While there is little wrong with increased selection, there is no obvious reason for the need for new agreements. Recent negotiations on the withdrawal agreement indicate that EU counterparties can continue to use the English courts and submit to their jurisdiction, even after the toughest Brexit. As one previous agency concluded, judicial cooperation and recognition are unlikely to have a significant impact. The community of law is not famous for its zeal to accept change and innovation. In addition, there are no case stories in France or Ireland regarding the ISDA`s master agreements, while the English trade agreement has been extensively tested, interpreted and clarified. London`s concentration of legal infrastructure and specialized knowledge is unlikely to recur in Europe in the near future. By recognising possible complications of Brexit for companies wishing to continue to act within the EU`s jurisdiction, ISDA has put in place French and Irish master`s agreements. Legal systems were chosen as representatives of common and civil systems; French for the Civil Code and Ireland as the largest common law system among the other 27 EU member states. Counterparties may submit to the jurisdiction of the French or Irish courts; As France and Ireland are still members of the EU/EEA, their judgments are automatically recognised and enforced throughout the region.
ISDA believes that “both legal conditions also support the feasibility of ISDA protocols, which allow for the effective and scalable change of several agreements between the member parties.” The intention of isDAAs is not to supplant English and New York rights, but to increase the choice of masteragres available so that companies can “trade in any agreement that best suits their needs.” “An English legal-master agreement will be no less valid in the EU after Brexit, regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations,” said Katherine Tew Darras, ISDA counsel. There will be good reasons for the EU and EEA counterparties to continue to use the English law agreement and there will be good reasons to use the French and Irish versions. It is about giving the market a choice and allowing counterparties to choose their needs best. A few weeks earlier, ISDA published a civil master contract, the ISDA Master Agreement; a common law Master Agreement, isda Master Agreement (Irish law); and their respective legal support opinions. This measure has taken into account the UK`s withdrawal from the European Union and should enable market participants to benefit from the automatic recognition and enforcement of EU court decisions. The counterparties also retain certain safeguards that apply only to agreements under EU/EEA law. For example, some EU national insolvency laws require contracts to be governed by EU and EEA law in order to be eligible for protection of safe ports in the event of bankruptcy. Any branch, institution or fund established in the Union and acting with documents of the English rule of law is confronted with these problems. These new framework contracts are therefore not used to document domestic transactions in the French and Irish markets. The new framework contracts will be contractual instruments designed to meet the needs of market users throughout the EU to document their transactions and relationships, even if no French party is involved.