Template:Isda 5(b)(i) comp: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
(Created page with "Quite a lot of ''formal'' change to the definition of Illegality; not clear how much of it makes all that much practical difference. The {{2002ma}} requires you to give effect to remedies or fallbacks in the Confirmation that might take you out of Illegality before evoking this provision — which ought to go without saying — the relevant Confirmation or elsewhere in this Agreement. It also carves out Illegalities caused by the action of either Party, which also seem...")
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Quite a lot of ''formal'' change to the definition of Illegality; not clear how much of it makes all that much practical difference.  
'''{{{{{1}}}|Illegality}}''': Quite a lot of ''formal'' change to the definition of Illegality; not clear how much of it makes all that much practical difference. The {{2002ma}} requires you to give effect to remedies or fallbacks in the {{{{{1}}}|Confirmation}} that might take you out of {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} before evoking this provision — which ought to go without saying. It also carves out Illegalities caused by the action of either party, which also seems a bit fussy, and throws in some including-without-limitation stuff which, definitely is a bit fussy. Lastly, the {{2002ma}} clarifies that the party suffering the {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} is the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}}, and that an {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} applies to the non-''receipt'' of payments just as much as to their non-payment. Again, all this ought to have been true the {{1992ma}} — no doubt there is some whacky litigation that said otherwise — so this is mainly in the service of [[For the avoidance of doubt|avoiding doubt]].
 
The {{2002ma}} requires you to give effect to remedies or fallbacks in the Confirmation that might take you out of Illegality before evoking this provision — which ought to go without saying — the relevant Confirmation or elsewhere in this Agreement. It also carves out Illegalities caused by the action of either Party, which also seems a bit unnecessarily fussy, and throws in some without limitation stuff which, on a sensible reading, ought to have been included anyway. Lastly, the {{2002ma}} clarifies that the party suffering the {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} is the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}}, and that it can apply to the non-receipt of payments just as much as their non-payment.