Template:Isda 6(b) comp: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Between the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}}, there was a but more re-engineering, largely to account for the new {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} and some tidying up, but beyond that Section {{{{{1}}}|6(b)}} works in the same general way under the {{1992ma}} and {{2002ma}}. Here is a {{diff|88960|88961}} of that. | Between the {{1992ma}} and the {{2002ma}}, there was a but more re-engineering, largely to account for the new {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} and some tidying up, but beyond that Section {{{{{1}}}|6(b)}} works in the same general way under the {{1992ma}} and {{2002ma}}. Here is a {{diff|88960|88961}} of that. | ||
====Section 6(b)(i)==== | =====Section 6(b)(i)===== | ||
Updated in 2002 with special pleadings relating to the newly-introduced {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}. | Updated in 2002 with special pleadings relating to the newly-introduced {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}. | ||
====Section 6(b)(ii)==== | =====Section 6(b)(ii)===== | ||
Note in the {{2002ma}} there is no reference to {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} (or for that matter {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}}, which did not exist under the {{1992ma}} but tends to treated rather like a special case of {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and therefore, we think, ''would'' have been included in this provision of the {{1992ma}} if it had existed ... if you see what I mean). | Note in the {{2002ma}} there is no reference to {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} (or for that matter {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}}, which did not exist under the {{1992ma}} but tends to treated rather like a special case of {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and therefore, we think, ''would'' have been included in this provision of the {{1992ma}} if it had existed ... if you see what I mean). | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Otherwise, but for one consequential change — 1992’s “excluding” became 2002’s “other than” — I mean, you can just imagine the barney they must have had in the drafting committee for that one, can’t you — the provisions are identical. | Otherwise, but for one consequential change — 1992’s “excluding” became 2002’s “other than” — I mean, you can just imagine the barney they must have had in the drafting committee for that one, can’t you — the provisions are identical. | ||
====Section 6(b)(iii)==== | =====Section 6(b)(iii)===== | ||
Be careful here: Under the {{1992ma}}, if your {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}} is also an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} it is treated as an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}: if there are two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}} you will face a significant delay when closing out. A bit of a {{t|trick for young players}}. | Be careful here: Under the {{1992ma}}, if your {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay}} is also an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} it is treated as an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}: if there are two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}} you will face a significant delay when closing out. A bit of a {{t|trick for young players}}. | ||
Note also that reference to {{isdaprov|Illegality}} has been excised from the {{2002ma}} version. They changed this because, in practice, it turned out to too be hard to implement a transfer or amendment ''after'' an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}. Folks realised that if an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} happens you don’t want to have to wait 30 days to terminate, especially if you can’t rely on {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} to withhold payments in the meantime. | Note also that reference to {{isdaprov|Illegality}} has been excised from the {{2002ma}} version. They changed this because, in practice, it turned out to too be hard to implement a transfer or amendment ''after'' an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}. Folks realised that if an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} happens you don’t want to have to wait 30 days to terminate, especially if you can’t rely on {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} to withhold payments in the meantime. | ||
====Section 6(b)(iv)==== | =====Section 6(b)(iv)===== | ||
{{quote| | {{quote| | ||
Oh, this section {{isdaprov|6(b)(iv)}} stuff <br> | Oh, this section {{isdaprov|6(b)(iv)}} stuff <br> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:48, 6 September 2024
Between the 1987 ISDA and the 1992 ISDA the changes were very superficial, as this comparison demonstrates.
Between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA, there was a but more re-engineering, largely to account for the new Force Majeure Event and some tidying up, but beyond that Section {{{{{1}}}|6(b)}} works in the same general way under the 1992 ISDA and 2002 ISDA. Here is a comparison of that.
Section 6(b)(i)
Updated in 2002 with special pleadings relating to the newly-introduced Force Majeure Termination Event.
Section 6(b)(ii)
Note in the 2002 ISDA there is no reference to {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} (or for that matter Force Majeure, which did not exist under the 1992 ISDA but tends to treated rather like a special case of Illegality and therefore, we think, would have been included in this provision of the 1992 ISDA if it had existed ... if you see what I mean).
When the 2002 ISDA gets on to the topic of Illegality and Force Majeure it allows the {{{{{1}}}|Unaffected Party}} to cherry-pick which Affected Transactions it will terminate, but then seems almost immediately to regret it (see especially in Section 6(b)(iv)). Under the 1992 ISDA if you wanted to pull the trigger on any Termination Event, you had to pull all {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transaction}}s. Under the 2002 ISDA it is only binary for the credit- and tax-related {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s.
Otherwise, but for one consequential change — 1992’s “excluding” became 2002’s “other than” — I mean, you can just imagine the barney they must have had in the drafting committee for that one, can’t you — the provisions are identical.
Section 6(b)(iii)
Be careful here: Under the 1992 ISDA, if your Failure to Pay is also an Illegality it is treated as an Illegality: if there are two Affected Parties you will face a significant delay when closing out. A bit of a trick for young players.
Note also that reference to Illegality has been excised from the 2002 ISDA version. They changed this because, in practice, it turned out to too be hard to implement a transfer or amendment after an Illegality. Folks realised that if an Illegality happens you don’t want to have to wait 30 days to terminate, especially if you can’t rely on 2(a)(iii) to withhold payments in the meantime.
Section 6(b)(iv)
Oh, this section 6(b)(iv) stuff
Is sure stirring up some ghosts for me.
She said, “There’s one thing you gotta learn
Is not to be afraid of it.”
I said, “No, I like it, I like it, it’s good.”
She said, “You like it now —
But you’ll learn to love it later”
- — Robbie Robertson[1]
One’s right to terminate early following an Illegality or the newly introduced Force Majeure Termination Event get a proper makeover in the 2002 ISDA, but otherwise, the provisions are the same, but for some formal fiddling in the drafting.