Section 2(a)(iii) - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{isdaanat|2(a)(iii)}} | ||
The world-famous [[flawed asset]] provision in the {{isdama}} | The world-famous [[flawed asset]] provision in the {{isdama}} | ||
===Draft ISDA Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} Protocol=== | ===Draft ISDA Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} Protocol=== | ||
Line 31: | Line 27: | ||
{{isdaquote|{{ISDA Master Agreement 2002 9(c) Protocol}}|2(a)(iii)|2002}} | {{isdaquote|{{ISDA Master Agreement 2002 9(c) Protocol}}|2(a)(iii)|2002}} | ||
===Amendment to Section 2(e) of the {{1992ma}} only === | ===Amendment to Section {{isdaprov|2(e)}} of the {{1992ma}} only === | ||
{{box| | {{box| | ||
{{isdaquote|{{ISDA Master Agreement 1992 2(e) Protocol}}|2(e)|1992}} | {{isdaquote|{{ISDA Master Agreement 1992 2(e) Protocol}}|2(e)|1992}} |
Revision as of 17:38, 20 June 2019
ISDA Anatomy™
view template
view template
|
The world-famous flawed asset provision in the ISDA Master Agreement
Draft ISDA Section 2(a)(iii) Protocol
These amendments are being led by ISDA and are likely to take effect by protocol. These changes are separate to the ones being contemplated under DFA.
The revised text looks to address 4 concerns (each arising from English case law):
- Time Limit: Will now be triggered by the Defaulting Partyserving notice on the Non-defaulting Party. Bank of England, FSA and Fed all keen for the period to be short (UK had suggested 1 month).
- Gross/net issue: (per Lomas v Firth Rixson and Marine Trade v Pioneer)
- Due date expiry issue: (per Marine Trade v Pioneer)
- Extinguishment issue: (per Lomas v Firth Rixson) and
- "Terminated Transaction" issue (per Cosco).
Still, the revised language raises a few concerns:
- Incurable Events of Default: ISDA was looking to apply the time restriction only to "incurable" Events of Default. Not sure the list was sufficiently comprehensive to achieve that. Others have suggested to limit it to Bankruptcy. Anyway, none of that works under English law for capital reasons and so ISDA will be changing to apply the language to all Events of Default (FCA will require this).
- The language is problematic where, for example, a Defaulting Party informs the Non-defaulting Party of a Misrepresentation. Non-defaulting Party waives the misrep and then the "defaulter" experiences a Default Under Specified Transaction. Would leave a gap on the CP.
Original Text of Section 2(a)(iii)
The original language is in the panel above right. Innocuous looking, isn't it. But then the Protocol of the Elders of ISDA had a go at fixing Metavante concerns. Now look what they've done:
Modified Text as per ISDA draft protocol
Section 2(a)(iii)
2002 ISDA
Template:ISDA Master Agreement 2002 2(a)(iii) Protocol
(view template)
Restatement of Section 9(c) Survival of Obligations in entirety:
2002 ISDA
Template:ISDA Master Agreement 2002 9(c) Protocol
(view template)
Amendment to Section 2(e) of the 1992 ISDA only
1992 ISDA
Template:ISDA Master Agreement 1992 2(e) Protocol
(view template)
NB there isn't a Section 2(e) in 2002 ISDA Master - this amendment is purely to bring the 1992 ISDA in line with the 2002 provision on Interest and Compensation.
ISDA Anatomy™
|
Additional Definitions in Section 14
2002 ISDA
Template:ISDA Master Agreement 2002 Condition End Date Definition Protocol
(view template)