June 16th, 2003, 7:50 am
As a matter of interest, I know that from what I have covered on the law of netting is that some jurisdictions do not recognise the concept of netting...netting is a new concept in law that nets the exposure of parties to derivative contracts, but in some jurisdictions this conflicts with their domestic insolvency regime. If this is the case, then what happens is that the insolvency administrator (i.e. the person taking over from insolvent) can 'cherry-pick' the enforcement of outstanding contracts, so that the admin. only seeks to enforce contracts that will result in money owed to the insolvent and not enforce contracts the insolvent owes to others. One can see that netting is by its nature incompatible with this...but since netting is very useful and now the standard for netting deriv exposure, juris have been forced to introduce legislation specifically for this matter and alter their insolvency regime; it is in fact a condition for European-accession countries before they can become part of the EU, and I believe Hungary has either passed legislation to this effect or is in the process of doing so...In return for all the help I have received from contributors to my thread, I will occasionally post some legal comments from issues arising from quant finance, hope you guys find this interesting (this is my living!)...What do you guys think about this netting problem?