Right to Terminate - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
What a beast. If you track it through in {{tag|nutshell}} terms, it isn’t as bad as it first seems, but you have the derivative lawyer’s gift for over-complication, and the ISDA drafter’s yen for dismal drafting, to thank for this being the trial it is. | What a beast. If you track it through in {{tag|nutshell}} terms, it isn’t as bad as it first seems, but you have the derivative lawyer’s gift for over-complication, and the ISDA drafter’s yen for dismal drafting, to thank for this being the trial it is. | ||
To make it easier, we’ve invented some concepts: | To make it easier, we’ve invented some concepts and taken a few liberties: | ||
*“{{isdaprov|Unaffected Party}}” and “{{isdaprov|Unaffected Transaction}}” — saves you all that mucking around saying “the party who is not the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}” and *“{{isdaprov|Transaction}}s other than those that are, or are deemed, to be {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s” and so on) | *“{{isdaprov|Unaffected Party}}” and “{{isdaprov|Unaffected Transaction}}” — saves you all that mucking around saying “the party who is not the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}” and *“{{isdaprov|Transaction}}s other than those that are, or are deemed, to be {{isdaprov|Affected Transaction}}s” and so on) | ||
*{{isdaprov|Termination Event Notice}} as an elegant and self-explanatory alternative to "after an {{isdaprov|Affected Party}} gives notice under Section {{isdaprov|6(b)(i)}}” | *{{isdaprov|Termination Event Notice}} as an elegant and self-explanatory alternative to "after an {{isdaprov|Affected Party}} gives notice under Section {{isdaprov|6(b)(i)}}” | ||
* | *We take it as logically true that you can’t give 20 days’ notice of something which you then say will happen in fewer than 20 days. Therefore, there is no need for all this “designate a day not earlier than the day such notice is effective” nonsense. | ||
So with that all out the way, here is how it works. Keep in mind that, unlike {{isdaprov|Events of Default}}, {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s can arise through no fault of the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}} and are not always apocalyptic in consequence. Depending what they are, they may be cured, worked around, or dented Transactions may be surgically trimmed out, allowing the remainder of the Agreement, and the Unaffected Transactions, to carry on as normal. So here goes: | |||
Keep in mind that, unlike {{isdaprov|Events of Default}}, {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s can arise through no fault of the {{isdaprov|Affected Party}} and are not always apocalyptic in consequence. Depending what they are, they may be cured, worked around, or dented Transactions may be surgically trimmed out, allowing the remainder of the Agreement, and the Unaffected Transactions, to carry on as normal. So here goes: | |||
====Divide up the types of {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}==== | ====Divide up the types of {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}==== |
Revision as of 16:12, 6 August 2018
ISDA Anatomy™
view template
view template
|
What a beast. If you track it through in nutshell terms, it isn’t as bad as it first seems, but you have the derivative lawyer’s gift for over-complication, and the ISDA drafter’s yen for dismal drafting, to thank for this being the trial it is.
To make it easier, we’ve invented some concepts and taken a few liberties:
- “Unaffected Party” and “Unaffected Transaction” — saves you all that mucking around saying “the party who is not the Affected Party” and *“Transactions other than those that are, or are deemed, to be Affected Transactions” and so on)
- Termination Event Notice as an elegant and self-explanatory alternative to "after an Affected Party gives notice under Section 6(b)(i)”
- We take it as logically true that you can’t give 20 days’ notice of something which you then say will happen in fewer than 20 days. Therefore, there is no need for all this “designate a day not earlier than the day such notice is effective” nonsense.
So with that all out the way, here is how it works. Keep in mind that, unlike Events of Default, Termination Events can arise through no fault of the Affected Party and are not always apocalyptic in consequence. Depending what they are, they may be cured, worked around, or dented Transactions may be surgically trimmed out, allowing the remainder of the Agreement, and the Unaffected Transactions, to carry on as normal. So here goes:
Divide up the types of Termination Event
- Tax ones: If a Tax Event or a TEUM[1] where the party merging is the one that suffers the tax, the parties have a month to try to rearrange matters between them, their offices and affiliates to avoid the tax issue. Only once that has failed are you in Termination Event territory. See Section 6(b)(ii) and 6(b)(iii).
- Unaffected Party ones: If it’s a CEUM[2], an ATE or a TEUM where the Unaffected Party suffers the tax
- Illegality and Force Majeure: Here there may be a Waiting Period to sit through, to see whether the difficulty clears (For Force Majeure Event it is eight Local Business Days; for Illegality other than one preventing performance of a Credit Support Document: three Local Business Days; Sit through it.
- Why is there exception for Illegality on a Credit Support Document? Because, even though it wasn’t your fault, illegality of a Credit Support Document profoundly changes your credit assessment (in a way that arguably, even a payment or delivery obligation doesn’t), and that is the most fundamental risk you are managing under the ISDA Master Agreement.
References
- ↑ That’s “Tax Event Upon Merger” to the cool kids.
- ↑ That’s “Credit Event Upon Merger” to the cool kids.