Template:Isda 5(b) comp: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} is an event justifying one party unilaterally terminating a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} — or sometimes all {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}} — but that is generally of a nature that does not cast aspersions of impropriety on the other, or “[[Affected Party - ISDA Provision|Affected]]”, party. This makes a difference when it comes to how one calculates the {{{{{1}}}|Close-out Amount}} for the Transaction in question. | |||
=====Renumbering due to new Force Majeure Event===== | |||
Since the {{2002ma}} includes a {{{{{1}}}|Force Majeure Event}}, using language that was already agreed and widely inserted into the {{1992ma}} Schedule before its publication. Because this was entered as Section {{{{{1}}}|5(b)(ii)}} — I mean, honestly, could they have not made it Section 5(b)(vi), so all the other clause references could stay the same? You have no idea what conceptual problems this has created for the poor JC trying to efficiently organise this website. | |||
=====Clause-by-clause===== | |||
{{comp subpart {{{1}}}|5(b)(i)}} | {{comp subpart {{{1}}}|5(b)(i)}} | ||
{{comp subpart {{{1}}}|5(b)(ii)}} | {{comp subpart {{{1}}}|5(b)(ii)}} |
Latest revision as of 07:38, 23 August 2024
A {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} is an event justifying one party unilaterally terminating a {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} — or sometimes all {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}} — but that is generally of a nature that does not cast aspersions of impropriety on the other, or “Affected”, party. This makes a difference when it comes to how one calculates the {{{{{1}}}|Close-out Amount}} for the Transaction in question.
Renumbering due to new Force Majeure Event
Since the 2002 ISDA includes a {{{{{1}}}|Force Majeure Event}}, using language that was already agreed and widely inserted into the 1992 ISDA Schedule before its publication. Because this was entered as Section {{{{{1}}}|5(b)(ii)}} — I mean, honestly, could they have not made it Section 5(b)(vi), so all the other clause references could stay the same? You have no idea what conceptual problems this has created for the poor JC trying to efficiently organise this website.
Clause-by-clause
{{comp subpart {{{1}}}|5(b)(i)}} {{comp subpart {{{1}}}|5(b)(ii)}} {{comp subpart {{{1}}}|5(b)(iii)}} {{comp subpart {{{1}}}|5(b)(iv)}} {{comp subpart {{{1}}}|5(b)(v)}} {{comp subpart {{{1}}}|5(b)(vi)}}