Jurisdiction - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m Text replace - "{{isdaanatomy}}" to "{{anat|isda}}"
Tag: New redirect
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{isdasnap|13(b)}}
#redirect[[Governing Law and Jurisdiction - ISDA Provision]]
===On the disapplication of {{isdaprov|13(b)(iii)}}===
Where you wish to elect the exclusive jurisdiction of (say) English Courts in your {{isdaprov|Schedule}}, you may wish to explicitly disapply the proviso to {{isdaprov|13(b)}} which provides that nothing in this clause precludes the bringing of Proceedings in another jurisdiction (in the flush language of the {{1992ma}} version; in {{isdaprov|13(b)(iii)}} of the {{2002ma}} version).
 
Strictly speaking you shouldn't need to do this: Section {{isdaprov|1(b)}} provides that the inconsistency created by the use of the expression "exclusive jurisdiction" in the Schedule will prevail over the provisions of the Master Agreement.
 
A word of caution: if you do purport to explicitly override it for good measure and a counterparty pushes back, having deliberately taken the clarifying language out of a draft, you may be in an inferior position when interpreting the meaning of "exclusive jurisdiction", precisely because the counterparty has refused to rule out the use of other jurisdictions.
 
 
 
{{anat|isda}}

Latest revision as of 14:11, 5 January 2024