Template:M summ 1992 ISDA 5(a)(ii): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{subst:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(a)(ii)}}" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an {{ | A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an {{isda92prov|Event of Default}}, except for: | ||
:(i) those failures which already have their own special {{ | :(i) those failures which already have their own special {{isda92prov|Event of Default}} (i.e., {{isda92prov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} under Section {{isda92prov|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. | :(ii) those that relate to tax, and which mean the party not complying will just get clipped for [[tax]] it rather would not. | ||
These are the ''boring'' breaches of agreement: those of a not immediately existential consequence to a derivative relationship (like {{ | These are the ''boring'' breaches of agreement: those of a not immediately existential consequence to a derivative relationship (like {{isda92prov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}}, or a party’s outright {{isda92prov|Bankruptcy}}) but which, if not [[promptly]] sorted out, justify shutting things down with extreme prejudice. | ||
All rendered in {{icds}}’s lovingly tortured prose, of course: note a [[double negative]] extragvaganza in {{ | All rendered in {{icds}}’s lovingly tortured prose, of course: note a [[double negative]] extragvaganza in {{isda92prov|5(a)(ii)}}: '''not''' complying with an obligation that is '''not''' (''[[inter alia]]'') a payment obligation if '''not''' remedied within a month. High five, team ISDA. | ||
Revision as of 09:17, 25 February 2020
A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an Event of Default, except for:
- (i) those failures which already have their own special Event of Default (i.e., Failure to Pay or Deliver under Section 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.
These are the boring breaches of agreement: those of a not immediately existential consequence to a derivative relationship (like Failure to Pay or Deliver, or a party’s outright Bankruptcy) but which, if not promptly sorted out, justify shutting things down with extreme prejudice.
All rendered in ISDA’s crack drafting squad™’s lovingly tortured prose, of course: note a double negative extragvaganza in 5(a)(ii): not complying with an obligation that is not (inter alia) a payment obligation if not remedied within a month. High five, team ISDA.