Template:Isda Termination Event summ

Practical differences between “Affected Party” and “Defaulting Party”

What is the practical, economic difference between being closed out on the same {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} for an {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} and a {{{{{1}}}|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 {{{{{1}}}|Tax Event upon Merger}} is also a {{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}} and, for that matter, also a {{{{{1}}}|Force Majeure Event}}? That kind of question.

A trap for Cinderella

When adding any new {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} you must ALWAYS label it a new “{{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}” under Section {{{{{1}}}|5(b)(vi)}}, and not a separate event under a new Section {{{{{1}}}|5(b)(vii)}} etc.

If, instead of being expressed as an “{{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}”, which is how the ISDA Mechanism is intended to operate, it is set out as a new “5(b)(vii)” it is not designated therefore as any of an “{{{{{1}}}|Illegality}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Tax Event}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” or “{{{{{1}}}|Additional Termination Event}}”, so therefore, read literally, is not caught by the definition of “{{{{{1}}}|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 {{{{{1}}}|ATE}}, but why suffer that anxiety?