Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(b)(i): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:24, 26 February 2020

A comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA can be found on the ISDA Comparison page.

Like a Force Majeure Event, an Illegality may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the 2002 ISDA.

Under the 2002 ISDA, Section 5(c) (Hierarchy of Events) intervenes to provide that (i) Illegality trumps Force Majeure and (ii) Illegality and Force Majeure both trump the Failure to Pay and Breach of Agreement Events of Default. 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.

Revision as of 16:22, 26 February 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 16:24, 26 February 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:

	==={{isdaprov\|Hierarchy of Events}}===		==={{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.		Under the {{2002ma}}, Section {{isdaprov\|5(c)}} (''{{isdaprov\|Hierarchy of Events}}'') intervenes to provide that (i) {{isdaprov\|Illegality}} trumps {{isdaprov\|Force Majeure}} and (ii) {{isdaprov\|Illegality}} and {{isdaprov\|Force Majeure}} both trump the {{isdaprov\|Failure to Pay}} and {{isdaprov\|Breach of Agreement}} {{isdaprov\|Events of Default}}. 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.