Template:Isda 6(b)(ii) comp: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Note in the {{2002ma}} there is no reference to {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} (or for that matter {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}}, which did not exist under the {{1992ma}} but tends to treated rather like a special case of {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and therefore, we think, ''would'' have been included in this provision of the {{1992ma}} if it had existed ... if you see what I mean). | Note in the {{2002ma}} there is no reference to {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} (or for that matter {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}}, which did not exist under the {{1992ma}} but tends to treated rather like a special case of {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and therefore, we think, ''would'' have been included in this provision of the {{1992ma}} if it had existed ... if you see what I mean). | ||
When the {{2002ma}} gets on to the topic of {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} it allows the {{{{{1}}}|Unaffected Party}} to [[cherry-pick]] which {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s it will terminate, but then seems almost immediately to regret it (see especially in Section {{isdaprov|6(b)(iv)}}). Under the {{1992ma}} if you wanted to pull the trigger on any {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}, you had to pull ''all'' {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transaction}}s. Under the {{2002ma}} it is only binary for the credit- and tax-related {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s. | |||
Otherwise, but for one consequential change — 1992’s “excluding” became 2002’s “other than” — I mean, you can just imagine the barney they must have had in the drafting committee for that one, can’t you — the provisions are identical. | Otherwise, but for one consequential change — 1992’s “excluding” became 2002’s “other than” — I mean, you can just imagine the barney they must have had in the drafting committee for that one, can’t you — the provisions are identical. | ||
Latest revision as of 17:19, 12 April 2020
Note in the 2002 ISDA there is no reference to {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} (or for that matter Force Majeure, which did not exist under the 1992 ISDA but tends to treated rather like a special case of Illegality and therefore, we think, would have been included in this provision of the 1992 ISDA if it had existed ... if you see what I mean).
When the 2002 ISDA gets on to the topic of Illegality and Force Majeure it allows the {{{{{1}}}|Unaffected Party}} to cherry-pick which Affected Transactions it will terminate, but then seems almost immediately to regret it (see especially in Section 6(b)(iv)). Under the 1992 ISDA if you wanted to pull the trigger on any Termination Event, you had to pull all {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transaction}}s. Under the 2002 ISDA it is only binary for the credit- and tax-related {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s.
Otherwise, but for one consequential change — 1992’s “excluding” became 2002’s “other than” — I mean, you can just imagine the barney they must have had in the drafting committee for that one, can’t you — the provisions are identical.