Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(a)(viii): Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
Created page with "{{isda mwa capsule|isdaprov}}When a firm merges into, or is taken over by, another, some magical — or unexpected — things can happen. Not for nothing does the {{isdama}} l..."
 
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{isda mwa capsule|isdaprov}}When a firm merges into, or is taken over by, another, some magical — or unexpected — things can happen. Not for nothing does the {{isdama}} labour over the very description: that this might be a “[[consolidation]], [[amalgamation]], [[merger]], [[transfer]], [[reorganisation]], [[reincorporation]] or [[reconstitution]]” — prolix even by the lofty standardsof {{icds}} — should tell you something. Generations of corporate lawyers have forged whole careers — some never leaving the confines of their law practices for forty or more years — out of the manifold ways one can put companies together and take them apart again.
{{isda 5(a)(viii) summ|isdaprov}}
 
Your correspondent is not one of those people and has little more to say about mergers, except that what happens to live contracts at the time of such chicanery will depend a lot on just how the companies and their assets are being joined together or torn assunder.
 
If the {{isdama}} and its extant {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}} carry across — which, in a plain [[merger]], they ought to — all well and good - though watch out for traps: what if ''both'' merging companies have {{isda}}s with the same counterparty, but on markedly different terms? Which prevails? Do they both? Which one do you use for new {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s? This you will have to hammer out across the negotiating table.
 
But in some cases, {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}} might ''not'' carry across. Perhaps the resulting entity has no [[Ultra vires|power]] to transact swaps. Perhaps it is in a jurisdiction in which they — or ISDA’s sainted [[close-out netting]] provisions, about which so many tears and so much blood is annually spilled — cannot be enforced. Perhaps the new entity just refuses to honour them.
 
{{{{{1}}}|Merger Without Assumption}} addresses all of these contingencies.
 
This is the clause that would have been covered by Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(ii)}}(2) {{isdaprov|repudiation}}, ''had the resulting entity accepted the [[contract]] at all in the first place''. It can be triggered if the resulting party [[repudiate|repudiates]] ''any'' outstanding {{isdaprov|Transactions}} under the {{isdama}} (or otherwise they are not binding on it); or any {{isdaprov|Credit Support Document}} stops working as a result of the merger.

Latest revision as of 20:16, 26 December 2023

When a firm merges into, or is taken over by, another, some magical — or unexpected — things can happen. Not for nothing does the ISDA Master Agreement labour over the very description: that this might be a “consolidation, amalgamation, merger, transfer, reorganisation, reincorporation or reconstitution” — prolix even by the lofty standards of ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ — should tell you something. Generations of corporate lawyers have forged whole careers — some never leaving the confines of their law practices for forty or more years — out of the manifold ways one can put companies together and take them apart again.

Your correspondent is not one of those people and has little more to say about mergers, except that what happens to live contracts at the time of such chicanery will depend a lot on just how the companies and their assets are being joined together or torn assunder.

If the ISDA Master Agreement and its extant Transactions carry across — which, in a plain merger, they ought to — all well and good - though watch out for traps: what if both merging companies have ISDAs with the same counterparty, but on markedly different terms? Which prevails? Do they both? Which one do you use for new Transactions? This you will have to hammer out across the negotiating table.

But in some cases, Transactions might not carry across. Perhaps the resulting entity has no power to transact swaps. Perhaps it is in a jurisdiction in which they — or ISDA’s sainted close-out netting provisions, about which so many tears and so much blood is annually spilled — cannot be enforced. Perhaps the new entity just refuses to honour them.

Merger Without Assumption addresses all of these contingencies.

This is the clause that would have been covered by Section 5(a)(ii)(2) repudiation, had the resulting entity accepted the contract at all in the first place. It can be triggered if the resulting party repudiates any outstanding Transactions under the ISDA Master Agreement (or otherwise they are not binding on it); or any Credit Support Document stops working as a result of the merger.

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:M_summ_2002_ISDA_5(a)(viii)&oldid=81341"