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)}} | ||
Three 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 — [[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. | '''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. | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
'''Three''': Good luck reconciling the above with the {{isdaprov|Counterparts and Confirmations}} clause, which says, rightly, that the binding action on a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} is ''the moment the parties first agree it'' — that is, as likely as not, a phone call or Bloomberg chat, or in volume products, an electronic handshake between booking systems. Since a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} ''is'' a modification to the {{isdama}} the words above ring a bit hollow. | |||
{{Seealso}} | {{Seealso}} | ||
*{{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, on whether email is an electronic messaging system; | *{{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}, on whether email is an electronic messaging system; | ||
*{{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} on whether one can [[orally]] [[amend]] a contract with a “[[no oral modification]]” clause | *{{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} on whether one can [[orally]] [[amend]] a contract with a “[[no oral modification]]” clause | ||
{{ISDA 2002 Section 9 TOC}} |
Revision as of 12:56, 8 August 2018
ISDA Anatomy™
|
Three 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.
Three: Good luck reconciling the above with the Counterparts and Confirmations clause, which says, rightly, that the binding action on a Transaction is the moment the parties first agree it — that is, as likely as not, a phone call or Bloomberg chat, or in volume products, an electronic handshake between booking systems. Since a Transaction is a modification to the ISDA Master Agreement the words above ring a bit hollow.
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
9 Miscellaneous
9(a) Entire Agreement
9(b) Amendments
9(c) Survival of Obligations
9(d) Remedies Cumulative
9(e) Counterparts and Confirmations
9(f) No Waiver of Rights
9(g) Headings
9(h) Interest and Compensation (2002 ISDA only)