From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Termination Event - ISDA Provision|Adding]] any new {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}” under Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(vi)}}, and not a separate event under a new Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(vii)}} etc.
| |
|
| |
|
| If, instead of being expressed as an “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”, which is how the ISDA Mechanism is intended to operate, it is set out as a new “5(b)(vii)” 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 we have seen it happen. 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?
| |
Latest revision as of 12:14, 15 August 2024