Illegality - ISDA Provision
|
2002 ISDA Master Agreement A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ 5(b)(i) in all its glory
Related agreements and comparisons
Resources and Navigation
|
Overview
As its clause numbering indicates, Illegality is a Section 5(b) Termination Event — being one of those irritating vicissitudes of life that are no-one’s fault but which mean things cannot go on, and not a Section 5(a) Event of Default, being those perfidious actions of one or other Party which bring matters to an end which, but for that behaviour, ought really to have been avoided.
Note also the impact of Illegality and Force Majeure on a party’s obligations to perform through another branch under Section 5(e), which in turn folds into the spectacular optional representation a party may make under 10(a) to state the blindingly obvious, namely that the law as to corporate legal personality is as is commonly understood by first year law students. Who knows — maybe it is different in emerging markets and former Communist states?
For the silent great majority of swap entities for whom it is not, the curious proposition arises: what is the legal, and contractual, consequence of electing not to state the blindingly obvious? Does that mean it is deemed not to be true?
Summary
Illegality vs. Force Majeure smackdown: Like a Force Majeure Event, an Illegality may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the 2002 ISDA.
Waiting period: There is a Waiting Period before you can terminate for Illegality the 2002 ISDA. Note the effect of section 6(b)(iv)(2) in the 2002 ISDA is to impose a Waiting Period of three Local Business Days before one acquires the right to terminate on account of an Illegality. There is no such waiting period in the 1992 ISDA.
Hierarchy of Events: Under the 2002 ISDA, Section 5(c) (Hierarchy of Events) intervenes to provide that (i) Illegality trumps Force Majeure and (ii) Illegality and Force Majeure both trump the Failure to Pay and Breach of Agreement Events of Default. Given that Illegality is no longer subject to the “two Affected Parties” delay on termination (as it was in the 1992 ISDA), this is significant.
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 👇
|
- The JC’s famous Nutshell™ summary of this clause
- Section 5(e): the head office and the branch
- Legal personality: the nature of head offices, branches and affiliates, and so on: a handy guide for when you can’t bring yourself to explain to the head of credit again why you don’t need a contract between two branches of the same entity.