Template:Isda 6(b) summ

There is a difference between {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s that are non-catastrophic, and usually {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}-specific, and those that are catastrophic, which are usually counterparty specific.

Non-catastrophic ones affecting just a subset of {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s might be caused by, say, a {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}} or a local {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}}, but in any weather do not concern the solvency, creditworthiness or basic mendacity of your counterparty. They generally won’t have much, directly, to do with your counterparty at all beyond the jurisdictions it inhabits and the laws it is subject to. These are generally the {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s, but not {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}s.

The catastrophic ones are by their nature affect — that is, “Affect” — all {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}}. These generally are the bespoke {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}s your credit department insisted on — or theirs did; they will have something to do with the naughtiness of lack of fibre of your counterparty (or you!), and these function for most respects a lot more like {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}}.

Thus, in the drafting of ISDA Schedules, CSAs and so on, you will often find laboured reference to {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}} and/or {{{{{1}}}|Termination Events}} which lead to {{{{{1}}}|Early Termination Date}}s with respect to all outstanding {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s as some kind of special, hyper-exciting, class of {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}.

Lucky premium content subscribers get a lot more discussion about the practical implications of all the above and a table comparing the events.

Section 6(b)(i)

Note the difficulty of practical compliance with this provision, given a sizeable ISDA portfolio, and the requirement for actively monitoring not only standard {{{{{1}}}|Termination Events}}, but also {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Events}}, which may be counterparty or even {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}-specific.

Be aware of the {{{{{1}}}|notices}} provision of the ISDA Master Agreement, especially if you’re using a 1992 ISDA and you were thinking of serving by email — NatWest Bank could tell you a thing or two about that, as this lengthy article explains — or if the world happens to be in the grip of madness, hysteria, pandemic or something equally improbable like an alien invasion.

Section 6(b)(ii)

Once the {{{{{1}}}|Waiting Period}} expires, it will be a {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} entitling either party to terminate some or all {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transactions}}. Partial termination is permitted because the impact on an event on each {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} may differ from case to case (eg transactions forming part of a structured finance deal like a repack or a CDO) might not be easily replaced, so the disadvantages of terminating may outweigh the advantages.

As far as branches are concerned this is relatively uncontroversial, especially if yours is a multi-branch ISDA Master Agreement. But there is an interesting philosophical question here, for, without an express pre-existing contractual right to do so, a party may not unilaterally transfer its obligations under a contract to someone else. That, being a novation, requires the other party’s consent. This is deep contractual lore, predating the First Men and even the Children of the Woods. So if the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} identifies an affiliate to whom it can transfer its rights and obligations, the {{{{{1}}}|Non-affected Party}} still may withhold consent. True, it is obliged to provide consent if its policies permit but — well — y’know. Polices? Given the credit department’s proclivities for the fantastical, it’s a fairly safe bet they’ll be able to find something if they don’t feel up to it.

That is to say, this commitment falls some wat short of the JC’s favourite confection: “in good faith and a commercially reasonable manner”.

Note also that if an {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Party}} does elect partial termination, the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} has the right to terminate some or all of the remaining {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}}: this prevents {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Parties}} being opportunistic. Heaven forfend.

Section 6(b)(iii)

Handwaving appeals to one another’s good natures with this talk of reasonableness and, of course, both parties will probably be incentivised to keep the trade on foot if some unfortunate tax eventuality comes about — seeing as they were incentivised enough to start it —but ultimately, this is an agreement to agree, however you dress it up, and is as contractually enforceable as one. That is, not very.

Section 6(b)(iv)

What a beast. If you track it through in Nutshell™ terms, it isn’t as bad as it looks, but you have the ISDA ninja’s gift for over-complication, and ISDA’s crack drafting squad™’s yen for dismal drafting, to thank for this being the trial it is.

To make it easier, we’ve invented some concepts and taken a few liberties:

“{{{{{1}}}|Unaffected Transaction}}”, which saves you all that mucking around saying “{{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s other than those that are, or are deemed, to be {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transaction}}s” and so on;

{{{{{1}}}|Termination Event Notice}}: An elegant and self-explanatory alternative to “after an {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} gives notice under Section {{{{{1}}}|6(b)(i)}}”.

We take it as logically true that you can’t give 20 days’ notice of something which you then say will happen in fewer than 20 days. Therefore, there is no need for all this “designate a day not earlier than the day such notice is effective” nonsense.

So with that all out the way, here is how it works. Keep in mind that, unlike {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}}, {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}s can arise through no fault of the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} and, therefore, are not always as apocalyptic in consequence. Depending what they are, they may be cured or worked-around, and dented {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s that can’t be panel-beaten back into shape may be surgically excised, allowing the remainder of the ISDA Master Agreement, and all {{{{{1}}}|Unaffected Transaction}}s under it, to carry on as normal. So here goes:

Divide up the types of Termination Event

Tax ones: If a {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}} or a {{{{{1}}}|TEUM}} where the party merging is the one that suffers the tax, the parties have a month to try to rearrange matters between them, their offices and affiliates to avoid the tax issue. Only once that has failed are you in {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} territory. See Section {{{{{1}}}|6(b)}}(ii) and {{{{{1}}}|6(b)(iii)}}.

{{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Party}} ones: If it’s a {{{{{1}}}|CEUM}}, an {{{{{1}}}|ATE}} or a {{{{{1}}}|TEUM}} where the {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Party}} suffers the tax, then if the other guy is a {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Party}}, then (whether or not you are) you may designate an {{{{{1}}}|Early Termination date}} for the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transactions}}.

{{{{{1}}}|Illegality}} and Force Majeure: Here, if you are on a 2002 ISDA, there may be a Waiting Period to sit through, to see whether the difficulty clears. For Force Majeure Event it is eight Local Business Days; for Illegality other than one preventing performance of a Credit Support Document: three Local Business Days. So, sit through it. Why is there exception for Illegality on a Credit Support Document? Because, even though it wasn’t your fault, illegality of a Credit Support Document profoundly changes your credit assessment (in a way that arguably, even a payment or delivery obligation doesn’t), and that is the most fundamental risk you are managing under the ISDA Master Agreement.