Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[6(g) - ISDA Provision|There]] isn’t a Section 6(g), 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 2(a)(iii) was.
| | {{isda 2(e) summ|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| 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 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.
| |