Template:M summ 1992 ISDA 5(c): Difference between revisions

no edit summary
(Created page with "Compared with its Byzantine equivalent in section {{isdaprov|5(c)}} of the {{2002ma}} this is a Spartan cause indeed: in 1992 {{icds}} assumed all ISDA users would be cold, ra...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Compared with its Byzantine equivalent in section {{isdaprov|5(c)}} of the {{2002ma}} this is a Spartan cause indeed: in 1992 {{icds}} assumed all ISDA users would be cold, rational economists who instinctively appreciate the difference between [[causation]] and [[correlation]] — or hadn’t considered the virtual certainty that they might not be — and therefore did not spell it out, but we will: Section {{isda92prov|5(c)}} will help you out where your {{isda92prov|Event of Default}} is itself, and ''of'' itself, ''the'' {{isda92prov|Illegality}}, but it will not help where your {{isda92prov|Breach of Agreement}} simply is ''coincidental'' with one.
Compared with its Byzantine equivalent in section {{isdaprov|5(c)}} of the {{2002ma}} this is a Spartan cause indeed: in 1992 {{icds}} assumed all ISDA users would be cold, rational economists who instinctively appreciate the difference between [[causation]] and [[correlation]] — or hadn’t considered the virtual certainty that they might not be — and therefore did not spell it out, but we will: Section {{isda92prov|5(c)}} will help you out where your {{isda92prov|Event of Default}} is itself, and ''of'' itself, ''the'' {{isda92prov|Illegality}}, but it will not help where your {{isda92prov|Breach of Agreement}} simply is ''coincidental'' with one.
==={{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} upgrade===
==={{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} upgrade===
Note if you have retrofitted a {{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} clause (as is common amongst latter-day users of the {{1992ma}}) you will have quite the [[tedious]] job wiring the consequences of your new {{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} events into the existing close-out mechanics in the {{1992ma}} preprint, which doesn't contemplate [[force majeure]] but will have to.
Note if you have retrofitted a {{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} clause (as is common amongst latter-day users of the {{1992ma}}) you will have quite the [[tedious]] job wiring the consequences of your new {{isda92prov|Force Majeure}} events into the existing close-out mechanics in the {{1992ma}} preprint, which doesn’t contemplate [[force majeure]] but will have to. You could always use the [http://www.isda.org/2012illegalityprot/docs/ISDA_Protocol_-_Adoption_of_2002_Illegality_FM_provisions_Final.pdf ISDA Illegality and Force Majeure Protocol] for that, of course.