Template:Isda Illegality summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
If the rules change, that is beyond your control, so it can’t be helped and hence Illegality is a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} not an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}. The {{2002ma}} develops the language of the {{1992ma}} to cater for insomniacs and paranoiacs but does not really add a great deal of substance. | |||
An {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the {{isdama}}. | |||
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 can terminate for {{isdaprov|Illegality}}. There is no such waiting period in the {{1992ma}}. | |||
The {{2002ma}} adds a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} termination event — {{isdaprov|Illegality}} is of course a sub-species of force majeure, so it is then obliged to artfully explain what happens when you have a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} that is ''also'' an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}. Section {{isdaprov|5(c)}} (''{{isdaprov|Hierarchy of Events}}'') deals with this, providing 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. | |||
Since the {{1992ma}} is still in widespread use, especially in the New World, and Americans are not ''entirely'' blind to what goes on beyond their shores, they have seen the sense of the Force Majeure concept and often reverse engineer an equivalent Force Majeure provision in to their 1992s via the Schedule (I know, I know: why not just use the {{2002ma}}?) If yours is like that, then all this hierarchy chat may be useful to you. | |||
Revision as of 21:02, 13 October 2023
If the rules change, that is beyond your control, so it can’t be helped and hence Illegality is a Termination Event not an Event of Default. The 2002 ISDA develops the language of the 1992 ISDA to cater for insomniacs and paranoiacs but does not really add a great deal of substance.
An {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the ISDA Master Agreement.
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 can terminate for Illegality. There is no such waiting period in the 1992 ISDA.
The 2002 ISDA adds a Force Majeure termination event — Illegality is of course a sub-species of force majeure, so it is then obliged to artfully explain what happens when you have a Force Majeure that is also an Illegality. Section 5(c) (Hierarchy of Events) deals with this, providing 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.
Since the 1992 ISDA is still in widespread use, especially in the New World, and Americans are not entirely blind to what goes on beyond their shores, they have seen the sense of the Force Majeure concept and often reverse engineer an equivalent Force Majeure provision in to their 1992s via the Schedule (I know, I know: why not just use the 2002 ISDA?) If yours is like that, then all this hierarchy chat may be useful to you.