|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{isdacomparison}} | | {{isdacomparison}} |
| | |
| ==={{isdaprov|Illegality}} vs. {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} smackdown=== | | ==={{isdaprov|Illegality}} vs. {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}} smackdown=== |
| Under the {{2002ma}}, {{isdaprov|Illegality}} trumps {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}}. Given that {{isdaprov|Illegality}} is no longer subject to the "two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}}" delay on termination (as it was in the {{1992ma}}), this is significant.
| |
| ===2002 User Guide===
| |
| {{isdaprov|Illegality}}. Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(i)}} provides that a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} will occur if (after a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} is entered into and other than due to any action taken by a party or, if applicable, its {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}} or a breach by the party of its obligations under Section 4(b)) it becomes unlawful under any applicable law (i) for the {{isdaprov|Office}} through which a party makes and receives payments or deliveries with respect to such {{isdaprov|Transaction}} to make or receive a payment or 4 The two Tax-related {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s are addressed in Section IV below.
| |
|
| |
| 16 delivery under such {{isdaprov|Transaction}} or to comply with any material provision of the {{2002ma}} with respect to such {{isdaprov|Transaction}}; or (ii) for a party or its {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}} to perform under a {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} (whether to make or receive a payment or delivery or to comply with any other material provision of such {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}}). {{isdaprov|Illegality}}, like {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} (see Section II.F.3.b.below) but unlike other {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s, is anticipatory in that it may be triggered if it would be unlawful to make a payment or delivery or to comply on a day if the relevant payment, delivery or compliance were required on that day, even if no such payment, delivery or compliance is in fact required on that day. The party in respect of which the {{isdaprov|Illegality}} has occurred will be the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}} (although both parties could be Affected Parties depending on the circumstances).
| |
|
| |
| Where performance under a {{isdaprov|Transaction}} is concerned, note that, by focusing on the ability of a party’s {{isdaprov|Office}} through which it makes and receives payments or deliveries with respect to such {{isdaprov|Transaction}} to perform, an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} could still occur despite the fact that the party may be able to satisfy its obligations by making or receiving a payment or delivery through another of its {{isdaprov|Office}}s. In the {{1992ma}}, {{isdaprov|Illegality}} focused simply on the ability of “a party” to perform.
| |
|
| |
| Like a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}}, an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the {{2002ma}}. | | Like a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}}, an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} may only be triggered after exhausting the fallbacks and remedies specified in the {{2002ma}}. |
|
| |
|
| The obligation of the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}} under the {{1992ma}} to use all reasonable efforts to transfer Affected {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s in order to avoid the occurrence of the {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} is not included in the {{2002ma}}. Deferral of payments and deliveries after an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} occurs is discussed in Section II.F.3.b.1. below.
| | Under the {{2002ma}}, {{isdaprov|Illegality}} trumps {{isdaprov|Force Majeure}}. Given that {{isdaprov|Illegality}} is no longer subject to the "two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}}" delay on termination (as it was in the {{1992ma}}), this is significant. |