|
|
| (20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{ISDAnumberingdiscrepancy}} | | {{newisdamanual|Additional Termination Event}} |
| | |
| {{isdasnap2|5(b)(v)|5(b)(vi)}}
| |
| | |
| ==Tricks 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, instead of being expressed as an “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}” under section {{isdaprov|5(b)(v)}}, which is how the ISDA Mechanism is intended to operate, it is set out as a new “{{isdaprov|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 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?
| |
| | |
| {{isdaanatomy}}
| |