Template:Isda 2(e) summ isdaprov

Revision as of 11:00, 5 January 2024 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "There isn’t a Section {{isdaprov|2(e)}} in the {{2002ma}}, but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the global financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} was. The idea was to allow the victim of a 2(a)(iii) exercise — that is, the person in putative breach — to preempt the condition precedent, and say to the innocent party, “Well, u...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

There isn’t a Section 2(e) in the 2002 ISDA, but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the global financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section 2(a)(iii) was.

The idea was to allow the victim of a 2(a)(iii) exercise — that is, the person in putative breach — to preempt the condition precedent, and say to the innocent party, “Well, use it or lose it within 90 days” — the titular Condition End Date.

Well, the moment passed, but some have adopted this as a standard in their schedules — good sports, for the most part — but regulator angst has long since moved on, as did legal eagle appetite to amend swathes of standard contracts for a contingency no-one in their right mind would use, or for that matter can make head or tail of.