Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(b)(v): Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
Created page with "Pay attention to the interplay between this section and Section {{isdaprov|7(a)}} ({{isdaprov|Transfer}}). You should not need to amend Section {{isdaprov|7(a)}} (for example..."
 
Replaced content with "{{isda Credit Event Upon Merger summ|isdaprov}}"
Tag: Replaced
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Pay attention to the interplay between this section and Section {{isdaprov|7(a)}} ({{isdaprov|Transfer}}). You should not need to amend Section {{isdaprov|7(a)}} (for example to require equivalence of credit quality of any transferee entity etc., because that is managed by {{isdaprov|CEUM}}.
{{isda Credit Event Upon Merger summ|isdaprov}}
 
Note also the interrelationship between [[CEUM]] and a {{isdaprov|Ratings Downgrade}} {{isdaprov|ATE}}, should there be one. One can be forgiven for feeling a little ambivalent about {{isdaprov|CEUM}} because it is either caught by {{isdaprov|Ratings Downgrade}} or, if there is no requirement for a general {{isdaprov|Ratings Downgrade}}, insisting on {{isdaprov|CEUM}} seems a bit arbitrary (i.e. why do you care about a downgrade ''as a result of a merger'', but not any ''other'' ratings downgrade?)
 
===[[Hedge fund]]s and [[CEUM]]===
Really, we are a [[hedge fund]], we’re not rated, we’re not going to be and we’re hardly going to merge, are we? and even if we did we wouldn’t do it in a way that disadvantaged existing investors. So must we really have a [[CEUM]]? We really must<ref>We really need not.</ref>, lest [[Chicken Licken|the sky fall in on our heads]]. For it is written: it is the [[credit officer’s refrain]].

Latest revision as of 21:55, 13 October 2023

Known among the cognoscenti as “CEUM”, the same way Tax Event Upon Merger is a “TEUM”. No idea how you pronounce it, but since ISDA ninjas communicate only in long, appended, multicoloured emails and never actually speak to each other, it doesn’t matter.

Pay attention to the interplay between this section and Section 7(a) (Transfer). You should not need to amend Section 7(a) (for example to require equivalence of credit quality of any transferee entity etc., because that is managed by CEUM.

Note also the interrelationship between CEUM and a Ratings Downgrade Additional Termination Event, should there be one. One can be forgiven for feeling a little ambivalent about CEUM because it is either caught by Ratings Downgrade or, if there is no requirement for a general Ratings Downgrade, insisting on CEUM seems a bit arbitrary (i.e. why do you care about a downgrade as a result of a merger, but not any other ratings downgrade?)

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:M_summ_2002_ISDA_5(b)(v)&oldid=79108"