Subject: RE: 2001 ISDA Master Agreement Protocol
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 03:36:20 -0700 (PDT)

Hello Kimberly and Emily, 
I agree that the Euro provisions should be separated from the other group of proposed annexes to the protocol because the Euro subject matter relates to practical issues which must be addressed by the Jan. 1 deadline.  The majority of the other annexes relate to substantive and material changes to the way many existing provisions of the 1992 Master Agreement work (except for, among other things, the Force Majeure provisions which are mostly not addressed in the 1992 Master Agreement. . . . . a possible reason for separating the Force Majeure annex from the rest).  As far as the annexes which would make substantive changes to current provisions of the 1992 agreement, I understand from your email that ISDA is now proposing to role them into a "new" master agreement rather than issuing them in protocol form.  Would it not be a good litmus test to judge the acceptance by the ISDA membership (and otherwise) of each of the proposed annexes by issuing them in protocol form in order to see who and how many sign up for them?
Thank you. 
Best regards, 
Alec L. Cohen 
Documentation Manager & 
Legal Counsel 
Tel no. +44 20 7214-5320 
Fax no. +44 20 7214-5640 
Internet: [email-masked] 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Breda Walsh [mailto:[email-masked] ] 
Sent: 24 September 2001 22:10 
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; Angela 
Papesch; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; Chip Goodrich; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; Emily Jelich; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; Jane Carlin; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; Josh 
Cohn; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; Ken 
Kopelman; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; Marlisa Vinciguerra; 
[email-masked]'; Mark Taylor; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; Richard Metcalfe; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; Bob Mancini; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; Teruo Tanaka; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; 
[email-masked]' 
Cc: Kimberly Summe; Emily Jelich 
Subject: 2001 ISDA Master Agreement Protocol 
This email is to update you on the status of the 2001 ISDA Master Agreement 
Protocol (the "Protocol").  As part of the Protocol, there were four annexes 
that addressed the disappearance of the 12 national currency units on 
January 1, 2002 and the introduction of the euro.  These four annexes have 
been separated from the Protocol and published on our website on September 
24 as the 2001 Euro Protocol.  The adherence period for the 2001 Euro 
Protocol is September 24 to November 30, 2001.  It was important to move 
forward with the 2001 Euro Protocol, given the specific nature of the timing 
of the introduction of the euro. 
With respect to Annexes 1 through 8, we propose drafting a new ISDA Master 
Agreement rather than moving forward with a Protocol.  The continuing debate 
on the details of Annexes 1 to 8, the relevance of the Protocol for these 
provisions and the interest in moving forward with a new ISDA Master 
Agreement are some of the reasons for this recommendation.  An extraordinary 
amount of effort has gone into preparing the Protocol and will provide a 
strong basis for proceeding with a new ISDA Master Agreement.  Please let me 
know what your thoughts are on this suggested approach. 
With respect to Annex 9, the Force Majeure Annex, we propose posting a Form 
of Amendment and the Force Majeure provisions (as well as the Commentary) on 
our website.  This would allow firms to incorporate such language into their 
Master Agreements on the basis of bilateral negotiation.  Any views you may 
have in light of the events of September 11 would be welcome.  
Lastly, with respect to Annex 10, the Tax Protocol, our Tax Committee will 
be contacted on Tuesday to determine how to proceed with respect to those 
issues.  Any views on this issue would also be welcome. 
Please contact me as soon as possible to share your views.  I can be reached 
by email or by phone at 212-332-1203. 
Thank you in advance. 
Kimberly Summe 
General Counsel 
*************************************************************************
The information in this internet E-mail is confidential and is intended 
solely for the addressee. Access, copying or re-use of information in it 
by anyone else is unauthorized. Any views or opinions presented are 
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
Credit Lyonnais or any of its affiliates. The information contained herein
is recorded for business purposes and use of services is monitored to
protect both the company and its individual users. If you are not the 
intended recipient please contact [email-masked]
*************************************************************************