Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 2(e): Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
Created page with "There isn’t a Section 6(g), but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section 2(a)(iii) was. The idea was to allow the victim — {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, however you want to call it — to preempt the condition precedent, and say, well use it or lose it within 90 days — the titular Condition End Date. Well, the moment passed, but there are those..."
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
Replaced content with "{{isda 2(e) summ|isdaprov}}"
Tag: Replaced
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
There isn’t a Section 6(g), but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section 2(a)(iii) was.
{{isda 2(e) summ|isdaprov}}
 
The idea was to allow the victim — {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, however you want to call it — to preempt the condition precedent, and say, well use it or lose it within 90 days — the titular Condition End Date.
 
Well, the moment passed, but there are those who have adopted this as a standard in their schedules — good sports, for the most part — but regulator angst has long since moved on, as did [[legal eagle]] appetite to amend swathes of standard contracts for a contingency no-one in their right mind would use, or for that matter can make head or tail of.

Latest revision as of 10:59, 5 January 2024

Numbering confusion alert: the 1992 ISDA has a Section 2(e), dealing with Default Interest and other amounts payable by way of compensation for failing to pay or deliver (over and above your Section 6 close out rights). This Section was moved in the 2002 ISDA to Section 9(h). We know not why, but there is sure to have been a reason and it is water under the bridge now.

So as a result there was not, and is not, a Section 2(e) in the 2002 ISDA.

“Condition End Date”

But there might have been. ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the global financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section 2(a)(iii) was.

The idea was to allow the victim of a 2(a)(iii) exercise — that is, the person in putative breach — to preempt the condition precedent, and say to the innocent party, “Well, use it or lose it within 90 days” — the titular Condition End Date.

Well, the moment passed, but some have adopted this as a standard in their schedules — good sports, for the most part — but regulator angst has long since moved on, as did legal eagle appetite to amend swathes of standard contracts for a contingency no-one in their right mind would use, or for that matter can make head or tail of.

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:M_summ_2002_ISDA_2(e)&oldid=82277"