|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[5(b)(i) - ISDA Provision|As]] its clause numbering indicates, {{isdaprov|Illegality}} is a Section {{isdaprov|5(b)}} {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} — being one of those irritating vicissitudes of life that are no-one’s fault but which mean things cannot go on, and not a Section {{isdaprov|5(a)}} {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, being those perfidious actions of one or other Party which bring matters to an end which, but for that behaviour, ought really to have been avoided.
| | {{isda 5(b)(i) comp|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| Note also the impact of {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} on a party’s obligations to perform through another branch under Section {{isdaprov|5(e)}}, which in turn folds into the spectacular optional representation a party may make under {{isdaprov|10(a)}} to state the blindingly obvious, namely that the law as to corporate legal personality is as is commonly understood by first year law students. Who knows — maybe it is different in emerging markets and former Communist states?
| |
| | |
| For the silent great majority of swap entities for whom it is not, the curious proposition arises: what is the legal, and contractual, consequence of electing not to state the blindingly obvious? Does that mean it is deemed not to be true?
| |