From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
|
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{isdacomparison}}
| | #redirect[[Termination Events - ISDA Provision]] |
| | |
| {{isdasnap|14 - Termination Event|14 - Termination Event}}
| |
| | |
| ==Be Careful==
| |
| '''Best Practice''' Note: Therefore adding any new Termination Event must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new "'''{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}} under Section 5(b)(v), and not a separate event under a new Section 5(b)(vi) etc. If, instead of being expressed as an “Additional Termination Event” under section 5(b)(v), which is how the ISDA Mechanism is intended to operate, it is set out as a new “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 “Termination Event” and none of the Termination provisions bite on it.
| |
| | |
| I mention this because we have seen it happen. You can take a "fair, large and liberal view" that what the parties intended was to create an ATE, but why suffer that anxiety?
| |
| | |
| {{Isdaanatomy}}
| |
| *{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}
| |
Latest revision as of 07:46, 23 August 2024