Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(b)(i): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Like a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}}, an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the {{2002ma}}. | Like a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}}, an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the {{2002ma}}. | ||
Under the {{2002ma}}, {{isdaprov|Illegality}} trumps {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}}. Given that {{isdaprov|Illegality}} is no longer subject to the "two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}}" delay on termination (as it was in the {{1992ma}}), this is significant. | ==={{isdaprov|Hierarchy of Events}}=== | ||
Under the {{2002ma}}, Section 5(c) intervenes to provide that (i) {{isdaprov|Illegality}} trumps {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} and Illegality and {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} trump {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}} and {{isdaprov|Breach of Agreement}}. Given that {{isdaprov|Illegality}} is no longer subject to the "two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}}" delay on termination (as it was in the {{1992ma}}), this is significant. | |||
Revision as of 16:22, 26 February 2020
A comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA can be found on the ISDA Comparison page.
Illegality vs. Force Majeure smackdown
Like a Force Majeure Event, an Illegality may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the 2002 ISDA.
Hierarchy of Events
Under the 2002 ISDA, Section 5(c) intervenes to provide that (i) Illegality trumps Force Majeure and Illegality and Force Majeure trump Failure to Pay and Breach of Agreement. Given that Illegality is no longer subject to the "two Affected Parties" delay on termination (as it was in the 1992 ISDA), this is significant.