Template:M summ 1992 ISDA Termination Event: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Termination Event - ISDA Provision|Adding]] any new {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}” under Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(v)}}, and not a separate event under a new Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(vi)}} etc.  
[[Termination Event - ISDA Provision|Adding]] any new {{isda92prov|Termination Event}} must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “{{isda92prov|Additional Termination Event}}” under Section {{isda92prov|5(b)(v)}}, and not a separate event under a new Section {{isda92prov|5(b)(vi)}} etc. If, instead of being expressed as an “{{isda92prov|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 “{{isda92prov|Illegality}}”, “{{isda92prov|Tax Event}}”, “{{isda92prov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{isda92prov|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” or “{{isda92prov|Additional Termination Event}}”, so therefore, read literally, is not caught by the definition of “{{isda92prov|Termination Event}}” and none of the Termination provisions bite on it.  


If, instead of being expressed as an “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”, which is how the ISDA Mechanism is intended to operate, you set it out as a new “5(b)(vi)”, it is not designated therefore as any of an “{{isdaprov|Illegality}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” or “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”, so therefore, read literally, is not caught by the definition of “{{isdaprov|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 {{isda92prov|ATE}}, but why suffer that anxiety?
 
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 {{isdaprov|ATE}}, but why suffer that anxiety?

Navigation menu