Breach of Agreement - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Double negative]] heaven in 5(a)(ii)(1): '''not''' complying with an obligation that is '''not''' (''[[inter alia]]'') a payment obligation if '''not''' remedied within a month. | [[Double negative]] heaven in 5(a)(ii)(1): '''not''' complying with an obligation that is '''not''' (''[[inter alia]]'') a payment obligation if '''not''' remedied within a month. | ||
A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, except for (i) those failures who have their own special {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} (ie {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} | A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, except for | ||
:(i) those failures who have their own special {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} (ie {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}}) or | |||
:(ii) those that relate to tax, and which mean the party not complying will just get clipped for tax it rather would not. | |||
==={{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} carve-out=== | |||
Why is Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}} specifically carved out? No good reason other than general [[ISDA]] neurosis/delight in over-communicating. Yes, it has its own separate {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, with a much tighter timeline, so in practice one would never realistically trigger a [[failure to pay]] as a {{isdaprov|5(a)(ii)}} event, but it is still a bit fussy carving it out. | |||
ISDA{{tm}}. Never knowingly outfussed.{{tm}} | |||
===It is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} not to supply {{isdaprov|documents for delivery}}=== | ===It is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} not to supply {{isdaprov|documents for delivery}}=== | ||