Amendments - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdaanat|9(b)}} | {{isdaanat|9(b)}} | ||
Two lookouts here. | |||
This might not so much matter were it not for | '''One''': according to her majesty’s judiciary, [[email]] ''does not count as an [[electronic messaging system]]''. Let your klaxons blare. It seems absurd at first glance — [[some|Jolly Contrarian]] would say it seems absurd having read the whole judgment in {{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} — but there it is: that is the law of the land at the time of writing. | ||
'''Two''': This might not so much matter were it not for another spectacular outing for her majesty's judiciary<ref>{{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}}</ref>, in which Lord Sumption decided that a “[[no oral modification]]” clause is effective in law. This probably makes sense if you are sitting in a law library, or judicial chambers, contemplating the eternal verities, but it makes none if you are managing the cut and thrust of operational contract management. | |||
That said, most financial institutions have an industrial complex covering the negotiation of {{isdama}}s and other trading contracts, so a formal amendment is not likely to pass with copperplate script execution. But where the contract has a manifest error, and the parties perform notwithstanding to the intended commercial bargain - who can say? | |||
And as for [[waiver|waivers]] — especially when your [[credit department]] is in the thrall of setting [[NAV trigger|NAV triggers]] it doesn’t monitor and isn’t likely to to exercise — are a different story. | |||
Waivers are a pain in the posterior. | Waivers are a pain in the posterior. |
Revision as of 08:44, 8 August 2018
ISDA Anatomy™
|
Two lookouts here.
One: according to her majesty’s judiciary, email does not count as an electronic messaging system. Let your klaxons blare. It seems absurd at first glance — Jolly Contrarian would say it seems absurd having read the whole judgment in Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc — but there it is: that is the law of the land at the time of writing.
Two: This might not so much matter were it not for another spectacular outing for her majesty's judiciary[1], in which Lord Sumption decided that a “no oral modification” clause is effective in law. This probably makes sense if you are sitting in a law library, or judicial chambers, contemplating the eternal verities, but it makes none if you are managing the cut and thrust of operational contract management.
That said, most financial institutions have an industrial complex covering the negotiation of ISDA Master Agreements and other trading contracts, so a formal amendment is not likely to pass with copperplate script execution. But where the contract has a manifest error, and the parties perform notwithstanding to the intended commercial bargain - who can say?
And as for waivers — especially when your credit department is in the thrall of setting NAV triggers it doesn’t monitor and isn’t likely to to exercise — are a different story.
Waivers are a pain in the posterior.
See also
- Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc, on whether email is an electronic messaging system;
- Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited on whether one can orally amend a contract with a “no oral modification” clause