There are a handful (generous) of important authorities on the effects of suspending obligations under Section 2(a)(iii) of the isda Framework Contract under English law or New York law, and whether a defective asset provision is an “ipso facto clause” under US bankruptcy law or whether it violates the “anti-deprivation” principle under English law. These cases are as follows: the asset – a right to payment as part of the transaction – is “defective” in the sense that it is payable only if the conditions precedent for payment are met. In Lomas and Others against JFB Firth Rixson Inc and Others the English Court of Appeal has examined the effect of Section 2(a)(iii) of the Isda Framework Agreement, which provides that one party`s payment and delivery obligations are subject to a number of conditions precedent, including the condition precedent of the absence of a “delay event” and that it continues in respect of the other party. Section 2(a)(iii) is often referred to as a defective provision of the ISDA Framework Contract, since a party`s right to receive or receive delivery depends on compliance with Section 2(a)(iii). The Court of Appeal`s decision was welcomed by many derivatives market participants as it is consistent with the market opinion on the effects of the provision of erroneous assets in the ISDA Framework Contract in Section 2(a)(iii). A defective asset agreement provides that a cash deposit or other payment obligation is only (re)payable when certain specific events have occurred, usually the full repayment of all secured liabilities. The “asset” (i.e. the deposit/payment obligation) remains on the borrower`s balance sheet and is recognised as an asset, but is “defective” in the sense that the borrower is not entitled to the money that includes the deposit or payment obligation until the events indicated have occurred. A defective asset agreement is most often found in the security documents that create security on cash deposits, especially in the so-called “triple cocktail” document (see triple cocktail document below). You will most likely want to see the discussion on this wonderfully confusing topic under Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Framework Agreement. But see also the case of extended rights of pledge, where “guarantee rights are rarely outside the recognized categories of privileges, pledges, mortgages or charges and fall under a remaining category, purely contractual, sometimes classified as a transformation of the grantor`s property into a form of `defective asset`.
You will find in the article a detailed discussion of the reasons for a defective makeshift agreement: Defective asset: Tolley`s Company Law Service [C5014]. This Q&A explains what a defective asset agreement is and when defective asset agreements and rules can be used. Well, those days are over and bilateral zero-threshold margin agreements are now more or less mandatory, so it is difficult to see the justification for poor wealth provision. But we still have a fashionable threat from regulators around the world, after the crisis, to eradicate it, at one time or another in 2014. The most well-known defective asset clause is Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Framework Agreement. It got into slang in a simpler, more peaceful time, when two-sided, zero-threshold, high-margin daily CSA was a pretty fantastic show, and it was quite likely that a counterparty had a large uncovered mark-to-market responsibility that it didn`t want to fund just because the clot had collapsed at the other end of the contract. The conclusion of the contract would crystallize that liability, so that the erroneous disposition of the assets allowed this innocent guy to cease performing the contract instead of paying for his loss of mark-to-market. Following a default, a “defective assets” provision allows an innocent counterparty but out of the money of a derivatives or securities financing transaction to suspend the performance of its obligations without terminating the transaction, thereby crystallizing a market loss.
. . .