}} | ||
==={{euaprov|Payment on Termination for Settlement Disruption}}=== | |||
Not for the only time in this Annex, {{icds}} have contemplated an outcome which doesn’t feel enormously derivative ''literate''. | |||
If there is a {{euaprov|Settlement Disruption Event}} — say I have sold you forward some {{euaprov|Allowances}}, but for some external reason beyond my control and personal culpability, when it comes time to deliver them, transiently I cannot — then, for the want of any better idea, the transaction goes into sort of suspended animation. Fair enough: mountain, Mohammed and all that. But my obligations are still there. They are just put on ice. Aren’t they? | |||
But once that [[Settlement Disruption Event - Emissions Annex Provision|disruption]] has lifted, what should we do? We are back at the races. We should, therefore ''carry on'', you would think; perhaps with some allowance for cost of carry. And indeed this is what might happen, ''but only if you elect that {{euaprov|Payment on Termination for Settlement Disruption}} should apply''. If you don’t, the parties simply walk away — refunding pre-paid forward payments, and hanging on to whatever it is that they sold. | |||
Now folks: on what ''planet'' in the entire ISDA extended fan-fiction ''galaxy'' would anyone ever do that? This might feel like the sort of thing was lost sacred knowledge to the [[Children of the Forest]] — a kind of environmentally-friendly reprise to the never-used {{isda92prov|First Method}} — but come on folks. This is the 2020s. And besides, here the operating theory is the Settlement Disruption Event has ''lifted''. The seller is perfectly able to perform the contract. Why wouldn’t it? | |||