Template:M summ 1992 ISDA Force Majeure Event: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===[[Force majeure]] in the {{1992ma}}===
===[[Force majeure]] in the {{1992ma}}===
There is no equivalent to the {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} in the {{1992ma}}. You could, and many old-timers do, write an {{isda92prov|Impossibility}} clause was into the {{isda92prov|Schedule}}, which endeavoured to do the same thing. One can incorporate {{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} into the {{1992ma}} as long as you carry the concept through to its logical conclusion i.e.:
There is no equivalent to the {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} in the {{1992ma}}. You could, and many old-timers do, write an {{isda92prov|Impossibility}} clause into the {{isda92prov|Schedule}}, which endeavoured to do the same thing. Or you could incorporate the {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} into the {{1992ma}} as long as you carry the concept through to its logical conclusion i.e.:
*Include a {{isda92prov|Hierachy of Events}};  
*Include a “{{isdaprov|Hierarchy of Events}}” to be clear what happens where the same event is both a {{isda92prov|Event of Default}} ''and'' a {{isda92prov|Force Majeure Event}};  
*Consider the impact re a deferral of {{isda92prov|Early Termination Amount}} etc.  
*Consider the impact of a deferral on the {{isda92prov|Early Termination Amount}} etc.  
The concept also impacts the basis of [[Close Out]] because the {{2002ma}} requires true mids for valuation i.e, not the mean of each party's view of the [[Bid-offer spread|bid/offer]] where a {{isda92prov|Force Majeure Event}} (or {{isda92prov|Illegality}}) occurs, which is effectively what you get under the {{1992ma}} with a “Two {{isda92prov|Affected Parties}}” option.
The concept also impacts the basis of [[close-out]] because the {{2002ma}} requires true [[mid]]s for valuation i.e, not simply the average of each party’s view of the [[Bid-offer spread|bid/offer]] where a {{isda92prov|Force Majeure Event}} (or {{isda92prov|Illegality}}) occurs, which is effectively what you get under the {{1992ma}} with a “Two {{isda92prov|Affected Parties}}” option.
 
The easiest way of achieving this is to sign up to the ISDA protocol on [http://www.isda.org/2012illegalityprot/docs/ISDA_Protocol_-_Adoption_of_2002_Illegality_FM_provisions_Final.pdf Illegality and Force Majeure].

Latest revision as of 09:55, 13 April 2020

Force majeure in the 1992 ISDA

There is no equivalent to the 2002 ISDA’s Force Majeure Event in the 1992 ISDA. You could, and many old-timers do, write an Impossibility clause into the Schedule, which endeavoured to do the same thing. Or you could incorporate the 2002 ISDA’s Force Majeure Event into the 1992 ISDA — as long as you carry the concept through to its logical conclusion i.e.:

The concept also impacts the basis of close-out because the 2002 ISDA requires true mids for valuation i.e, not simply the average of each party’s view of the bid/offer where a Force Majeure Event (or Illegality) occurs, which is effectively what you get under the 1992 ISDA with a “Two Affected Parties” option.

The easiest way of achieving this is to sign up to the ISDA protocol on Illegality and Force Majeure.