Bankruptcy - Credit Derivatives Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{manual|DCD|2014|4.2|Section||}}" Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{manual|DCD|2014|4.2|Section||}} | {{manual|DCD|2014|4.2|Section||medium | ||
}} |
Revision as of 09:54, 24 April 2023
2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions
Section 4.2 in a Nutshell™ Use at your own risk, campers!
Full text of Section 4.2
|
Content and comparisons
Compare with the Bankruptcy definition from the ISDA Master Agreement. You’d like to think they track each other closely and the good news is, per this comparison, they do. Chapeau, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™.
Summary
Differences with Section 5(a)(vii):
- Doesn’t cover Credit Support Providers or Specified Entities (being a specific type of credit mitigant to a private OTC bilateral trading agreement, like an ISDA Master Agreement which, being a private contract is not naturally the kind of thing that triggers credit derivatives) nor guarantors (except where the Reference Entity is itself the guarantor). A CDS being, per the Potts opinion, a derivative of the credit risk of a specific entity in which the Buyer has no necessary “insurable interest”, rather than a specific cover for the repayment of a specific debt obligation, the credit worthiness of guarantors, credit support providers and so on doesn’t come into it.
- Simplified provision (d) which is less bothered about who institutes the proceedings, and less particular about the types of formal insolvency process one can go through, so is a bit more “fair large and liberal”.
- No catch-all “or takes any steps in furtherance of the above” rider at the end to sweep up a loss of nerve or weirdo jurisdictions.
General discussion
Template:M gen Credit Derivatives 4.2
See also
- Bankruptcy under the ISDA Master Agreement