Unpaid Amounts - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Spoddy point for old-fashioned {{1992ma}} hipster types: if “{{isdaprov|Loss}}” is your chosen means of close-out valuation, the concept of {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}} is more or less factored into the definition of {{isdaprov|Loss}}: | Spoddy point for old-fashioned {{1992ma}} hipster types: if “{{isdaprov|Loss}}” is your chosen means of close-out valuation, the concept of {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}} is more or less factored into the definition of {{isdaprov|Loss}}: | ||
:''{{isdaprov|Loss}} includes losses and costs (or gains) in respect of any payment or delivery required to have been made (assuming satisfaction of each applicable condition precedent) on or before the relevant Early Termination Date and not made, except, so as to avoid duplication, if Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}}(1) or (3) or {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}}(2)(A) applies...''<ref>There is a magnificent piece of ISDA discombobulation here: Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}}(1) and (3), and {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}}(2)(A), all deal exclusively with agreements where {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, and not {{isdaprov|Loss}}, applies. So there is, in fact, ''no'' risk of duplication, since the definition of {{isdaprov|Loss}} is entirely irrelevant to these parts of the agreement. | :''{{isdaprov|Loss}} includes losses and costs (or gains) in respect of any payment or delivery required to have been made (assuming satisfaction of each applicable condition precedent) on or before the relevant Early Termination Date and not made, except, so as to avoid duplication, if Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}}(1) or (3) or {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}}(2)(A) applies...''<ref>There is a magnificent piece of ISDA discombobulation here: Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}}(1) and (3), and {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}}(2)(A), all deal exclusively with agreements where {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, and not {{isdaprov|Loss}}, applies. So there is, in fact, ''no'' risk of duplication, since the definition of {{isdaprov|Loss}} is entirely irrelevant to these parts of the agreement.</ref> | ||
This is why the drafting of the {{csaprov|Default}} provision (paragraph {{csaprov|6}}) of the {{csa}} is as tortuous as it is. If you were wondering. | This is why the drafting of the {{csaprov|Default}} provision (paragraph {{csaprov|6}}) of the {{csa}} is as tortuous as it is. If you were wondering. | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} |
Revision as of 10:24, 29 July 2019
ISDA Anatomy™
together in each case with accrued but unpaid interest.
in each case together with any amount of interest accrued or other compensation in respect of that obligation or deferred obligation, as the case may be, pursuant to Section 9(h)(ii)(l) or (2), as appropriate. The line breaks are for comprehension and do not appear in the original
|
You may want to know where Unpaid Amounts feature in the ISDA Master Agreement. The answer: In Payments on Early Termination: Section 6(e)(i) (for Events of Default) and 6(e)(ii) (for Termination Events) and 6(e)(iv) (Adjustment for Illegality or Force Majeure Event).
Spoddy point for old-fashioned 1992 ISDA hipster types: if “Loss” is your chosen means of close-out valuation, the concept of Unpaid Amounts is more or less factored into the definition of Loss:
- Loss includes losses and costs (or gains) in respect of any payment or delivery required to have been made (assuming satisfaction of each applicable condition precedent) on or before the relevant Early Termination Date and not made, except, so as to avoid duplication, if Section 6(e)(i)(1) or (3) or 6(e)(ii)(2)(A) applies...[1]
This is why the drafting of the Default provision (paragraph 6) of the 1995 CSA is as tortuous as it is. If you were wondering.
References
- ↑ There is a magnificent piece of ISDA discombobulation here: Section 6(e)(i)(1) and (3), and 6(e)(ii)(2)(A), all deal exclusively with agreements where Market Quotation, and not Loss, applies. So there is, in fact, no risk of duplication, since the definition of Loss is entirely irrelevant to these parts of the agreement.