Breach of Agreement - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
A failure to {{isdaprov|Furnish Specified Information}} — ie those {{isdaprov|documents for delivery}} specified in {{isdaprov|Part 3}} of the {{isdama}}, adverted to in Section {{isdaprov|4(a)(ii)}} ''will'' therefore be an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, although you have to navigate a needlessly tortured string of clause cross references and [[double negative|double negatives]] to settle upon this conclusion. | A failure to {{isdaprov|Furnish Specified Information}} — ie those {{isdaprov|documents for delivery}} specified in {{isdaprov|Part 3}} of the {{isdama}}, adverted to in Section {{isdaprov|4(a)(ii)}} ''will'' therefore be an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, although you have to navigate a needlessly tortured string of clause cross references and [[double negative|double negatives]] to settle upon this conclusion. | ||
===Differences=== | ===Differences=== | ||
Note the addition of {{isdaprov|Repudiation of Agreement}} to the {{2002ma}}. You don't really need to define repudiation as a breach justifying termination of a contract, because ''[[ | Note the addition of {{isdaprov|Repudiation of Agreement}} to the {{2002ma}}. You don't really need to define repudiation as a breach justifying termination of a contract, because ''[[Repudiation|that’s what it is by definition]]'' but that has never stopped an [[ISDA]] drafting committee before. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{isdaprov|Furnish Specified Information}} and sub-limb {{isdaprov|4(a)(ii)}} (documents for delivery) ''but not'' {{isdaprov|4(a)(i)}} or {{isdaprov|4(a)(iii)}} (which relate to tax documents). | *{{isdaprov|Furnish Specified Information}} and sub-limb {{isdaprov|4(a)(ii)}} (documents for delivery) ''but not'' {{isdaprov|4(a)(i)}} or {{isdaprov|4(a)(iii)}} (which relate to tax documents). | ||
*Section {{isdaprov|3(d)}} representations. | *Section {{isdaprov|3(d)}} representations. |
Revision as of 09:15, 1 July 2019
ISDA Anatomy™
view template
view template
|
Double negative heaven in 5(a)(ii)(1): not complying with an obligation that is not (inter alia) a payment obligation if not remedied within a month.
A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an Event of Default, except for
- (i) those failures who have their own special Event of Default (ie Failure to Pay or Deliver under Section 5(a)(i)) or
- (ii) those that relate to tax, and which mean the party not complying will just get clipped for tax it rather would not.
Failure to Pay or Deliver carve-out
Why is Section 5(a)(i) specifically carved out? No good reason other than general ISDA neurosis/delight in over-communicating. Yes, it has its own separate Event of Default, with a much tighter timeline, so in practice one would never realistically trigger a failure to pay as a 5(a)(ii) event, but it is still a bit fussy carving it out.
ISDA™. Never knowingly outfussed.™
It is an Event of Default not to supply documents for delivery
A failure to Furnish Specified Information — ie those documents for delivery specified in Part 3 of the ISDA Master Agreement, adverted to in Section 4(a)(ii) will therefore be an Event of Default, although you have to navigate a needlessly tortured string of clause cross references and double negatives to settle upon this conclusion.
Differences
Note the addition of Repudiation of Agreement to the 2002 ISDA. You don't really need to define repudiation as a breach justifying termination of a contract, because that’s what it is by definition but that has never stopped an ISDA drafting committee before.
See also
- Furnish Specified Information and sub-limb 4(a)(ii) (documents for delivery) but not 4(a)(i) or 4(a)(iii) (which relate to tax documents).
- Section 3(d) representations.