|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Double negative]] heaven 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.
| | {{isda 5(a)(ii) summ|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, except for
| |
| :(i) those failures who have their own special {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} (ie {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} under Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}}) or
| |
| :(ii) those that relate to tax, and which mean the party not complying will just get clipped for tax it rather would not.
| |
| | |
| ==={{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} carve-out===
| |
| Why is Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(i)}} specifically carved out? No good reason other than general [[ISDA]] neurosis/delight in over-communicating. Yes, it has its own separate {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, with a much tighter timeline, so in practice one would never realistically trigger a [[failure to pay]] as a {{isdaprov|5(a)(ii)}} event, but it is still a bit fussy carving it out.
| |
| | |
| ''[[ISDA]]{{tm}}. Never knowingly outfussed.{{tm}}''
| |
| ===It is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} not to supply {{isdaprov|documents for delivery}}===
| |
| A failure to {{isdaprov|Furnish Specified Information}} — ie those {{isdaprov|documents for delivery}} specified in {{isdaprov|Part 3}} of the {{isdama}}, adverted to in Section {{isdaprov|4(a)(ii)}} ''will'' therefore be an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, although you have to navigate a needlessly tortured string of clause cross references and [[double negative|double negatives]] to settle upon this conclusion.
| |