Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(a)(i): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}} under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}} if the {{isdama}}: where a party fails to pay or deliver on time and does not remedy before the grace period..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Replaced content with "{{isda 5(a)(i) summ|isdaprov}}" Tag: Replaced |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{isda 5(a)(i) summ|isdaprov}} |
Latest revision as of 12:21, 12 May 2021
Failure to Pay or Deliver under Section 5(a)(i) of the ISDA Master Agreement: where a party fails to pay or deliver on time and does not remedy before the grace period expires. The grace period for a 2002 ISDA is one Local Business Day; shorter than the three Local Business Days in the 1992 ISDA. This fact alone has kept a number of market counterparties on the 1992 form, nearly thirty years after it was upgraded.
There’s a technical funny due to the American habit of insisting on a pledge-only 1994 NY CSA and then designating it as a Credit Support Document (against the hopes and dreams of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ when it drafted the Users’ Guide, but still), and that is a failure to pay under an English law CSA is a Section 5(a)(i) Failure to Pay or Deliver, whereas a failure to pay under a New York Law CSA is a Section 5(a)(iii) Credit Support Default. Doth any difference it maketh? None, so far as we can see.
Funny old world we live in.