It should also be remembered that if no decision is made regarding the ISDA calendar, some fallback solutions occur automatically and are usually not favorable to the buyer, since the PRE-printed ISDA form was developed to protect traders. The most important provision to mention in this context is the cross-default clause, which would only apply if selected in the isda calendar. This means, for example, that if your counterparty defaults on its debt obligations under loan agreements with other banks, banks that have signed ISDAs could terminate their transactions with your broker when you could not. Not applying a cross default is a counterparty default risk that you must consider. If the transaction collapses for any reason before ISDA is signed, you will be at the mercy of your counterparty with respect to the final calculations, the benchmarks it will use, the closing amount due, settlement schedules and other advertisements that it will decide in its sole discretion, moreover, you have no way to dispute any of their terms or calculations. It was totally cool, but for many years, the sober and sincere legal fraternity madly disapproved of this format, and it is now rejected and marginalized. It`s even included in our FWMD Top Trumps catalog. A long confirmation or “LFC” usually refers to the documentation of a financial transaction between two parties who have not (yet) signed a framework agreement for this type of transaction. Instead, they document the negotiation on a “long form” that assumes there is a basic version of the respective framework agreement between the parties for the purposes of the transaction. In addition, there is interesting case law on CFLs (see LSREF III Wight Limited v Millvalley Limited or Macquarie Bank Ltd v Graceland Industry Pte Ltd) that illustrates the potential problems you need to consider, including the human error committed by banks in restructuring the LFC business, poorly prepared LFC documentation, and the technically simple collapse of transactions before the completion of isDA. This leads to problems with the closure of the amounts. It should also be noted that the risk mitigation standards published by ISOCO (International Organization of Securities Commissions) in 2014 confirm that CFLs should only be used in exceptional circumstances and as one-off transactions.

According to IOSCO guidelines, agreeing on a framework agreement should always be the preferred option to the extent possible before transitions are completed. One last point, if the transaction for which you are considering a CFL has already been completed, then signing the CFL may be your best option – in this case, any documentation is better than nothing! Typical CFLs confirm the applicable law and jurisdiction as well as the currency of termination and the determination of the economic conditions of the transaction that will be carried out. You will therefore only allow two or three basic elections on several brands authorized by the isda schedule. There are some risks associated with this because you are effectively forgoing protections such as additional termination events, default events, financial benefits, calculation agent litigation rights, tax returns, payment measures and methods, to name a few. CFLs are used when parties wish to engage in derivatives trading, but have not yet executed an ISDA and are unable to do so within the required time frame. Instead, they usually agree to do their best to complete an ISDA as soon as possible, and until then, the ISDA form (which is essentially an ISDA without the negotiated schedule) is considered included in the LFC. In retrospect, a revolutionary idea whose time will return, we think. But for now, the isDA cottage industry complex manages to hold back common sense detractors, and we go through the pantomime to negotiate separately, which should be an absolutely standard market contract. In my opinion, there are at least four good reasons to argue in favor of an ISDA against a CFL: (i) it is easy to make other transactions (allow credit lines) if it already exists (LFC covers a one-time transaction), (ii) it covers a variety of different products (again, LFC is a specific trade); (iii) the isDA closure mechanism is proven and works in court; (iv) The concept of a single arrangement prevents liquidators from choosing elements of choice. For example, an ISDA-LFC contains by reference the UNATTACHED ISDA Framework Agreement which incorporates the provisions of the ISDA Framework Agreement regarding termination and closure, representations, etc.

.