Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 2(e): Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[[2(e) - ISDA Provision|There]] isn’t a Section {{isdaprov|2(e)}}, but there almost was, when ISDA went through a period of hand-wringing after the financial crisis, which revealed to the world how unsatisfactory the existing section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} was.
[[2(e) - ISDA Provision|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 — {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, however you want to call it — to preempt the condition precedent, and say, well use it or lose it within 90 days — the titular {{isdaprov|Condition End Date}}.
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 {{isdaprov|Condition End Date}}.


Well, the moment passed, but there are those who 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.
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.