Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Termination Event: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Adding any new {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}” under Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(v)}},...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Adding any new {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}” under Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(v)}}, and not a separate event under a new Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(vi)}} etc. If, instead of being expressed as an “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”, which is how the ISDA Mechanism is intended to operate, it is set out as a new “5(b)(vi)” it is not designated therefore as any of an “{{isdaprov|Illegality}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” or “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”, so therefore, read literally, is not caught by the definition of “{{isdaprov|Termination Event}}” and none of the Termination provisions bite on it. | [[Termination Event - ISDA Provision|Adding]] any new {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}” under Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(v)}}, and not a separate event under a new Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(vi)}} etc. If, instead of being expressed as an “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”, which is how the ISDA Mechanism is intended to operate, it is set out as a new “5(b)(vi)” it is not designated therefore as any of an “{{isdaprov|Illegality}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” or “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”, so therefore, read literally, is not caught by the definition of “{{isdaprov|Termination Event}}” and none of the Termination provisions bite on it. | ||
I mention this because we have seen it happen. You can take a “fair, large and liberal view" that what the parties intended was to create an {{isdaprov|ATE}}, but why suffer that anxiety? | I mention this because we have seen it happen. You can take a “fair, large and liberal view" that what the parties intended was to create an {{isdaprov|ATE}}, but why suffer that anxiety? | ||
Revision as of 08:02, 27 September 2022
Adding any new Termination Event must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “Additional Termination Event” under Section 5(b)(v), and not a separate event under a new Section 5(b)(vi) etc. If, instead of being expressed as an “Additional Termination Event”, which is how the ISDA Mechanism is intended to operate, it is set out as a new “5(b)(vi)” it is not designated therefore as any of an “Illegality”, “Tax Event”, “Tax Event Upon Merger”, “Credit Event Upon Merger” or “Additional Termination Event”, so therefore, read literally, is not caught by the definition of “Termination Event” and none of the Termination provisions bite on it.
I mention this because we have seen it happen. You can take a “fair, large and liberal view" that what the parties intended was to create an ATE, but why suffer that anxiety?