Notices - 1992 ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{manual|MI|1992|12|Section|12|medium}}" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{nman|isda|1992|12}} |
Latest revision as of 17:10, 14 August 2024
1992 ISDA Master Agreement
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ Go premium
Crosscheck: 12 in a Nutshell™
Original text
See ISDA Comparison for a comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
Resources and Navigation
|
Comparisons
The major change between the versions of Section 12 (Notices) was the 2002 ISDA’s inclusion of e-mail as a means of communication in addition to the 1992 ISDA’s electronic messaging system. Also, fax and electronic messaging system are not permitted means of serving close-out communications (i.e., under Sections 5 and 6) under the 1992 ISDA, but fax is permitted under the 2002 ISDA, whereas electronic messaging system and email are not. Got all that?
Basics
Who would have thought a Notices provision would be so controversial? Especially the question, “What is an electronic messaging system”? The term is used liberally enough in the 1992 ISDA — the best the 1987 ISDA managed was “telex” so think yourself lucky, Boomer — but, apparently, electronic messaging systems in 1992 were different to the sort of things we’d consider an electronic messaging system today, and this sort of thing is likely to cause culturally insensitive millennials and digital natives problems.
How so? Well, by confusing what your grandparents might think counted as electronic messaging systems with what you do. For until the Natwest Bank found itself embroiled in the interest rate swap mis-selling scandal of 2013, everone thought they knew what an electronic messaging system was, but no-one had thought very hard about it.
That all changed when Andrews, J. of the Chancery Division, was invited to opine on it in Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc.
Mr Greenclose was the kind of “little old lady” — well, Welsh hotelier, but you get the picture — who induces judges to make bad law.[1]
This decision does nothing to dispel the assumption that lawyers are technological Luddites who would apply Tip-Ex to their VDUs if they didn’t have someone to do their typing for them (and if they knew what a VDU was).
For there it was held that email is not an “electronic messaging system” and, as such, was an invalid means for serving a close-out notice under the 1992 ISDA, which doesn’t mention email. Read in-depth about that case here.
And that was before the entire, interconnected world decided, as an orchestrated whole, to cease the conduct of the business as a physical idea for an indefinite period in early 2020. Suddenly, a widely-used and, it was assumed, well-tested notices regime started to look like it might not work.
Oh, and another thing: who seriously has a telex in this day and age?
Premium content
Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics👇
|
See also
References
- ↑ As the JC always says, anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt.