Template:Isda 2(e) summ isdaprov: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "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 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, u..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Numbering confusion alert: the {{1992ma}} has a Section {{isda92prov|2(e)}}, dealing with {{isda92prov|Default Interest}} and other amounts payable by way of compensation for failing to pay or deliver (over and above your Section {{isdaprov|6}} close out rights). This Section was moved in the {{2002ma}} to Section {{isdaprov|9(h)}}. We know not why, but there is sure to have been a reason and it is water under the bridge now. | |||
So as a result there was not, and is not, a Section {{isdaprov|2(e)}} in the {{2002ma}}. | |||
=====“Condition End Date”===== | |||
''But there might have been.'' 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 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}}. | 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 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. | 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. | ||
Latest revision as of 11:08, 5 January 2024
Numbering confusion alert: the 1992 ISDA has a Section 2(e), dealing with Default Interest and other amounts payable by way of compensation for failing to pay or deliver (over and above your Section 6 close out rights). This Section was moved in the 2002 ISDA to Section 9(h). We know not why, but there is sure to have been a reason and it is water under the bridge now.
So as a result there was not, and is not, a Section 2(e) in the 2002 ISDA.
“Condition End Date”
But there might have been. 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.