|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{manual|MI|2002|Unpaid Amounts|Section|Unpaid Amounts|medium}} | | {{manual|MI|2002|Unpaid Amounts|Section|Unpaid Amounts|medium}} |
| You may want to know where {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}} feature in the {{isdama}}. The answer: In {{isdaprov|Payments on Early Termination}}: Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}} (for {{isdaprov|Events of Default}}) and {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}} (for {{isdaprov|Termination Events}}) and {{isdaprov|6(e)(iv)}} ({{isdaprov|Adjustment for Illegality or Force Majeure Event}}).
| |
|
| |
| Spoddy point for old-fashioned {{1992ma}} hipster types: if “{{isdaprov|Loss}}” is your chosen means of close-out valuation, the concept of {{isdaprov|Unpaid Amounts}} is more or less factored into the definition of {{isdaprov|Loss}}:
| |
|
| |
| :''{{isdaprov|Loss}} includes losses and costs (or gains) in respect of any payment or delivery required to have been made (assuming satisfaction of each applicable condition precedent) on or before the relevant Early Termination Date and not made, except, so as to avoid duplication, if Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}}(1) or (3) or {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}}(2)(A) applies...''<ref>There is a magnificent piece of ISDA discombobulation here: Section {{isdaprov|6(e)(i)}}(1) and (3), and {{isdaprov|6(e)(ii)}}(2)(A), all deal exclusively with agreements where {{isdaprov|Market Quotation}}, and not {{isdaprov|Loss}}, applies. So there is, in fact, ''no'' risk of duplication, since the definition of {{isdaprov|Loss}} is entirely irrelevant to these parts of the agreement.</ref>
| |
|
| |
| This is why the drafting of the {{csaprov|Default}} provision (paragraph {{csaprov|6}}) of the {{csa}} is as tortuous as it is. If you were wondering.
| |
| {{ref}}
| |