Two Affected Parties - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Two Affected Parties - ISDA Provision (view source)

14 bytes removed , 12 February 2013

82,253

edits

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Note also that reference to Illegality has been excised from the {{2002ma}} version.
-Per the inextimable Vicky Fox:
+Per Mr Firth’s bible, it was changed because it was found to be difficult in practice to implement a transfer or amendment after an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}.  Also, it could be that people realised that if an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} occurred you don’t want to have to wait 30 days to terminate, especially since you cannot rely on {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} to withhold payments in the mean time.
-Per Mr Firth’s bible, it was changed because it was found to be difficult in practice to implement a transfer or amendment after an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}.  Also, it could be that people realised that if an Illegality occurred you don’t want to have to wait 30 days to terminate, especially since you cannot rely on 2(a)(iii) to withhold payments in the meantime.
+This was raised at a recent last {{ISDA}} meeting: {{A&O}} pointed out that there was a template amendment agreement to change the {{1992ma}} {{isdaprov|Illegality}} definition into the {{2002ma}} (if you don’t want to use the 2002 to start with).
-This was raised at the last {{ISDA}} meeting which Helen and I attended: {{A&O}} pointed out that there was a template amendment agreement to change the {{1992ma}} Illegality definition into the {{2002ma}} (if you don’t want to use the 2002 to start with).
 {{isdaanatomy}}