Two Affected Parties - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

Two Affected Parties - ISDA Provision (view source)

1,106 bytes removed , 28 June 2023

no edit summary

82,259

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{isdasnap|6(b)(iii)}}
+{{isdamanual|6(b)(iii)}}
-{{becareful}}
-Exercise Caution here: Under the {{1992ma}} version, if your {{isdaprov|Failure To Pay}} also amounts to an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} it is deemed to be an Illegality, and if there are two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}} there is a signficant delay in your ability to close out.
-==Differences between {{1992ma}} and {{2002ma}}==
-Note also that reference to Illegality has been excised from the {{2002ma}} version.
-Per the inextimable Vicky Fox:
-Per Mr Firth’s bible, it was changed because it was found to be difficult in practice to implement a transfer or amendment after an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}.  Also, it could be that people realised that if an Illegality occurred you don’t want to have to wait 30 days to terminate, especially since you cannot rely on 2(a)(iii) to withhold payments in the meantime.
-This was raised at the last {{ISDA}} meeting which Helen and I attended: {{A&O}} pointed out that there was a template amendment agreement to change the {{1992ma}} Illegality definition into the {{2002ma}} (if you don’t want to use the 2002 to start with).
-{{isdaanatomy}}