Template:M summ 1992 ISDA 5(c): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Compared with its Byzantine equivalent in section {{isdaprov|5(c)}} of the {{2002ma}} this is a Spartan cause indeed: in 1992 {{icds}} assumed all ISDA users would be cold, ra...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Compared with its Byzantine equivalent in section {{isdaprov|5(c)}} of the {{2002ma}} this is a Spartan cause indeed: in 1992 {{icds}} assumed all ISDA users would be cold, rational economists who instinctively appreciate the difference between [[causation]] and [[correlation]] — or hadn’t considered the virtual certainty that they might not be — and therefore did not spell it out, but we will: Section {{isda92prov|5(c)}} will help you out where your {{isda92prov|Event of Default}} is itself, and ''of'' itself, ''the'' {{isda92prov|Illegality}}, but it will not help where your {{isda92prov|Breach of Agreement}} simply is ''coincidental'' with one. | Compared with its Byzantine equivalent in section {{isdaprov|5(c)}} of the {{2002ma}} this is a Spartan cause indeed: in 1992 {{icds}} assumed all ISDA users would be cold, rational economists who instinctively appreciate the difference between [[causation]] and [[correlation]] — or hadn’t considered the virtual certainty that they might not be — and therefore did not spell it out, but we will: Section {{isda92prov|5(c)}} will help you out where your {{isda92prov|Event of Default}} is itself, and ''of'' itself, ''the'' {{isda92prov|Illegality}}, but it will not help where your {{isda92prov|Breach of Agreement}} simply is ''coincidental'' with one. | ||
==={{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} upgrade=== | ==={{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} upgrade=== | ||
Note if you have retrofitted a {{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} clause (as is common amongst latter-day users of the {{1992ma}}) you will have quite the [[tedious]] job wiring the consequences of your new {{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} events into the existing close-out mechanics in the {{1992ma}} preprint, which | Note if you have retrofitted a {{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} clause (as is common amongst latter-day users of the {{1992ma}}) you will have quite the [[tedious]] job wiring the consequences of your new {{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} events into the existing close-out mechanics in the {{1992ma}} preprint, which doesn’t contemplate [[force majeure]] but will have to. You could always use the [http://www.isda.org/2012illegalityprot/docs/ISDA_Protocol_-_Adoption_of_2002_Illegality_FM_provisions_Final.pdf ISDA Illegality and Force Majeure Protocol] for that, of course. | ||
Revision as of 09:56, 13 April 2020
Compared with its Byzantine equivalent in section 5(c) of the 2002 ISDA this is a Spartan cause indeed: in 1992 ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ assumed all ISDA users would be cold, rational economists who instinctively appreciate the difference between causation and correlation — or hadn’t considered the virtual certainty that they might not be — and therefore did not spell it out, but we will: Section 5(c) will help you out where your Event of Default is itself, and of itself, the Illegality, but it will not help where your Breach of Agreement simply is coincidental with one.
Force Majeure upgrade
Note if you have retrofitted a Force Majeure clause (as is common amongst latter-day users of the 1992 ISDA) you will have quite the tedious job wiring the consequences of your new Force Majeure events into the existing close-out mechanics in the 1992 ISDA preprint, which doesn’t contemplate force majeure but will have to. You could always use the ISDA Illegality and Force Majeure Protocol for that, of course.