Template:Isda peod analysis: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 8: Line 8:
*'''{{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}}''', that most absurd of all {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}}, has no notice requirement, no [[grace period]], and doesn't even require the lender of the {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}} to have exercised a termination right — though any [[grace period]] under the {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}} still applies.
*'''{{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}}''', that most absurd of all {{{{{1}}}|Events of Default}}, has no notice requirement, no [[grace period]], and doesn't even require the lender of the {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}} to have exercised a termination right — though any [[grace period]] under the {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}} still applies.
*{{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}} has no notice requirement or [[grace period]] (indeed, on {{{{{1}}}|Automatic Termination Event}} applies it may happens even without the {{{{{1}}}|Non-defaulting Party}}’s knowledge), though there are some [[grace period]]s under the various [[tedious]] limbs of {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}} definition<ref>See for example Sections 5(a)(viii)(4) and (7).</ref>, and these vary by edition of the {{isdama}}<ref>30 days in the {{1992ma}}, 15 days in the {{2002ma}}.</ref>;
*{{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}} has no notice requirement or [[grace period]] (indeed, on {{{{{1}}}|Automatic Termination Event}} applies it may happens even without the {{{{{1}}}|Non-defaulting Party}}’s knowledge), though there are some [[grace period]]s under the various [[tedious]] limbs of {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}} definition<ref>See for example Sections 5(a)(viii)(4) and (7).</ref>, and these vary by edition of the {{isdama}}<ref>30 days in the {{1992ma}}, 15 days in the {{2002ma}}.</ref>;
*'''{{{{{1}}}|Merger Without Assumption}}''' has neither notice requirement or [[grace period]] — again not unreasonable since a merger without assumption is tantamount to a [[repudiation]] of [[contract]], and if you’re not playing the [[Hermeneutical boundaries|hermeneutic game]] no more, there is no reason ''I'' should.
*'''{{{{{1}}}|Merger Without Assumption}}''' has neither notice requirement or [[grace period]] — again not unreasonable, since a merger without assumption is tantamount to a [[repudiation]] of [[contract]], and if you’re no longer playing the game, I don’t see why ''I'' should.