Template:Isda bankruptcy comparison

Differences between 1992 ISDA and 2002 ISDA definitions of {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}}

There are two:

• Slightly more specific concept of insolvency: firstly, in limb 4 (insolvency proceedings) a new limb (A) has been included to cover action taken by an entity-specific regulator or supervisor (as opposed to a common or garden insolvency proceeding): If initiated by a regulator, the game’s up as soon as the action is taken. If initiated by a random, the action must have resulted in a winding-up order, or at least not have been discharged in 15 (not 30) days.
• Contracted grace period: The allowable period for dismissal of an insolvency petition (under {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(vii)}}(4)) or the exercise of security over assets (under {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(vii)}}(7)) is compressed from 30 days to 15 days. This, in aggregate over the whole global market, keeps many a negotiator in meaningful employment, and you will see many large organisations, whom you’d think would know better, amending these grace periods back to the 1992 ISDA standard of 30 days or better still, insisting on sticking with a 1992 ISDA, but upgrading every part of it to the 2002 ISDA except for the {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}} and {{{{{1}}}|Failure to Pay}} grace periods. This is a simply spectacular use of ostensibly limited resources.

Regional bankruptcy variations

The Germanic lands have peculiar ideas when it comes to bankruptcy — particularly as regards banks, so expect to see odd augmentations and tweaks to ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ standard language. Will these make any practical difference? Almost certainly not: it is hard to see any competent authority in Germany, Switzerland or Austria — storeyed nations all, in the long history of banking, after all — not understanding how to resolve a bank without blowing up its netting portfolio. Especially since Basel, where the netting regulations were formulated, is actually in Switzerland.

• Switzerland