Were the contractual clauses in the CDO, LIBOR and associated benchmark scandals deceptive, misleading or unconscionable. If so, or not, why did the regulatory authorities adopt the approach taken?
This Outline might help but I need elaborate more in different way additional to the 6 point
- Define the contracts elements in general and how they contribute in developing a binding agreement between parties and protect the rights of both parties
- Handel each case separately
- Define the elements of the contract in relation to the cases
- Define the products under each case and what law s in the country are governing it
- Define the logic behind the contracts set in the first place
- Discuss the issue that occurred in each case
- What are the facts that helped in the development of the issue to be taken to the court from the article point of view
- What were the weaknesses in the contractual clauses if any with each case?
- How the policies set regarding the items being exchanged in the contract dealt with the issues & bounded the contract?
- Where the policies and regulations weak regarding (CDO, LIBOR and associated benchmark) to govern the contracts of those products? “each handled separately”
- What is the logic behind the early settlement of the case instead of taking them to the court?
- Regulators backing off in the USA on the cases
- Regarding the second case which was taken to the court “Australia”:
- What was the judgment?
- How did it effect the two parties?
- What was the judgment based on?
- Did it go by the rules & polices of the regulators?
- Compare the 2 cases in the way they were handled
- Which one was better from my point of view & why?
- Was it ethical to handle it that way in both cases
Reference
- Video : Crashing Ashore: http://www.iosco.org/media_room/?subsection=audiovisual
- Meta-Regulation and Corporate
