Template:M comp disc 2002 ISDA 6(b)(iv): Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
Line 3: Line 3:
The additions for {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} in the {{2002ma}} afford spectacular insight into the paranoid mind of {{icds}}, and the sort of rabbit hole one can find oneself falling down if one tries to over-think disaster scenarios. The contingencies the new wording addresses — none of which really bear much resemblance to the commercial world — are as follows:
The additions for {{isdaprov|Illegality}} and {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} in the {{2002ma}} afford spectacular insight into the paranoid mind of {{icds}}, and the sort of rabbit hole one can find oneself falling down if one tries to over-think disaster scenarios. The contingencies the new wording addresses — none of which really bear much resemblance to the commercial world — are as follows:
*What happens if a party early terminates only some, but not all, {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s — which, sure, it is entitled to do but nonetheless, in most cases, would be a [[dick move]]: here the terminating party must give two extra {{isdaprov|Local Business Day}}s’ notice over what it would have to give if it were terminating all {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s, to allow the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}} to respond to the notice closing out the remaining {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s.
*What happens if a party early terminates only some, but not all, {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s — which, sure, it is entitled to do but nonetheless, in most cases, would be a [[dick move]]: here the terminating party must give two extra {{isdaprov|Local Business Day}}s’ notice over what it would have to give if it were terminating all {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s, to allow the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}} to respond to the notice closing out the remaining {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s.
*Being clear that where an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} or {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} relates to a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}, only the beneficiary<ref> that is, the counterparty.</ref> of the afforded by that {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} can call for early termination. This stands to reason since the guaranteed party does not itself suffer any loss as a result of the failure of that credit support document, so should not be entitled to use it as an excuse to terminate Transactions (well — not unless and until that beneficiary has been a dick as contemplated above and terminated only ''some'' of the {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s. At this point, all bets are off.
*Being clear that where an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} or {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} relates to a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}, only the beneficiary<ref> That is, the counterparty to the person whose {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} is suddenly illegal.</ref> of the afforded by that {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} can call for early termination. This stands to reason since the guaranteed party does not itself suffer any loss as a result of the failure of that credit support document, so should not be entitled to use it as an excuse to terminate Transactions (well — not unless and until that beneficiary has been a dick as contemplated above and terminated only ''some'' of the {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s. At this point, all bets are off.

Revision as of 16:40, 12 April 2020

Oh, this section 6(b)(iv) stuff
Is sure stirring up some ghosts for me.
She said, “There’s one thing you gotta learn
Is not to be afraid of it.”
I said, “No, I like it, I like it, it’s good.”
She said, “You like it now —
But you’ll learn to love it later”

— Robbie Robertson[1]

One’s right to terminate early following an Illegality or the newly introduced Force Majeure Termination Event get a proper makeover in the 2002 ISDA, but otherwise, the provisions are the same, but for some formal fiddling in the drafting.

The additions for Illegality and Force Majeure in the 2002 ISDA afford spectacular insight into the paranoid mind of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™, and the sort of rabbit hole one can find oneself falling down if one tries to over-think disaster scenarios. The contingencies the new wording addresses — none of which really bear much resemblance to the commercial world — are as follows:

  • What happens if a party early terminates only some, but not all, Affected Transactions — which, sure, it is entitled to do but nonetheless, in most cases, would be a dick move: here the terminating party must give two extra Local Business Days’ notice over what it would have to give if it were terminating all Affected Transactions, to allow the Affected Party to respond to the notice closing out the remaining Affected Transactions.
  • Being clear that where an Illegality or Force Majeure relates to a Credit Support Document, only the beneficiary[2] of the afforded by that Credit Support Document can call for early termination. This stands to reason since the guaranteed party does not itself suffer any loss as a result of the failure of that credit support document, so should not be entitled to use it as an excuse to terminate Transactions (well — not unless and until that beneficiary has been a dick as contemplated above and terminated only some of the Affected Transactions. At this point, all bets are off.
  1. Okay he didn’t say the bit about Section 6(b)(iv)
  2. That is, the counterparty to the person whose Credit Support Document is suddenly illegal.