82,927
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The revised text looks to address 4 concerns (each arising from English case law): | The revised text looks to address 4 concerns (each arising from English case law): | ||
*'''Time Limit''': Will now be triggered by the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}}serving notice on the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}. Bank of England, FSA and Fed all keen for the period to be short (UK had suggested 1 month). | |||
*'''Gross/net issue''': (per {{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}} and {{casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}}) | |||
*'''Due date expiry issue''': (per {{Casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}}) | |||
*'''Extinguishment issue''': (per {{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}}) and | |||
*"Terminated Transaction" issue (per [[Pioneer v Cosco (Case Note)|Cosco]]). | |||
Still, the revised language raises a few concerns: | Still, the revised language raises a few concerns: | ||
*'''Incurable {{isdaprov|Events of Default}}''': [[ISDA]] was looking to apply the time restriction only in respect of "incurable" {{isdaprov|Events of Default}}'''". Not actually sure the list was sufficiently comprehensive to achieve that. Others have suggested to limit to {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}}. Anyway, does not matter because none of that works under English law for capital reasons and so [[ISDA]] will be changing to apply the language to all {{isdaprov|Events of Default}} ([[FSA]] will require this). | |||
*The language is problematic where, for example, a {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} informs the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}} of a {{isdaprov|Misrepresentation}}. {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}} waives the misrep and then the "defaulter" experiences a {{isdaprov|Default Under Specified Transaction}}. Would leave a gap on the CP. | |||
==Original Text of Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}}== | ==Original Text of Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}}== |