Template:Isda Illegality summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''{{isdaprov|Illegality}} vs. {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} smackdown''': Like a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}}, an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the {{2002ma}}. | '''{{isdaprov|Illegality}} vs. {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} smackdown''': Like a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}}, an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the {{2002ma}}. | ||
'''Waiting period''': There is a {{isdaprov|Waiting Period}} before you can terminate for {{isdaprov|Illegality}} the {{2002ma}}. Note the effect of section {{isdaprov|6(b)(iv)}}(2) in the {{2002ma}} is to impose a {{isdaprov|Waiting Period}} of three {{isdaprov|Local Business Day}}s before one acquires the right to terminate on account of an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}. There is no such waiting period in the {{1992ma}}. | |||
Note the effect of section {{isdaprov|6(b)(iv)}}(2) in the {{2002ma}} is to impose a {{isdaprov|Waiting Period}} of three {{isdaprov|Local Business Day}}s before one acquires the right to terminate on account of an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}. There is no such waiting period in the {{1992ma}}. | |||
'''{{isdaprov|Hierarchy of Events}}''': Under the {{2002ma}}, Section {{isdaprov|5(c)}} (''{{isdaprov|Hierarchy of Events}}'') intervenes to provide that (i) {{isdaprov|Illegality}} trumps {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} and (ii) {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} both trump the {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}} and {{isdaprov|Breach of Agreement}} {{isdaprov|Events of Default}}. | |||
Under the {{2002ma}}, Section {{isdaprov|5(c)}} (''{{isdaprov|Hierarchy of Events}}'') intervenes to provide that (i) {{isdaprov|Illegality}} trumps {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} and (ii) {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} both trump the {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}} and {{isdaprov|Breach of Agreement}} {{isdaprov|Events of Default}}. | |||
Given that {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} is no longer subject to the “two {{{{{1}}}|Affected Parties}}” delay on termination (as it was in the {{1992ma}}), this is significant. | Given that {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} is no longer subject to the “two {{{{{1}}}|Affected Parties}}” delay on termination (as it was in the {{1992ma}}), this is significant. | ||
Revision as of 07:41, 30 May 2023
Illegality vs. Force Majeure smackdown: Like a Force Majeure Event, an Illegality may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the 2002 ISDA.
Waiting period: There is a Waiting Period before you can terminate for Illegality the 2002 ISDA. Note the effect of section 6(b)(iv)(2) in the 2002 ISDA is to impose a Waiting Period of three Local Business Days before one acquires the right to terminate on account of an Illegality. There is no such waiting period in the 1992 ISDA.
Hierarchy of Events: Under the 2002 ISDA, Section 5(c) (Hierarchy of Events) intervenes to provide that (i) Illegality trumps Force Majeure and (ii) Illegality and Force Majeure both trump the Failure to Pay and Breach of Agreement Events of Default.
Given that {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} is no longer subject to the “two {{{{{1}}}|Affected Parties}}” delay on termination (as it was in the 1992 ISDA), this is significant.