|
|
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| In which the [[JC]] thinks he might have found a ''bona fide'' use for the awful legalism “[[and/or]]”. Crikey.
| | {{isda 5(c) summ|isdaprov}} |
| | |
| What to do if the same thing counts as an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} ''[[and/or]]'' a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} ''[[and]]'' an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} ''[[and/or]]'' a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}.
| |
| | |
| Why do we need this? Remember an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} is an apocalyptic disaster scenario which blows your whole agreement up with extreme prejudice; a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} is just “one of those things” which justifies termination, but may relate only to a single transaction: it isn’t something one needs necessarily to hang one’s head about.
| |
| | |
| A {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} is something that is so beyond one’s control or expectation that it shouldn’t count as an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} or even a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} ''at all''.
| |
| | |
| An {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} has more severe consequences for the [[counterparty]]. Well, the whole point about [[Force Majeure Event - ISDA Provision|force majeure]] is that it is meant to give you an excuse not to perform your agreement. An {{isdaprov|Illegality}} is only a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} (one can’t be criticised if they go and change the law on you, can one?).
| |