Two Affected Parties - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Two Affected Parties - ISDA Provision (view source)

766 bytes removed , 12 April 2020

Replaced content with "{{manual|MI|2002|6(b)(iii)|Section|6(b)(iii)|short}}"

82,283

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{isdaanat|6(b)(iii)}}
+{{manual|MI|2002|6(b)(iii)|Section|6(b)(iii)|short}}
-Be careful here: Under the {{1992ma}}, if your {{isdaprov|Failure To Pay}} is also an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} it is treated as an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}: if there are two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}} you will face a significant delay when closing out. A bit of a {{t|trick for young players}}.
-===Differences between {{1992ma}} and {{2002ma}}===
-Note also that reference to {{isdaprov|Illegality}} has been excised from the {{2002ma}} version.
-They changed this because in practice, it turned out to too be hard to implement a transfer or amendment after an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}.  Folks realised that if an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} happens you don’t want to have to wait 30 days to terminate, especially if you can’t rely on {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} to withhold payments in the meantime.