Set-off - 1992 ISDA Provision

1992 ISDA Master Agreement A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ →Go Premium → 6(f) in the 2002 The JC’s Nutshell™ summary of this term has moved uptown to the subscription-only ninja tier. For the cost of ½ a weekly 🍺 you can get it here. Sign up at Substack. ISDA Text: 6(f) edit There is no Section 6(f) of the 1992 ISDA, but folks used to put in a provision into the schedule which goes something like this: “Set-off. Without affecting the provisions of the Agreement requiring the calculation of certain net payment amounts, all payments under this Agreement will be made without set-off or counterclaim; provided, however, that upon the designation of an Early Termination Date following an Event of Default, or a Termination Event under Section 5(b)(iv) or Section 5(b)(v), in addition to and not in limitation of any other right or remedy (including any right to set off, counterclaim, or otherwise withhold payment or any recourse to any Credit Support Document) under applicable law the Non-defaulting Party or non-Affected Party (in either case, “X”) may without prior notice to any person set off any sum or obligation (whether or not arising under this Agreement and whether matured or unmatured, whether or not contingent and irrespective of the currency, place of payment or booking office of the sum or obligation) owed by the Defaulting Party or Affected Party (in either case, “Y”) to X or any Affiliate of X against any sum or obligation (whether or not arising under this Agreement, whether matured or unmatured, whether or not contingent and irrespective of the currency, place of payment or booking office of the sum or obligation) owed by X or any Affiliate of X to Y and, for this purpose, may convert one currency into another at a market rate determined by X. If any sum or obligation is unascertained, X may ingood faith estimate that sum or obligation and set-off in respect of that estimate, subject to X or Y, as the case may be, accounting to the other party when such sum or obligation is ascertained. Nothing in this Agreement shall create or be deemed to create any charge under English law.” Related agreements and comparisons Related Agreements Click here for the text of Section 6(f) in the 2002 ISDA Comparisons Click to compare this section in the 1992 ISDA and 2002 ISDA., but be warned they are quite different. Resources and Navigation Resources Wikitext | Nutshell wikitext | 2002 ISDA wikitext | 2002 vs 1992 Showdown | 2006 ISDA Definitions | 2008 ISDA Navigation Preamble | 1 • (a) (b) (c) | 2 • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) | 3 • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) | 4 • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) | 5 • 5(a) Events of Default: 5(a)(i) Failure to Pay or Deliver 5(a)(ii) Breach of Agreement 5(a)(iii) Credit Support Default 5(a)(iv) Misrepresentation 5(a)(v) Default Under Specified Transaction 5(a)(vi) Cross Default 5(a)(vii) Bankruptcy 5(a)(viii) Merger Without Assumption 5(b) Termination Events: 5(b)(i) Illegality 5(b)(ii) Tax Event 5(b)(iii) Tax Event Upon Merger 5(b)(iv) Credit Event Upon Merger 5(b)(v) Additional Termination Event (c) | 6 • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) | 7 | 8 • (a) (b) (c) (d) | 9 • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) | 10 | 11 | 12 • (a) (b) | 13 • (a) (b) (c) (d) | 14 | Index: Click ᐅ to expand: 2002 ISDA 1992 ISDA

Overview

edit

The 1992 ISDA does not have a specific set-off provision, although it manages to define Set-off anyway.

ISDA published a suggested set-off provision in the 1992 User’s Guide but no-one liked it, and before long several home-made versions were percolating around the market. These often permitted set-off between the Innocent Party’s Affiliates and the non-performing party.

ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ got the hint and implemented a fully-fledged set-off provision based on this language into the 2002 ISDA — but not without a little boo-boo. As to which, read on —

Summary

edit

One does not exercise a set-off right willy nilly. Unless one is, mutually, settlement netting (where on a given day I owe you a sum, you owe me a sum, and we agree to settle by one of us paying the other the difference) set-off is a drastic remedy which will be seen as enemy action. You would not do it, without agreement, to any client you expected to keep. So, generally, use set-off as a remedy it only arises following an event of default.

A bit of a bish in the 2002 ISDA

Set-off in the 2002 ISDA borrows from the text used to build it into the 1992 ISDA but still contains a rather elementary fluff-up: it imagines a world like our own, but where the Early Termination Amount is payable one way, while all Other Amounts are only payable the other. Life, as any fule kno, is not always quite that convenient.

For example:

Payer owes Payee an Early Termination Amount of 10 Payee owes Payer Other Amounts of 50 Net: Payee owes Payer 40.

But what if there are Other Amounts payable the same way as the Early Termination Amount?

Payer owes Payee an Early Termination Amount of 10 Payer owes Payee Other Amounts of 40 Payee owes Payer Other Amounts of 50 Net: Payee owes Payer 40. Whoops: Payee is still owed 40 by Payer so is an unsecured creditor '

Not ideal. But fixable if you’re prepared to add some dramatically anal language:

6(f) Set-Off. Any Early Termination Amount (or any other amounts, whether or not arising under this Agreement, matured, contingent and irrespective of the currency, place of payment of booking of the obligation)” payable to one party (the “Payee”) by the other party (the “Payer”), ...

Premium content

Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics 👇

edit

• The JC’s famous Nutshell™ summary of this clause
• A red letter day for the ’Squad
• Scope of set-off
• Cross-affiliate set-off
• A critique of the standard cross-affiliate set-off wording
• Our suggestion for you to use at your own risk

See also

edit

• Set-off generally
• Settlement netting