Affected Party - ISDA Provision
Content and comparisons
Not even ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ could confect something worthwhile to say which might improve this Spartan piece of text. But note the concept of Affected Party is sprayed liberally throughout Section 5(b), and it means something different in almost every context so you’re guaranteed to have fun there.
Elsewhere there is much monkeying around as regards the concept of Illegality, particularly insofar as it relates to Credit Support Documents, and the newly introduced Force Majeure.
Summary
The Affected Party is the one who is subject to a Section 5(b) Termination Event, as opposed to the perpetrator of a Section 5(a) Event of Default — thus one of a marginally less opprobrious character, seeing as Termination Events are generally not considered to be one’s fault as such, but just regrettable things that happen that no-one expected, or wanted, but bring what was once a beautiful relationship to an end.
It’s not you, it’s — well, it’s not me either — it’s just that confounded tax event that occurred upon your recent merger.
Note that, in its wisdom, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ chose not to have a generic term for the sort of person who is subject to either a Termination Event or an Event of Default, so there is much “Defaulting Party and/or Affected Party, as the case may be” sort of malarkey. This depresses we prose stylists, but ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ has never cared about us, so we should hardly be surprised.
Practical differences between “Affected Party” and “Defaulting Party”
What is the practical, economic difference between being closed out on the same Transaction for an Event of Default and a Termination Event?
This is something that all ISDA ninjas know, or sort of intuit, in a sort of semi-conscious, buried-somewhere-deep-in-the-brain-stem kind of way, but they may mutter darkly and try to change the subject if you ask them to articulate it in simple English.
To be fair the topic might be chiefly of academic interest were it not for the unfortunate habit of the same “real world” event potentially comprising more than one variety of termination right. This leads to some laboured prioritisation in the ISDA, and sometimes some in the Schedule too. What if my Tax Event upon Merger is also a Credit Event Upon Merger and, for that matter, also a Force Majeure Event? That kind of question.
General discussion
The Definition of Close-out Amount
Remember the way a Determining Party values a Terminated Transaction is calculates its own close-out value — in our nutshell terms, “the losses the Determining Party would incur (positive) or gains it would realise (negative) in replacing the material terms and the option rights of the parties under a Terminated Transaction”. One assesses “the costs one would incur” from ones’ own side of the market. A large party of the question comes down to who the Determining Party is for a given termination event.
Defaulting Party
Under an Event of Default, it is the Non-Defaulting Party at all times (since on the theory of the game, the Defaulting Party is either a miscreant or a smoking hulk of twisted metal, there is no one else around to do this. Therefore, it being an Event of Default is always optimal for the Innocent Party, since it will always be the Determining Party.
One Affected Party
Where the terminating impetus is not so outrageous as to qualify as an Event of Default — i.e., it is only a Termination Event — but it only impacts one party, in most cases it is the same as for an Event of Default. There is one Affected Party, the Non-Affected Party is the sole Determining Party, so it closes out on its own side of the market ... unless the event in question is an Illegality or a Force Majeure Event, in which case there is a rider in Section 6(e)(ii)(3) applies and the Determining Party has to get mid market quotations that don’t take its own creditworthiness into account. But note that the most commonly triggered type of Termination Event is an Additional Termination Event, these tend to have a defaulty, turpidudinous character about them, almost never happen to two people at once, and therefore behave exactly like Events of Default.
Two Affected Parties
When both parties are affected — a scenario the ISDA only contemplates for Termination Events; Events of Default being more of a “she who draws first wins” sort of affair, where the first in time prevails — then each party is a “Determining Party” calculates its own close-out value — in our nutshell terms, “the losses the Determining Party would incur (positive) or gains it would realise (negative) in replacing the material terms and the option rights of the parties under a Terminated Transaction” — throws it into the ring and the Calculation Agent splits the difference. Assuming both parties calculate so the end result is necessarily a mid-market number.
All so confusing. If only there were someone to set it all out in a table for you.
Awwwwww.
| Event | How many affected | What happens |
|---|---|---|
Events of DefaultQ.E.D. there is only one Defaulting Party: |
Defaulting Party only | Non-defaulting Party calculates on its own side of market. |
Termination Events where there is only one Affected PartyAnd this odd rider in Section 6(e)(ii)(3) requiring a midmarket price does not apply: |
One Affected Party only | Non-Affected Party calculates on its own side of market. |
Termination Events where there is only one Affected Party but ...This odd rider in Section 6(e)(ii)(3) requiring a midmarket price does apply: |
One Affected Party only | Non-Affected Party seeks prices by reference to mid-market values and which do not reflect its own credit. |
Termination Events where there are two Affected Parties5(b)(i) Illegality |
Each party is an Affected Party | Both parties are Determining Parties, and Calculation Agent splits the difference ergo it is a midmarket rate. |
In the heyday of ISDA negotiation[1] just who was the Affected Party and how one should value and terminate an Affected Transaction used to be much more of a source of controversy than it is today.
This might be a function of the market’s general move to the 2002 ISDA closeout methodology, being far less fraught and bamboozling then the one in the 1992 ISDA, refraining as it does from absurdities like the First Method and alternative Market and Loss methods of valuing replacement transactions. Even those who insist on staying with the 1992 ISDA — Hello, Cleveland! — are often persuaded to upgrade the closeout methodology.
It might also be that the specific expertise as to what happens in a close out has dissipated over the years as swap dealers and investment managers have outsourced and downskilled their negotiation functions.
But the JC likes to think that in this mature market, the commercial imperative plays a part here. Termination Events come in two types: catastrophic ones, which signal the end of the relationship — and usually the ongoing viability of one of the counterparties — altogether; and Transaction-specific ones, which no-one intended or wanted, everyone regrets, but which will soon be water under the bridge, for parties who will continue to trade new derivatives into glorious, golden perpetuity.
Now any swap dealer who regards a Transaction-specific Termination Event as an opportunity to gouge its counterparty can expect a frosty reception next time its salespeople are pitching new trading axes to the CIO.
On the other hand if, when your valuation reaches her, the CIO is wandering around outside her building with an Iron Mountain box, she will be less bothered about the wantonness of your termination mark — it being no longer her problem — and as far as she does care about it all, will console herself with the reality that you are not likely to see much of that money anyway once her former employer’s insolvency estate has been wound up.
For details freaks
See also
References
- ↑ For the record, I put the golden age of ISDA negotiation as late 90s, early noughties. We were young, carefree, crazy kids.