Template:Isda 13(b) summ: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===On the disapplication of | =====On the disapplication of Section 13(b)(iii)===== | ||
Where you wish to elect the exclusive jurisdiction of (say) English courts in your {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}, you may wish to explicitly disapply the proviso to {{{{{1}}}|13(b)}} which provides that nothing in this clause precludes the bringing of {{{{{1}}}|Proceedings}} in another jurisdiction (in the flush language of the {{1992ma}} version; in {{{{{1}}}|13(b)(iii)}} of the {{2002ma}} version). | Where you wish to elect the exclusive jurisdiction of (say) English courts in your {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}, you may wish to explicitly disapply the proviso to {{{{{1}}}|13(b)}} which provides that nothing in this clause precludes the bringing of {{{{{1}}}|Proceedings}} in another jurisdiction (in the flush language of the {{1992ma}} version; in {{{{{1}}}|13(b)(iii)}} of the {{2002ma}} version). | ||
Strictly speaking you | Strictly speaking, you shouldn’t need to do this: Section {{{{{1}}}|1(b)}} provides that the inconsistency created by the use of the expression “exclusive jurisdiction” in the Schedule will prevail over the text the Master Agreement. But that won’t stop officious [[Mediocre lawyer|attorneys]] the world over trying. | ||
But, counselor, be warned: if you ''do'' try to explicitly override it — you know, for good measure and everything — and your counterparty pushes back, having deliberately taken the clarifying language out of a draft, you may be in a | But, counselor, be warned: if you ''do'' try to explicitly override it — you know, for good measure and everything — and your counterparty pushes back, having deliberately taken the clarifying language out of a draft, you may be in a ''worse'' position when interpreting the meaning of “[[exclusive jurisdiction]]”, precisely because the counterparty refused to rule out the use of other jurisdictions. A cracking example of the [[anal paradox]] at work. | ||
Don’t be too clever by half, in other words. | Don’t be too clever by half, in other words. | ||
====“Convention Court”==== | =====“Convention Court”===== | ||
{{Brussels convention capsule}} | {{Brussels convention capsule}} | ||
{{Lugano convention capsule}} | {{Lugano convention capsule}} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:45, 5 January 2024
On the disapplication of Section 13(b)(iii)
Where you wish to elect the exclusive jurisdiction of (say) English courts in your {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}, you may wish to explicitly disapply the proviso to {{{{{1}}}|13(b)}} which provides that nothing in this clause precludes the bringing of {{{{{1}}}|Proceedings}} in another jurisdiction (in the flush language of the 1992 ISDA version; in {{{{{1}}}|13(b)(iii)}} of the 2002 ISDA version).
Strictly speaking, you shouldn’t need to do this: Section {{{{{1}}}|1(b)}} provides that the inconsistency created by the use of the expression “exclusive jurisdiction” in the Schedule will prevail over the text the Master Agreement. But that won’t stop officious attorneys the world over trying.
But, counselor, be warned: if you do try to explicitly override it — you know, for good measure and everything — and your counterparty pushes back, having deliberately taken the clarifying language out of a draft, you may be in a worse position when interpreting the meaning of “exclusive jurisdiction”, precisely because the counterparty refused to rule out the use of other jurisdictions. A cracking example of the anal paradox at work.
Don’t be too clever by half, in other words.
“Convention Court”
The 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is this fellow. Be my guest. Let me know what you find.
The 1988 Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is this puppy. Knock yourself out, and let us know how you get on.