Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 2(e): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[2(e) - ISDA Provision|There]] isn’t a Section {{isdaprov|2(e)}}, but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} was. | [[2(e) - ISDA Provision|There]] isn’t a Section {{isdaprov|2(e)}} in the {{2002ma}}, but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the [[global financial crisis]], which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} was. | ||
The idea was to allow the victim — | The idea was to allow the victim of a 2(a)(iii) exercise — that is, the person in putative breach — to preempt the condition precedent, and say to the innocent party, “Well, use it or lose it within 90 days” — the titular {{isdaprov|Condition End Date}}. | ||
Well, the moment passed, but | Well, the moment passed, but some have adopted this as a standard in their schedules — good sports, for the most part — but regulator angst has long since moved on, as did [[legal eagle]] appetite to amend swathes of standard contracts for a contingency no-one in their right mind would use, or for that matter can make head or tail of. | ||
Revision as of 10:57, 5 January 2024
There isn’t a Section 2(e) in the 2002 ISDA, but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the global financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section 2(a)(iii) was.
The idea was to allow the victim of a 2(a)(iii) exercise — that is, the person in putative breach — to preempt the condition precedent, and say to the innocent party, “Well, use it or lose it within 90 days” — the titular Condition End Date.
Well, the moment passed, but some have adopted this as a standard in their schedules — good sports, for the most part — but regulator angst has long since moved on, as did legal eagle appetite to amend swathes of standard contracts for a contingency no-one in their right mind would use, or for that matter can make head or tail of.