Template:M comp disc 2002 ISDA 5(b)(i): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[5(b)(i) - ISDA Provision|As]] its clause numbering indicates, {{isdaprov|Illegality}} is a Section {{isdaprov|5(b)}} {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} — being one of those irritating vicissitudes of life that are no-one’s fault but which mean things cannot go on, and not a Section {{isdaprov|5(a)}} {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, being those perfidious actions of one or other Party which bring matters to an end which, but for that behaviour, ought really to have been avoided. | [[5(b)(i) - ISDA Provision|As]] its clause numbering indicates, {{isdaprov|Illegality}} is a Section {{isdaprov|5(b)}} {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} — being one of those irritating vicissitudes of life that are no-one’s fault but which mean things cannot go on, and not a Section {{isdaprov|5(a)}} {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, being those perfidious actions of one or other Party which bring matters to an end which, but for that behaviour, ought really to have been avoided. | ||
Note also the impact of | Note also the impact of {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} on a party’s obligations to perform through another branch under Section {{isdaprov|5(e)}}, which in turn folds into the spectacular optional representation a party may make under {{isdaprov|10(a)}} to state the blindingly obvious, namely that the law as to corporate legal personality is as is commonly understood by first year law students. Who knows — maybe it is different in emerging markets and former Communist states? | ||
For the silent great majority of swap entities for whom it is not, the curious proposition arises: what is the legal, and contractual, consequence of electing not to state the blindingly obvious? Does that mean it is deemed not to be true? | |||
Revision as of 13:34, 22 June 2023
As its clause numbering indicates, Illegality is a Section 5(b) Termination Event — being one of those irritating vicissitudes of life that are no-one’s fault but which mean things cannot go on, and not a Section 5(a) Event of Default, being those perfidious actions of one or other Party which bring matters to an end which, but for that behaviour, ought really to have been avoided.
Note also the impact of Illegality and Force Majeure on a party’s obligations to perform through another branch under Section 5(e), which in turn folds into the spectacular optional representation a party may make under 10(a) to state the blindingly obvious, namely that the law as to corporate legal personality is as is commonly understood by first year law students. Who knows — maybe it is different in emerging markets and former Communist states?
For the silent great majority of swap entities for whom it is not, the curious proposition arises: what is the legal, and contractual, consequence of electing not to state the blindingly obvious? Does that mean it is deemed not to be true?