Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(a)(vii): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "===ISDA’s is the market standard way of defining “bankruptcy”=== The ISDA {{isdaprov|bankruptcy}} definition is rarely a source of great controversy (except for the...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The ISDA {{isdaprov|bankruptcy}} definition is rarely a source of great controversy (except for the [[grace period]], which gets negotiated only through custom amongst ISDA [[negotiator]]s because, in its wisdom, {{icds}} thought fit to halve it from 30 days to 15 in the {{2002ma}}. | The ISDA {{isdaprov|bankruptcy}} definition is rarely a source of great controversy (except for the [[grace period]], which gets negotiated only through custom amongst ISDA [[negotiator]]s because, in its wisdom, {{icds}} thought fit to halve it from 30 days to 15 in the {{2002ma}}. | ||
So you have a sort of ''pas-de-deux'' between [[negotiator|negotiators]] where they argue about it for a while before getting tired, being shouted at by their [[Salespeople|business people]], and moving on to something more important to argue about, like {{isdaprov|Cross Default}}<ref>This, by the way, is an [[ISDA]] In-joke. In fact, {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} is pretty much pointless, a fact that every [[Mediocre lawyer|ISDA lawyer]] knows, but none will admit on the record.</ref>.) | So you have a sort of ''pas-de-deux'' between [[negotiator|negotiators]] where they argue about it for a while before getting tired, being shouted at by their [[Salespeople|business people]], and moving on to something more important to argue about, like {{isdaprov|Cross Default}}<ref>This, by the way, is an [[ISDA]] In-joke. In fact, {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} is pretty much pointless, a fact that every [[Mediocre lawyer|ISDA lawyer]] and [[credit officer]] knows, but none will admit on the record.</ref>.) | ||
Otherwise the ISDA ''{{isdaprov|bankruptcy}}'' clause is a much loved and well-used market standard and you often see it being op-opted into other trading agreements precisely because everyone knows it and no one really argues about it. | Otherwise, the ISDA ''{{isdaprov|bankruptcy}}'' clause is a much loved and well-used market standard and you often see it being op-opted into other trading agreements precisely because everyone knows it and no one really argues about it. | ||
Revision as of 16:54, 11 April 2020
ISDA’s is the market standard way of defining “bankruptcy”
The ISDA bankruptcy definition is rarely a source of great controversy (except for the grace period, which gets negotiated only through custom amongst ISDA negotiators because, in its wisdom, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ thought fit to halve it from 30 days to 15 in the 2002 ISDA.
So you have a sort of pas-de-deux between negotiators where they argue about it for a while before getting tired, being shouted at by their business people, and moving on to something more important to argue about, like Cross Default[1].)
Otherwise, the ISDA bankruptcy clause is a much loved and well-used market standard and you often see it being op-opted into other trading agreements precisely because everyone knows it and no one really argues about it.
- ↑ This, by the way, is an ISDA In-joke. In fact, Cross Default is pretty much pointless, a fact that every ISDA lawyer and credit officer knows, but none will admit on the record.