Breach of Agreement - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Breach of Agreement - ISDA Provision (view source)

Revision as of 13:58, 7 December 2018

497 bytes added , 7 December 2018

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 [[Double negative]] heaven in 5(a)(ii)(1): '''not''' complying with an obligation that is '''not''' (''[[inter alia]]'') a payment obligation if '''not''' remedied within a month.
-A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, except for (i) those failures who have their own special {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} (ie {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}}, under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}}) or those that relate to tax, and which mean the party not complying will just get clipped for tax it rather would not.
+A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, except for
+:(i) those failures who have their own special {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} (ie {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}}) or
+:(ii) those that relate to tax, and which mean the party not complying will just get clipped for tax it rather would not.
+==={{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} carve-out===
+Why is Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}} specifically carved out?  No good reason other than general [[ISDA]] neurosis/delight in over-communicating. Yes, it has its own separate {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, with a much tighter timeline, so in practice one would never realistically trigger a [[failure to pay]] as a {{isdaprov|5(a)(ii)}} event, but it is still a bit fussy carving it out.
+ISDA{{tm}}. Never knowingly outfussed.{{tm}}
 ===It is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} not to supply {{isdaprov|documents for delivery}}===