Termination Event - 1992 ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{manual|MI|1992|Termination Event|Section|Termination Event|short}}" |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{isda92manual|Termination Event}} |
Latest revision as of 13:29, 30 June 2023
Overview
See ISDA Comparison for a comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA.
A Termination Event is an event justifying one party unilaterally terminating a Transaction — or sometimes all Transactions — but that is generally of a nature that does not cast aspersions of impropriety on the other, or “Affected”, party. This makes a difference when it comes to how one calculates the Close-out Amount for the Transaction in question.
Summary
Adding any new Termination Event must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “Additional Termination Event” under Section 5(b)(v), and not a separate event under a new Section 5(b)(vi) etc. If, instead of being expressed as an “Additional Termination Event”, which is how the ISDA Mechanism is intended to operate, it is set out as a new “5(b)(vi)” it is not designated therefore as any of an “Illegality”, “Tax Event”, “Tax Event Upon Merger”, “Credit Event Upon Merger” or “Additional Termination Event”, so therefore, read literally, is not caught by the definition of “Termination Event” and none of the Termination provisions bite on it.
I mention this because we have seen it happen. You can take a “fair, large and liberal view" that what the parties intended was to create an ATE, but why suffer that anxiety?
Premium content
Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics 👇
|
- The JC’s famous Nutshell™ summary of this clause
See also
Template:M sa 1992 ISDA Termination Event