|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{manual|MI|1992|Second Method|Definition of|None|medium}} | | {{manual|MI|1992|6(e)|Definition of|None|medium}} |
|
1992 ISDA Master Agreement
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™
Resources and navigation
Definition of 6(e) in a Nutshell™
Use at your own risk, campers!
Full text of Definition of 6(e)
6(e) Payments on Early Termination. If an Early Termination Date occurs, the following provisions shall apply based on the parties’ election in the Schedule of a payment measure, either “ Market Quotation” or “ Loss”, and a payment method, either the “ First Method” or the “ Second Method”. If the parties fail to designate a payment measure or payment method in the Schedule, it will be deemed that “ Market Quotation” or the “ Second Method”, as the case may be, shall apply. The amount, if any, payable in respect of an Early Termination Date and determined pursuant to this Section will be subject to any Set-off.
6(e)(i) Events of Default. If the Early Termination Date results from an Event of Default: —
- (1) First Method and Market Quotation. If the First Method and Market Quotation apply, the Defaulting Party will pay to the Non-defaulting Party the excess, if a positive number, of (A) the sum of the Settlement Amount (determined by the Non-defaulting Party) in respect of the Terminated Transactions and the Termination Currency Equivalent of the Unpaid Amounts owing to the Non-defaulting Party over (B) the Termination Currency Equivalent of the Unpaid Amounts owing to the Defaulting Party.
- (2) First Method and Loss. If the First Method and Loss apply, the Defaulting Party will pay to the Non-defaulting Party, if a positive number, the Non-defaulting Party’s Loss in respect of this Agreement.
- (3) Second Method and Market Quotation. If the Second Method and Market Quotation apply, an amount will be payable equal to (A) the sum of the Settlement Amount (determined by the Non-defaulting Party) in respect of the Terminated Transactions and the Termination Currency Equivalent of the Unpaid Amounts owing to the Non-defaulting Party less (B) the Termination Currency Equivalent of the Unpaid Amounts owing to the Defaulting Party. If that amount is a positive number, the Defaulting Party will pay it to the Non-defaulting Party; if it is a negative number, the Non-defaulting Party will pay the absolute value of that amount to the Defaulting Party.
- (4) Second Method and Loss. If the Second Method and Loss apply, an amount will be payable equal to the Non-defaulting Party’s Loss in respect of this Agreement. If that amount is a positive number, the Defaulting Party will pay it to the Non-defaulting Party; if it is a negative number, the Non-defaulting Party will pay the absolute value of that amount to the Defaulting Party.
6(e)(ii) Termination Events. If the Early Termination Date results from a Termination Event: —
- (1) One Affected Party. If there is one Affected Party, the amount payable will be determined in accordance with Section 6(e)(i)(3), if Market Quotation applies, or Section 6(e)(i)(4), if Loss applies, except that, in either case, references to the Defaulting Party and to the Non-defaulting Party will be deemed to be references to the Affected Party and the party which is not the Affected Party, respectively, and, if Loss applies and fewer than all the Transactions are being terminated, Loss shall be calculated in respect of all Terminated Transactions.
- (2) Two Affected Parties. If there are two Affected Parties: —
- (A) if Market Quotation applies, each party will determine a Settlement Amount in respect of the Terminated Transactions, and an amount will be payable equal to (I) the sum of (a) one-half of the difference between the Settlement Amount of the party with the higher Settlement Amount (“X") and the Settlement Amount of the party with the lower Settlement Amount (“Y") and (b) the Termination Currency Equivalent of the Unpaid Amounts owing to X less (II) the Termination Currency Equivalent of the Unpaid Amounts owing to Y; and
- (B) if Loss applies, each party will determine its Loss in respect of this Agreement (or, if fewer than all the Transactions are being terminated, in respect of all Terminated Transactions) and an amount will be payable equal to one-half of the difference between the Loss of the party with the higher Loss (“X”) and the Loss of the party with the lower Loss (“Y”).
- If the amount payable is a positive number, Y will pay it to X; if it is a negative number, X will pay the absolute value of that amount to Y.
6(e)(iii) Adjustment for Bankruptcy. In circumstances where an Early Termination Date occurs because “Automatic Early Termination” applies in respect of a party, the amount determined under this Section 6(e) will be subject to such adjustments as are appropriate and permitted by law to reflect any payments or deliveries made by one party to the other under this Agreement (and retained by such other party) during the period from the relevant Early Termination Date to the date for payment determined under Section 6(d)(ii).
6(e)(iv) Pre-Estimate. The parties agree that if Market Quotation applies an amount recoverable under this Section 6(e) is a reasonable pre-estimate of loss and not a penalty. Such amount is payable for the loss of bargain and the loss of protection against future risks and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement neither party will be entitled to recover any additional damages as a consequence of such losses.
|
Related agreements and comparisons
|
Content and comparisons
Redlines
Discussion
The 1987 ISDA was half-cocked and shambolic, and laboured under the wishful illusion that if the other guy blew up, even if he was in the money, it was kind of okay to just flip him the bird and walk off with a windfall (in the form of not owing him the money you like, actually owed him). Not cool these days. Once folks realised this wouldn’t fly from a netting perspective they tried to fix it in the 1992 ISDA, whose close-out methodology is truly hideous.
ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ overhauled whole close-out process, soup to nuts, in the 2002 ISDA, and is now much more straightforward — as far as you could ever say that about ISDA’s crack drafting squad™’s output. But a large part of the fanbase — that part west of Cabo da Roca — sticks with the 1992 ISDA. Odd.
Differences, in very brief:
The 1992 ISDA has the infamous Market Quotation and Loss measures of value, and the perennially-ignored First Method and the more sensible Second Method means of evaluating the termination value of terminated Transactions. The 2002 ISDA has just the Close-out Amount to cover everything. So while the 1992 ISDA is far more elaborate and over-engineered, this is not to deny that the 2002 ISDA is elaborate or over-engineeered.
The 2002 ISDA has a new Section 6(e)(iv) dealing with Adjustment for Illegality or Force Majeure Event. This wasn’t needed in the 1992 ISDA, which didn’t have Force Majeure Event at all, and a less sophisticated Illegality.
Summary
Template:Isda 6(e)(i) summ
General discussion
Section 6(e)(i) Events of Default
Template:Isda 6(e)(i) summ
Section 6(e)(ii) Termination Events
Template:Isda 6(e)(ii) summ
Section 6(e)(iii) Adjustment for Bankruptcy
Template:Isda 6(e)(iii) summ
Section 6(e)(iv) Pre-Estimate
Template:Isda 6(e)(v) summ
See also
Template:M sa 1992 ISDA 6(e)
References