|
|
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{isdaanat|5(b)(vi)}} | | {{newisdamanual|Additional Termination Event}} |
| {{ISDAnumberingdiscrepancy}}
| |
| | |
| Any other termination event your Credit department might have dreamt up that didn’t occur to the framers of the {{isdama}} — or, at any rate, wasn’t sufficiently universal to warrant being included in the master agreement for all. Common ones include:
| |
| | |
| *[[NAV trigger|NAV triggers]] (for [[Hedge fund|hedge funds]])
| |
| *[[Key man]] provisions (for [[Hedge fund|hedge funds]])
| |
| *[[Investment manager]] insolvency or loss of licence
| |
| *Parent divestment (where counterparty is a financing subsidiary)
| |
| | |
| The ATEs are likely to be the most haggled-over part of your {{isdama}}.
| |
| | |
| There is a school of thought that this serves the interests of the [[Negotiator|Ancient Guild of Contract Negotiators]] and the [[Credit officer|Worshipful Company of Credit Officers]] more than it does the shareholders of the institutions for whom these people ply their trade, for in these days of [[Threshold - CSA Provision|zero-threshold]] [[CSA|CSAs]], the real credit protections in the ISDA are the standard {{isdaprov|Events of Default}} (especially {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} and {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}}),
| |
| | |
| ==={{t|Trick for 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)(vi)}}<ref>Or {{isdaprov|5(b)(v)}} under the {{1992ma}}</ref>, and not a separate event under a new Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(vii)}}<ref>Or a nonexistent {{isdaprov|5(b)(vi)}}, if under the {{1992ma}}</ref> 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}}” ''nor'' an “{{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?
| |
| {{ref}}
| |