General Conditions - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

''See also a wider discussion of proposed changes at {{isdaprov|Section 2(a)(iii)}}''

The provisions are the same in both versions of the {{isdama}}

Section 2(a)(iii) of the {{isdama}} was considered in the [[Metavante]] litigation, which has led to more or less the opposite conclusion to the court in [[Enron v TXU]].

3. Faux J indicated in his judgment that the obligations of the non-defaulting party under the [[ISDA]] never come into existence if the condition precedent is not satisfied on the relevant payment date: i.e., the failure cannot be cured and the obligations cannot come into existence on a future date if the CP is subsequently satisfied. That view is controversial and was expressed obiter dicta. The CA may not address it for that latter reason.  

*[http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/09/30/74606/lehman-metavante-and-the-isda-master-agreement/ Lehman, Metavante and the ISDA Master Agreement - FT Alphaville]