Additional Termination Event - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdaanat|5(b)(vi)}} | {{isdaanat|5(b)(vi)}} | ||
{{ISDAnumberingdiscrepancy}} | {{ISDAnumberingdiscrepancy}} | ||
Any other termination event your Credit department might have dreamt up that didn’t occur to the framers of the {{isdama}} — or, at any rate, wasn’t sufficiently universal to warrant being included in the master agreement for all. Common ones include: | |||
*[[NAV trigger|NAV triggers]] (for [[Hedge fund|hedge funds]]) | |||
*[[Key man]] provisions (for [[Hedge fund|hedge funds]]) | |||
*[[Investment manager]] insolvency or loss of licence | |||
*Parent divestment (where counterparty is a financing subsidiary) | |||
The ATEs are likely to be the most haggled-over part of your {{isdama}}. | |||
There is a school of thought that this serves the interests of the [[Negotiator|Ancient Guild of Contract Negotiators]] and the [[Credit officer|Worshipful Company of Credit Officers]] more than it does the shareholders of the institutions for whom these people ply their trade, for in these days of [[Threshold - CSA Provision|zero-threshold]] [[CSA|CSAs]], the real credit protections in the ISDA are the standard {{isdaprov|Events of Default}} (especially {{isdaprov|Failure to Pay or Deliver}} and {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}}), | |||
==={{t|Trick for young players}}=== | ==={{t|Trick for young players}}=== | ||
{{isdaprov|Termination Event}} is defined as “an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}, a {{isdaprov|Tax Event}} or a {{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}} or, if specified to be applicable, a {{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}} or an {{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”. | {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} is defined as “an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}, a {{isdaprov|Tax Event}} or a {{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}} or, if specified to be applicable, a {{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}} or an {{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”. |
Revision as of 08:57, 3 August 2018
Any other termination event your Credit department might have dreamt up that didn’t occur to the framers of the ISDA Master Agreement — or, at any rate, wasn’t sufficiently universal to warrant being included in the master agreement for all. Common ones include:
- NAV triggers (for hedge funds)
- Key man provisions (for hedge funds)
- Investment manager insolvency or loss of licence
- Parent divestment (where counterparty is a financing subsidiary)
The ATEs are likely to be the most haggled-over part of your ISDA Master Agreement.
There is a school of thought that this serves the interests of the Ancient Guild of Contract Negotiators and the Worshipful Company of Credit Officers more than it does the shareholders of the institutions for whom these people ply their trade, for in these days of zero-threshold CSAs, the real credit protections in the ISDA are the standard Events of Default (especially Failure to Pay or Deliver and Bankruptcy),
Trick for young players
Termination Event is defined as “an Illegality, a Tax Event or a Tax Event Upon Merger or, if specified to be applicable, a Credit Event Upon Merger or an Additional Termination Event”.
Best Practice Note: Therefore adding any new Termination Event must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new Additional Termination Event under Section 5(b)(vi)[1], and not a separate event under a new Section 5(b)(vii)[2] etc. If, you try to make it into a new “5(b)(vii)” it is therefore neither an “Illegality”, “Tax Event”, “Tax Event Upon Merger”, “Credit Event Upon Merger” nor an “Additional Termination Event”. Read literally, is will not be caught by the definition of “Termination Event” and none of the Termination provisions will bite on it.
I mention this because I have seen it happen. Yes, you can take a “fair, large and liberal view” that what the parties intended was to create an ATE, but why suffer that anxiety?