Condition End Date - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m Amwelladmin moved page Condition End Date to Condition End Date - ISDA Provision Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{nman|isda|2002|2(e)}} |
Latest revision as of 16:55, 14 August 2024
2002 ISDA Master Agreement
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ Go premium
Crosscheck: 2(e) in a Nutshell™
Original text
See ISDA Comparison for a comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
Resources and Navigation
|
Comparisons
Section 2(e), dealing with default interest, was removed in the 2002 ISDA, and replaced with a spikier, more fulsome Section 9(h) (Interest and Compensation).
A new and different Section 2(e) for the 2002 ISDA was almost revived after the global financial crisis as a tool for imposing a “use it or lose it” trigger on Section 2(a)(iii), but the moment passed. See Condition End Date for more information.
Basics
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.
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
- Section 2(a)(iii); the ISDA Master Agreement’s famous “flawed asset” provision.
- Section 9(h) in the 2002 ISDA