Template:ATE detail: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "==={{t|Trick for young players}}=== A “{{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}” is defined as “an {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}}, a {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}} or a {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event Upon Mer..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
If you try to make it into a new “{{{{{1}}}|5(b)(vii)}}” it is therefore ''neither'' an “{{{{{1}}}|Illegality}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” ''nor'' an “{{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}”. Read literally, is will not be caught by the definition of “{{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}” and none of the Termination provisions will bite on it. | If you try to make it into a new “{{{{{1}}}|5(b)(vii)}}” it is therefore ''neither'' an “{{{{{1}}}|Illegality}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” ''nor'' an “{{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}”. Read literally, is will not be caught by the definition of “{{{{{1}}}|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 {{{{{1}}}|ATE}}, but why suffer that | 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 {{{{{1}}}|ATE}}, but, in our age of anxiety, why suffer ''that'' one? | ||
Revision as of 14:07, 16 March 2020
Trick for young players
A “{{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}}” is defined as “an {{{{{1}}}|Illegality}}, a {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}} or a {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event Upon Merger}} or, if specified to be applicable, a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}} or an {{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}”. Therefore, adding any new {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “{{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}” under Section 5(b)(vi) (under the 2002 ISDA) or 5(b)(v) (under the 1992 ISDA), and not a separate new Termination Event under a new Section {{{{{1}}}|5(b)(vii)}}, for example.
If you try to make it into a new “{{{{{1}}}|5(b)(vii)}}” it is therefore neither an “{{{{{1}}}|Illegality}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” nor an “{{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}”. Read literally, is will not be caught by the definition of “{{{{{1}}}|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 {{{{{1}}}|ATE}}, but, in our age of anxiety, why suffer that one?