Template:Isda Illegality comp: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdacomparisons|90342|90343|90344}} | |||
Quite a lot of ''formal'' change to the definition of Illegality; not clear how much of it makes all that much practical difference. The {{2002ma}} requires you to give effect to remedies or fallbacks in the {{{{{1}}}|Confirmation}} that might take you out of {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} before evoking this provision — which ought to go without saying. It also carves out Illegalities caused by the action of either party, which also seems a bit fussy, and throws in some including-without-limitation stuff which, definitely is a bit fussy. Lastly, the {{2002ma}} clarifies that the party suffering the {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} is the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}}, and that an {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} applies to the non-''receipt'' of payments just as much as to their non-payment. Again, all this ought to have been true the {{1992ma}} — no doubt there is some whacky litigation that said otherwise — so this is mainly in the service of [[For the avoidance of doubt|avoiding doubt]]. | Quite a lot of ''formal'' change to the definition of Illegality; not clear how much of it makes all that much practical difference. The {{2002ma}} requires you to give effect to remedies or fallbacks in the {{{{{1}}}|Confirmation}} that might take you out of {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} before evoking this provision — which ought to go without saying. It also carves out Illegalities caused by the action of either party, which also seems a bit fussy, and throws in some including-without-limitation stuff which, definitely is a bit fussy. Lastly, the {{2002ma}} clarifies that the party suffering the {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} is the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}}, and that an {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} applies to the non-''receipt'' of payments just as much as to their non-payment. Again, all this ought to have been true the {{1992ma}} — no doubt there is some whacky litigation that said otherwise — so this is mainly in the service of [[For the avoidance of doubt|avoiding doubt]]. | ||
====Waiting period==== | ====Waiting period==== | ||
{{ | {{isda Waiting Period comp|{{{1}}}}} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:01, 13 September 2024
Redlines
- 1987 ⇒ 1992: Redline of the ’92 vs. the ’87: comparison (and in reverse)
- 1992 ⇒ 2002: Redline of the ’02 vs. the ’92: comparison (and in reverse)
- 1987 ⇒ 2002: Redline of the ’92 vs. the ’87: comparison (and in reverse)
Discussion
Quite a lot of formal change to the definition of Illegality; not clear how much of it makes all that much practical difference. The 2002 ISDA requires you to give effect to remedies or fallbacks in the {{{{{1}}}|Confirmation}} that might take you out of {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} before evoking this provision — which ought to go without saying. It also carves out Illegalities caused by the action of either party, which also seems a bit fussy, and throws in some including-without-limitation stuff which, definitely is a bit fussy. Lastly, the 2002 ISDA clarifies that the party suffering the {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} is the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}}, and that an {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} applies to the non-receipt of payments just as much as to their non-payment. Again, all this ought to have been true the 1992 ISDA — no doubt there is some whacky litigation that said otherwise — so this is mainly in the service of avoiding doubt.
Waiting period
There is no “Waiting Period” in the 1992 ISDA or in the 1987 ISDA. ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ introduced it in the 2002 ISDA with the arrival of Force Majeure, and liked it so much they extended it to Illegality.