From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
|
| (16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{fullanat2|isda|5(b)(vi)|2002|5(b)(v)|1992}} | | {{newisdamanual|Additional Termination Event}} |
| {{ISDAnumberingdiscrepancy}}
| |
| ==={{t|Trick for the young players}}==
| |
| {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} is defined as “an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}, a {{isdaprov|Tax Event}} or a {{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}} or, if specified to be applicable, a {{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}} or an {{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”.
| |
| | |
| '''Best Practice Note''': Therefore 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, you try to make it into a new “{{isdaprov|5(b)(vii)}}” it is therefore ''neither'' an “{{isdaprov|Illegality}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” ''or'' “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”. Read literally, is will not be caught by the definition of “{{isdaprov|Termination Event}}” and none of the Termination provisions will bite on it.
| |
| | |
| I mention this because I have seen it happen. Yes,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 15:35, 31 December 2023