Breach of Agreement - 1987 ISDA Provision

1987 ISDA Interest Rate and Currency Exchange Agreement

A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™

Overview — Summary — Premium — See also — Wikitext

Crosscheck:
→’87 equivalent
→’92 equivalent
→’02 equivalent

5(a)(ii) in a Nutshell™

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. You can even ask questions! Ask about it here.

Original text

5(a)(ii) Breach of Agreement. Failure by the party to comply with or perform any agreement or obligation (other than an obligation to pay any amount required to be paid by it under this Agreement or to give notice of a Termination Event or any agreement or obligation under Section 4(a)(i) or 4(d)) to be complied with or performed by the party in accordance with this Agreement if such failure is not remedied on or before the thirtieth day after notice of such failure is given to the party;

See ISDA Comparison for a comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.

The Varieties of ISDA Experience
Subject	2002 (wikitext)	1992 (wikitext)	1987 (wikitext)
Preamble	Pre	Pre	Pre
Interpretation	1	1	1
Obligns/Payment	2	2	2
Representations	3	3	3
Agreements	4	4	4
EODs & Term Events	5 Events of Default: FTPD • Breach • CSD • Misrep • DUST • Cross Default • Bankruptcy • MWA Termination Events: Illegality • FM • Tax Event • TEUM • CEUM • ATE	5 Events of Default: FTPD • Breach • CSD • Misrep • DUST • Cross Default • Bankruptcy • MWA Termination Events: Illegality • Tax Event • TEUM • CEUM • ATE	5 Events of Default: FTPD • Breach • CSD • Misrep • DUSS • Cross Default • Bankruptcy • MWA Termination Events: Illegality • Tax Event • TEUM • CEUM
Early Termination	6 Early Termination: ET right on EOD • ET right on TE • Effect of Designation • Calculations; Payment Date • Payments on ET • Set-off	6 Early Termination: ET right on EOD • ET right on TE • Effect of Designation • Calculations • Payments on ET • Set-off	6 Early Termination: ET right on EOD • ET right on TE • Effect of Designation • Calculations • Payments on ET
Transfer	7	7	7
Contractual Currency	8	8	8
Miscellaneous	9	9	9
Offices; Multibranch Parties	10	10	10
Expenses	11	11	11
Notices	12	12	12
Governing Law	13	13	13
Definitions	14	14	14
Schedule	Schedule	Schedule	Schedule
Termination Provisions	Part 1	Part 1	Part 1
Tax Representations	Part 2	Part 2	Part 2
Documents for Delivery	Part 3	Part 3	Part 3
Miscellaneous	Part 4	Part 4	Part 4
Other Provisions	Part 5	Part 5	Part 5

Resources and Navigation

Index: Click ᐅ to expand: ISDA

Comparisons

Redlines

1987 ⇒ 1992: Redline of the ’92 vs. the ’87: comparison (and in reverse)
1992 ⇒ 2002: Redline of the ’02 vs. the ’92: comparison (and in reverse)
1987 ⇒ 2002: Redline of the ’92 vs. the ’87: comparison (and in reverse)

Discussion

Note the addition of Repudiation of Agreement to the 2002 ISDA. Common law purists like the JC will grumble that you don’t really need to set out repudiation as a breach justifying termination of a contract, because that’s what it is by definition but stating the bleeding obvious has never stopped ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ before. Also, an interesting question: if you do feel the need to provide for what is in essence an evolving common law remedy, then, to the extent your draw that remedy inside the cope of the common law remedy — or the common law evolves some new different and remedy that no-one had thought of before — then what? Section 9(d) has you covered. Woo-hoo.

Basics

A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an Event of Default, except for those failures which already have their own special Event of Default (i.e., Failure to Pay or Deliver, under Section 5(a)(i)), those that relate to a pre-existing default (for example, default interest on unpaid amounts) and those that only bear on the “defaulting” party’s tax position, meaning that non-performance is punishment enough in itself (and does not affect the “non-defaulting” party) — that is, the non-compliant party will just get clipped for tax it could have avoided had it performed.

These are the boring breaches of agreement: those of a not immediately existential consequence to a derivative relationship (like Failure to Pay or Deliver, or a party’s outright Bankruptcy), which are not therefore hugely time critical, but which, if not promptly sorted out, justify shutting things down with extreme prejudice. Note that, while the 2002 truncates a bunch of other grace periods in the agreement (notably for a Failure to Pay or Deliver, and for discharging a Bankruptcy petition) it does not truncate the grace period for “boring” defaults, which stays at the glacially long 30 days.

All rendered in ISDA’s crack drafting squad™’s lovingly tortured prose, of course: note a double negative extragvaganza in 5(a)(ii)(1): not complying with an obligation that is not (inter alia) a payment obligation if not remedied within a month. High five, team ISDA.

Repudiation

New in the 2002 ISDA: repudiation of contract. Not actually breaching it, per se, but high-handedly saying that you are going to. In writing. Could you argue that by codifying that a repudiation must be in writing to count, in a counter-intuitive way this new clause dilutes the common law rules, rather than reinforcing them? A common law repudiation can, if clear enough, be oral, by conduct, body language, morse code, semaphore and so on,

So rather than empowering a Non-defaulting Party, the addition of a narrow definition of what counts as repudiation makes their avenue of redress that teeny bit narrower. Doubtful it has ever made a difference, but — well, they said that about LIBOR didn’t they.

Hierarchy of Events

Note that a normal Section 5(a)(ii)(1) Breach of Agreement that also amounts to a Section 5(b)(i) Illegality or a Section 5(b)(ii) Force Majeure Termination Event will, thanks to section 5(c), be treated as the latter, but a repudiatory Breach of Agreement under section 5(a)(ii)(2) willl not enjoy the same leniency. If you have repudiated your contract, the fact that there happens to be a concurrent Illegality — it is hard to see how a repudiatory breach could be an Illegality in itself — will not save you from the full enormity of section 5(a)(ii) Event of Default style close out.

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👇

JC’s “nutshell” summary of the clause
Background reading and long-form essays
Failure to Pay or Deliver carve-out
It is an Event of Default not to supply documents for delivery

References