Template:Isda 6(b)(ii) summ: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Once the {{{{{1}}}|Waiting Period}} expires, it will be a {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} entitling either party to terminate some or all {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transactions}}. Partial termination is permitted because the impact on an event on each {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} may differ from case to case (eg transactions forming part of a [[structured finance]] deal like a [[Repackaging|repack]] or a [[CDO]]) might not be easily replaced, so the disadvantages of terminating may outweigh the advantages.
Once the {{{{{1}}}|Waiting Period}} expires, it will be a {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} entitling either party to terminate some or all {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transactions}}. Partial termination is permitted because the impact on an event on each {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} may differ from case to case (eg transactions forming part of a [[structured finance]] deal like a [[Repackaging|repack]] or a [[CDO]]) might not be easily replaced, so the disadvantages of terminating may outweigh the advantages.


As far as ''[[Branch|branches]]'' are concerned this is relatively uncontroversial, especially if yours is a multi-branch {{isdama}}. But there is an interesting philosophical question here, for, without an express pre-existing contractual right to do so, a party may not ''unilaterally'' transfer its obligations under a contract to someone else. That, being a [[novation]], requires the other party’s consent. This is deep contractual lore, predating the [[First Men]] and even the [[Children of the Forest]]. So if the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} identifies an affiliate to whom it can transfer its rights and obligations, the {{{{{1}}}|Non-affected Party}} still may withhold consent.
As far as ''[[Branch|branches]]'' are concerned this is relatively uncontroversial, especially if yours is a multi-branch {{isdama}}. But there is an interesting philosophical question here, for, without an express pre-existing contractual right to do so, a party may not ''unilaterally'' transfer its obligations under a contract to someone else. That, being a [[novation]], requires the other party’s consent. This is deep contractual lore, predating the [[First Men]] and even the [[Children of the Forest]]. So if the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} identifies an affiliate to whom it can transfer its rights and obligations, the {{{{{1}}}|Non-affected Party}} still may withhold consent. True, it is obliged to provide consent if its policies permit but — well — y’know. ''Polices''? Given the [[credit department]]’s proclivities for the fantastical, it’s a fairly safe bet they’ll be able to find ''something'' if they don’t feel up to it.  


Note though that if an {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Party}} ''does'' elect partial termination, the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} has the right to terminate some or all of the remaining {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}}: this prevents {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Parties}} being opportunistic. Heaven forfend.
That is to say, this commitment falls some wat short of the [[JC]]’s favourite confection: “[[in good faith]] and a [[commercially reasonable manner]]”.
 
Note also that if an {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Party}} ''does'' elect partial termination, the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} has the right to terminate some or all of the remaining {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}}: this prevents {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Parties}} being opportunistic. Heaven forfend.

Revision as of 17:08, 12 April 2020

Once the {{{{{1}}}|Waiting Period}} expires, it will be a {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} entitling either party to terminate some or all {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transactions}}. Partial termination is permitted because the impact on an event on each {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} may differ from case to case (eg transactions forming part of a structured finance deal like a repack or a CDO) might not be easily replaced, so the disadvantages of terminating may outweigh the advantages.

As far as branches are concerned this is relatively uncontroversial, especially if yours is a multi-branch ISDA Master Agreement. But there is an interesting philosophical question here, for, without an express pre-existing contractual right to do so, a party may not unilaterally transfer its obligations under a contract to someone else. That, being a novation, requires the other party’s consent. This is deep contractual lore, predating the First Men and even the Children of the Forest. So if the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} identifies an affiliate to whom it can transfer its rights and obligations, the {{{{{1}}}|Non-affected Party}} still may withhold consent. True, it is obliged to provide consent if its policies permit but — well — y’know. Polices? Given the credit department’s proclivities for the fantastical, it’s a fairly safe bet they’ll be able to find something if they don’t feel up to it.

That is to say, this commitment falls some wat short of the JC’s favourite confection: “in good faith and a commercially reasonable manner”.

Note also that if an {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Party}} does elect partial termination, the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} has the right to terminate some or all of the remaining {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}}: this prevents {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Parties}} being opportunistic. Heaven forfend.