|
|
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ====Defaulting Party==== | | ====Defaulting Party==== |
| The key thing to notice here is that — in an uncharacteristically rather neat, understated bit of drafting — Defaulting Party encapsulates a party who has itself defaulted, or whose {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}} or {{isdaprov|Specified Entity}} has committed an act which amounts to an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} for that counterparty to this {{isdama}}. I know, I know, this doesn’t seem that big of a deal: this sort of thing that should be plain, obvious and go without saying — but it saves you a job when, in your peregrinations round the party’s {{isdaprov|Confirmation}}, you come to talk of pending {{isdaprov|Events of Default}} and {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s agaisnt that party.
| | {{isda Defaulting Party summ|{{{1}}}}} |
| | |
| Instead of saying, laboriously, i“f there is an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} or {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} [[with respect to]] a party or its {{isdaprov|Credit Support Provider}}s or {{isdaprov|Specified Entities}}, [[as the case may be]]” you can speak of a {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} or an {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}.
| |
| | |
| Of course, it would be nice if there was a catch all for a party who has committed an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} ''or'' suffered a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}, so you didn’t need to go “{{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} or {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, [[as the case may be]]” — cheekily we suggest “{{isdaprov|Innocent Party}}” and “{{isdaprov|Implicated Party}}” (“Guilty Party”, though fun, isn’t quite right, seeing as {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s aren’t meant to impute any kind of culpability).
| |
| ====Non-defaulting Party==== | | ====Non-defaulting Party==== |
| To be compared with - well, {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}}. Of all things. And {{isdaprov|Non-affected Party}}, as well. The difference between a {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}} and a {{isdaprov|Non-affected Party}}, and the linguistic torture that distinction as inflicted on the race of ISDA lawyers ever since, says everything you need to know about the absurdity of modern commercial law.
| | {{isda Non-defaulting Party summ|{{{1}}}}} |
| | |
| *''Do say'': “the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}} or {{isdaprov|the non-Affected Party}}, as the case may be” over and over again.
| |
| *''Don’t say'': “Is there really no other way you could get across this concept, for crying out loud?”
| |
| ====Affected Party and Non-Affected Party==== | | ====Affected Party and Non-Affected Party==== |
| {{isda Affected Party summ|isdaprov}} | | {{isda Affected Party summ|{{{1}}}}} |