Amendments - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
To be sure, most financial institutions have a military-industrial complex handling the negotiation of {{isdama}}s and other trading contracts, so a formal amendment is not likely to pass with copperplate script execution. But where the Agreement contains a manifest error, and the parties perform notwithstanding to the intended commercial bargain - who can say? | To be sure, most financial institutions have a military-industrial complex handling the negotiation of {{isdama}}s and other trading contracts, so a formal amendment is not likely to pass with copperplate script execution. But where the Agreement contains a manifest error, and the parties perform notwithstanding to the intended commercial bargain - who can say? | ||
And as for [[waiver|waivers]] — especially when your [[credit department]] is in the thrall of setting [[NAV trigger|NAV triggers]] it doesn’t monitor and isn’t likely to to exercise — | And as for [[waiver|waivers]] — especially when your [[credit department]] is in the thrall of setting [[NAV trigger|NAV triggers]] it doesn’t monitor and isn’t likely to to exercise — by the lights of this clause you ''must'' formally confirm them in writing, which is a profound waste of everyone’s time. | ||
'''Three''': Good luck reconciling the above with the {{isdaprov|Counterparts and Confirmations}} clause, which says, rightly, that the binding action on a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} is ''the moment the parties first agree it'' — that is, as likely as not, a phone call or Bloomberg chat, or in volume products, an electronic handshake between booking systems. Since a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} ''is'' a modification to the {{isdama}} the words above ring a bit hollow. | '''Three''': Good luck reconciling the above with the {{isdaprov|Counterparts and Confirmations}} clause, which says, rightly, that the binding action on a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} is ''the moment the parties first agree it'' — that is, as likely as not, a phone call or Bloomberg chat, or in volume products, an electronic handshake between booking systems. Since a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} ''is'' a modification to the {{isdama}} the words above ring a bit hollow. |
Revision as of 13:03, 8 August 2018
ISDA Anatomy™
|
Three lookouts here.
One: according to her majesty’s judiciary, email is not included and does not count as an electronic messaging system. Let your klaxons blare. It seems absurd at first glance — some would say it seems absurd having read the whole judgment in Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc — but there it is: that is the law of the land at the time of writing.
Two: This might not so much matter were it not for another spectacular outing for her majesty's judiciary[1], in which Lord Sumption decided that a “no oral modification” clause means what it says. Hitherto is has been assumed to be an easy give to pedantic lawyers who have nothing more constructive to say. Strictly interpreting a NOM clause probably makes sense if you are contemplating the eternal verities on the hard benches of a law library — or your judicial chambers — but it makes none if your job is to manage the cut and thrust of daily operational contract management.
To be sure, most financial institutions have a military-industrial complex handling the negotiation of ISDA Master Agreements and other trading contracts, so a formal amendment is not likely to pass with copperplate script execution. But where the Agreement contains a manifest error, and the parties perform notwithstanding to the intended commercial bargain - who can say?
And as for waivers — especially when your credit department is in the thrall of setting NAV triggers it doesn’t monitor and isn’t likely to to exercise — by the lights of this clause you must formally confirm them in writing, which is a profound waste of everyone’s time.
Three: Good luck reconciling the above with the Counterparts and Confirmations clause, which says, rightly, that the binding action on a Transaction is the moment the parties first agree it — that is, as likely as not, a phone call or Bloomberg chat, or in volume products, an electronic handshake between booking systems. Since a Transaction is a modification to the ISDA Master Agreement the words above ring a bit hollow.
See also
- Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc, on whether email is an electronic messaging system;
- Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited on whether one can orally amend a contract with a “no oral modification” clause
9 Miscellaneous
9(a) Entire Agreement
9(b) Amendments
9(c) Survival of Obligations
9(d) Remedies Cumulative
9(e) Counterparts and Confirmations
9(f) No Waiver of Rights
9(g) Headings
9(h) Interest and Compensation (2002 ISDA only)