|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| A failure to perform any agreement, if not cured within 30 days, is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, except for:
| | {{isda 5(a)(ii) summ|isdaprov}} |
| :(i) those failures which already have their own special {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} (i.e., {{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.
| |
| | |
| These are the ''boring'' breaches of agreement: those of a not immediately existential consequence to a derivative relationship (like {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}}, or a party’s outright {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}}) but which, if not [[promptly]] sorted out, justify shutting things down with extreme prejudice.
| |
| | |
| 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}}===
| |
| Note that a normal Section 5(a)(ii)(1) {{isdaprov|Breach of Agreement}} that also comprises a Section 5(b)(i) {{isdaprov|lllegality}} 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.
| |