Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Specified Entity: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{isdaprov|Specified Entity}} is so (~ cough ~) important that it is literally the first thing you see when you regard an ISDA Schedule. Painstakingly set out, separately for..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{isdaprov|Specified Entity}} is so (~ cough ~) important that it is literally the first thing you see when you regard an ISDA | {{isdaprov|Specified Entity}} is so (~ cough ~) important that it is literally the first thing you see when you regard an ISDA {{isdaprov|Schedule}}. | ||
A {{isdaprov|Specified | Painstakingly set out, separately for {{isdaprov|Events of Default}} (namely {{isdaprov|DUST}} (Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(v)}}), {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} (Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(vi)}}) and {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}} (Section {{isdaprov|5(a)(vii)}}) and the one {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} (Credit Event Upon Merger (Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(v)}} — as if you would want different Affiliates to trigger this event depending on precisely ''how'' they cork-screwed into the side of a hill), and jointly for the “{{isdaprov|Absence of Litigation}}” representation in Section {{isdaprov|3(c)}} of the {{2002ma}}. | ||
A {{isdaprov|Specified Entity}} is any affiliate (or, in theory at any rate, even a non-affiliate, if your risk officer is a total cretin) of a counterparty to an {{isdama}} which is designated in the relevant Schedule. | |||
It is relevant to the definition of {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} and {{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}} in that it widens the effect of those provisions to include defaults by the parties specified. | It is relevant to the definition of {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} and {{isdaprov|Default under Specified Transaction}} in that it widens the effect of those provisions to include defaults by the parties specified. | ||
=== | ===Nominating {{isdaprov|Specified Entities}} for yourself has its upsides=== | ||
{{isdaprov|Specified Entity}} widens the scope of those provisions also to include defaults by the other | {{isdaprov|Specified Entity}} widens the scope of those provisions also to include defaults ''by'' the other side (and its {{isdaprov|Specified Entities}}) under their contracts with ''your'' {{isdaprov|Specified Entities}} — so there ''is'' some benefit to naming ''your'' [[affiliates]], friends and relations as {{isdaprov|Specified Entities}}. But given how unlikely you are to be actually monitoring how a counterparty performs with an affiliate, it’s more of a false comfort than a real one. | ||
Revision as of 14:56, 2 February 2022
Specified Entity is so (~ cough ~) important that it is literally the first thing you see when you regard an ISDA Schedule.
Painstakingly set out, separately for Events of Default (namely DUST (Section 5(a)(v)), Cross Default (Section 5(a)(vi)) and Bankruptcy (Section 5(a)(vii)) and the one Termination Event (Credit Event Upon Merger (Section 5(b)(v) — as if you would want different Affiliates to trigger this event depending on precisely how they cork-screwed into the side of a hill), and jointly for the “Absence of Litigation” representation in Section 3(c) of the 2002 ISDA.
A Specified Entity is any affiliate (or, in theory at any rate, even a non-affiliate, if your risk officer is a total cretin) of a counterparty to an ISDA Master Agreement which is designated in the relevant Schedule.
It is relevant to the definition of Cross Default and Default under Specified Transaction in that it widens the effect of those provisions to include defaults by the parties specified.
Nominating Specified Entities for yourself has its upsides
Specified Entity widens the scope of those provisions also to include defaults by the other side (and its Specified Entities) under their contracts with your Specified Entities — so there is some benefit to naming your affiliates, friends and relations as Specified Entities. But given how unlikely you are to be actually monitoring how a counterparty performs with an affiliate, it’s more of a false comfort than a real one.