82,891
edits
Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(a)(ii): Difference between revisions
Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(a)(ii) (view source)
Revision as of 09:08, 13 April 2020
, 13 April 2020→{{isdaprov|Hierarchy of Events}}
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
All rendered in {{icds}}’s lovingly tortured prose, of course: note a [[double negative]] extragvaganza in {{isdaprov|5(a)(ii)}}(1): '''not''' complying with an obligation that is '''not''' (''[[inter alia]]'') a payment obligation if '''not''' remedied within a month. High five, team ISDA. | All rendered in {{icds}}’s lovingly tortured prose, of course: note a [[double negative]] extragvaganza in {{isdaprov|5(a)(ii)}}(1): '''not''' complying with an obligation that is '''not''' (''[[inter alia]]'') a payment obligation if '''not''' remedied within a month. High five, team ISDA. | ||
=== {{isdaprov|Hierarchy of Events}}=== | === {{isdaprov|Hierarchy of Events}}=== | ||
Note that a normal Section 5(a)(ii)(1) {{isdaprov|Breach of Agreement}} that also comprises a Section 5(b)(i) {{isdaprov| | Note that a normal Section 5(a)(ii)(1) {{isdaprov|Breach of Agreement}} that also comprises a Section 5(b)(i) {{isdaprov|Illegality}} or a Section 5(b)(ii) {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} will, courtesy of section {{isdaprov|5(c)}}, be treated as the latter, but a ''[[Repudiatory breach|repudiatory]]'' {{isdaprov|Breach of Agreement}} under section {{isdaprov|5(a)(ii)}}(2) willl not enjoy the same leniency. If you have repudiated your contract, the fact that there happens to be a concurrent {{isdaprov|Illegality}} — it is hard to see how a repudiatory breach could be an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} ''in itself'' — will not save you from the full enormity of section {{isdaprov|5(a)(ii)}} {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} style close out. | ||