|
|
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| One who is subject to a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(b)}} {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}, but not a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)}} {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} — thus one of a marginally less opprobrious character, seeing as {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s are generally not considered to be one’s ''fault'' as such, but just sad things that happen that no-one expected, or wanted, but bring what was once a beautiful relationship to an end. It’s not you, it’s — well, it’s not me either — it’s just that confounded [[Tax Event Upon Merger - ISDA Provision|tax event that occurred upon your recent merger]].
| | The {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} is the one who is subject to a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(b)}} {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}, as opposed to the perpetrator of a Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)}} {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} — thus one of a marginally less opprobrious character, seeing as {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s are generally not considered to be one’s ''fault'' as such, but just regrettable things that happen that no-one expected, or wanted, but bring what was once a beautiful relationship to an end. |
| | |
| | It’s not you, it’s — well, it’s not me either — it’s just that confounded [[Tax Event Upon Merger - ISDA Provision|tax event that occurred upon your recent merger]]. |
|
| |
|
| Note that, in its wisdom, {{icds}} chose not to have a generic term for the sort of person who is subject to ''either'' a {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} ''or'' an {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}}, so there is much “{{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} [[and/or]] {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}}, [[as the case may be]]” sort of malarkey. This depresses we prose stylists, but {{icds}} has ''never'' cared about us, so we should hardly be surprised. | | Note that, in its wisdom, {{icds}} chose not to have a generic term for the sort of person who is subject to ''either'' a {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} ''or'' an {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}}, so there is much “{{{{{1}}}|Defaulting Party}} [[and/or]] {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}}, [[as the case may be]]” sort of malarkey. This depresses we prose stylists, but {{icds}} has ''never'' cared about us, so we should hardly be surprised. |
|
| |
|
| ===One lump or two?===
| | {{Difference between Affected Party and Defaulting Party|{{{1}}}}} |
| And given its relentless quest for infinitesimal particularity — and accepting for a moment it is ''warranted''<ref>~''Grimaces''~ Right. Moment over.</ref> — perhaps {{icds}} has a point, for “{{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}}” appears in subtly different guises in each of the {{{{{1}}}|Termination Events}}. Sometimes there is one {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}}; sometimes there are two.
| |
| | |
| For all {{{{{1}}}|Termination Events}} except {{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}}, there is at least the theoretical potential that both parties could be affected: the same {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}}, can impede both parties’ performance, obviously enough; as can the same pandemic, plague of locusts or aquatic invastion be a {{{{{1}}}|Force Majeure}} for both. Likewise a {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}} — if both parties are in the same jurisdiction — even if they are not, come to think of it — and for the same reason {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event Upon Merger}} might stretch its clammy claws to impact even the innocent b bystander. But a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}} affects only the party being merged, and while {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}s are ''al fresco'', and therefore could ''potentially'' be affect both, in practice they tend to be heavily credit-focussed, and really should have been designated as “Additional Events of Default”.
| |
| | |
| ''Editorial comment'': had only {{icds}} thought to call {{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}} an {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} and not a {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}, much of this confusion might have been saved.
| |
| | |
| In any case, where there are two {{{{{1}}}|Affected Parties}} there is not a “victim” and a “perpetrator” as such, but you are in this odd new millennial world where everyone’s a victim, either party may trigger the {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}, both may estimate replacement prices on termination and they have to split the difference.
| |
| | |
| Where there is one {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}}, only the {{{{{1}}}|Unaffected Party}} can terminate, and it is responsible for obtaining the valuation.
| |