Relevant Jurisdiction - ISDA Provision

2002 ISDA Master Agreement A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™ Relevant Jurisdiction in a Nutshell™ The JC’s Nutshell™ summaries are moving to the subscription-only ninja tier. For the cost of ½ a weekly 🍺 you can get them here. Sign up at Substack. Relevant Jurisdiction in all its glory “Relevant Jurisdiction” means, with respect to a party, the jurisdictions (a) in which the party is incorporated, organised, managed and controlled or considered to have its seat, (b) where an Office through which the party is acting for purposes of this Agreement is located, (c) in which the party executes this Agreement and (d) in relation to any payment, from or through which such payment is made. edit Related agreements and comparisons Click here for the text of Section Relevant Jurisdiction in the 1992 ISDA The two definitions are identical. Like properly identical. Resources and Navigation This provision in the 1992 Resources Wikitext | Nutshell wikitext | 1992 ISDA wikitext | 2002 vs 1992 Showdown | 2006 ISDA Definitions | 2008 ISDA | JC’s ISDA code project Navigation Preamble | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 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 • Termination Events: 5(b)(i) Illegality • 5(b)(ii) Force Majeure Event • 5(b)(iii) Tax Event • 5(b)(iv) Tax Event Upon Merger • 5(b)(v) Credit Event Upon Merger • 5(b)(vi) Additional Termination Event Index: Click ᐅ to expand: 2002 ISDA - Premium 1992 ISDA - Premium Premium version of this page

Overview

edit

Relevant Jurisdiction carries the same non-meaning in the 2002 ISDA as it did in the 1992 ISDA. Which is nice.

Summary

edit

Relevant Jurisdiction is a special artefact in the ISDA canon because, insofar as the ISDA Master Agreement proper is concerned, it is the only piece of text that falls definitively below the Biggs threshold. It isn’t used in the ISDA Master Agreement itself at all.

HOLD YOUR LETTERS, PEDANTS. Yes, it is true, it does feature in the printed form in the Part 2 Payer Representations. But these are, by their terms, voluntary, optional and malleable commercial terms, that the parties may strike out or adjust, leaving the Relevant Jurisdiction dangling there behind the ISDA’s woolly posterior, like a dag that may not be shorn. The irony! Relevant to what?! Nothing!

You might ask why this definition — which is tedious, sure, but hardly a backbreaker — couldn’t have been wrapped into the text of the actual representation in Part 2

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

edit

See also

edit

• Payer Tax Representations
• Biggs hoson