Two Affected Parties - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{fullanat2|isda|6(b)(iii)|2002|6(b)(iii)|1992}} | {{fullanat2|isda|6(b)(iii)|2002|6(b)(iii)|1992}} | ||
Exercise Caution here: Under the {{1992ma}} version, if your {{isdaprov|Failure To Pay}} also amounts to an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} it is deemed to be an Illegality, and if there are two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}} there is a signficant delay in your ability to close out. | Exercise Caution here: Under the {{1992ma}} version, if your {{isdaprov|Failure To Pay}} also amounts to an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} it is deemed to be an Illegality, and if there are two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}} there is a signficant delay in your ability to close out. | ||
Revision as of 11:05, 23 October 2017
ISDA Anatomy™
|
Exercise Caution here: Under the 1992 ISDA version, if your Failure To Pay also amounts to an Illegality it is deemed to be an Illegality, and if there are two Affected Parties there is a signficant delay in your ability to close out.
Differences between 1992 ISDA and 2002 ISDA
Note also that reference to Illegality has been excised from the 2002 ISDA version.
Per Mr Firth’s bible, it was changed because it was found to be difficult in practice to implement a transfer or amendment after an Illegality. Also, it could be that people realised that if an Illegality occurred you don’t want to have to wait 30 days to terminate, especially since you cannot rely on 2(a)(iii) to withhold payments in the mean time.
This was raised at a recent last ISDA meeting: Template:A&O pointed out that there was a template amendment agreement to change the 1992 ISDA Illegality definition into the 2002 ISDA (if you don’t want to use the 2002 to start with).