Credit Event Upon Merger - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "{{isdaanatomy}}" to "{{anat|isda}}" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ISDAnumberingdiscrepancy}} | {{fullanat2|isda|5(b)(v)|2002|5(b)(iv)|1992}} | ||
{{ISDAnumberingdiscrepancy}} - Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(viii)}} is {{isdaprov|Merger Without Assumption}}. | |||
Pay attention to the interplay between this section and Section {{isdaprov|7(a)}} of the {{isdaprov|Transfer}} Section. 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}}. | |||
Note also the interrelationship between [[CEUM]] and the {{isdaprov|Ratings Downgrade}} {{isdaprov|ATE}}. One can be forgiven for feeling a little ambivalent about {{isdaprov|CEUM}} because it is either caught by {{isdaprov|Ratings Downgrade}} or, where there is no requirement for a general Ratings Downgrade, insisting on {{isdaprov|CEUM}} seems a bit arbitrary (i.e. why do we care about a downgrade as a result of a merger, but not any other downgrade?) | |||
Note also the interrelationship between CEUM and the {{isdaprov|Ratings Downgrade}} {{isdaprov|ATE}}. One can be forgiven for feeling a little ambivalent about {{isdaprov|CEUM}} because it is either caught by Ratings Downgrade or, where there is no requirement for a general Ratings Downgrade, insisting on {{isdaprov|CEUM}} seems a bit arbitrary (i.e. why do we care about a downgrade as a result of a merger, but not any other downgrade?) | |||
Revision as of 11:10, 17 May 2017
ISDA Anatomy™
|
Numbering Discrepancy: Note the numbering discrepancy in Section 5(b) between the 1992 ISDA and 2002 ISDA. This is caused by a new 5(b)(ii) (Force Majeure Event) in the 2002 ISDA before Tax Event, which is thus shunted from Section 5(b)(ii) (in the 1992 ISDA) to Section 5(b)(iii) (in the 2002 ISDA).
- Section 5(a)(viii) is Merger Without Assumption.
Pay attention to the interplay between this section and Section 7(a) of the Transfer Section. 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 the Ratings Downgrade ATE. One can be forgiven for feeling a little ambivalent about CEUM because it is either caught by Ratings Downgrade or, where there is no requirement for a general Ratings Downgrade, insisting on CEUM seems a bit arbitrary (i.e. why do we care about a downgrade as a result of a merger, but not any other downgrade?)