Agreements - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{manual|MI|2002|4|Section|4|medium}} | ||
{{tocbuilder|ISDA|2002|4}} | {{tocbuilder|ISDA|2002|4}} | ||
{{Specified Information and Breach of Agreement}} | {{Specified Information and Breach of Agreement}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} |
Revision as of 10:15, 15 February 2020
2002 ISDA Master Agreement
Section 4 in a Nutshell™ Use at your own risk, campers!
Full text of Section 4
Related agreements and comparisons
|
Content and comparisons
Redlines
- 1987 ⇒ 1992: Redline of the ’92 vs. the ’87: comparison (and in reverse)
- 1992 ⇒ 2002: Redline of the ’02 vs. the ’92: comparison (and in reverse)
- 1987 ⇒ 2002: Redline of the ’92 vs. the ’87: comparison (and in reverse)
Discussion
The 1992 ISDA introduced a new 4(a)(iii) to cover such tax representations as are needed to allow Credit Support Providers to pay without withholding. Beyond that there were minimal changes between the versions, down to punctuation changes, though in Section 4(e) a clearer reference to offices and branches. So that is nice.
Summary
A hodge-podge of “state the bleeding obvious” rules, breach of some of which justifies (eventual) close-out as a “breach of agreement” — agreeing to provide the credit information you have patiently listed in your schedule, flagrantly breaking the law, carelessly losing one’s regulatory authorisations — and random tax provisions and indemnities (providing the necessary tax forms to minimise tax, and pay tax if you don’t).
These are the dull agreements — which by and large don’t justify close-out.
General discussion
See also
References
4 Agreements
4(a) Furnish Specified Information
4(b) Maintain Authorisations
4(c) Comply with Laws
4(d) Tax Agreement
4(e) Payment of Stamp Tax
Not providing documents for delivery is an Event of Default ... eventually
The importance of promptly sending required documents for delivery goes as follows:
- By dint of Section {{{{{1}}}|4(a)}} you agree to furnish each other {{{{{1}}}|Specified Information}} set out in {{{{{1}}}|Part 3}} of the {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}.
- By dint of Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(ii)}} if you don’t then that can be a {{{{{1}}}|Breach of Agreement}} {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} (Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(ii)}}). Be warned: you must pursue a tortured chain of nested double negatives and carefully parse the interplay between Sections {{{{{1}}}|4(a)}} and {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(ii)}} to grasp this, but it is true.
- But, Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(ii)}} imposes a thirty freaking day grace period following notice before a {{{{{1}}}|Breach of Agreement}} counts as an {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} allowing termination. (A {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} is excluded from that definition, by the way, because it has its own EOD with a much tighter grace period).
- So if you need a document “furnished” urgently and can’t wait a month for it (you might not, if you are a credit officer and it is a monthly NAV statement, for example) then you must upgrade a simple {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(ii)}} {{{{{1}}}|Breach of Agreement}} to a full-blown {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}.