82,883
edits
Early Termination - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Early Termination - ISDA Provision (view source)
Revision as of 18:42, 20 March 2018
, 20 March 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "{{isdaanatomy}}" to "{{anat|isda}}") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{tocbuilder|ISDA|2002|6}} | {{fullanatopen|isda|{{tocbuilder|ISDA|2002|6}}}} | ||
===How the Close | ===How the {{isdaprov|Close-out}} mechanism Works=== | ||
An {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} gives the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}} a right (but not an obligation) to designate an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} with respect to all outstanding {{isdaprov|Transactions}} on not more than 20 days' notice. | An {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} gives the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}} a right (but not an obligation) to designate an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} with respect to all outstanding {{isdaprov|Transactions}} on not more than 20 days' notice. | ||
* Note that {{isdaprov|Automatic Early Termination}} removes that optionality in the event of a counterparty's insolvency and is therefore sub-optimal from the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}'s perspective, and thus should only be employed where the consequences of not having it would be worse (e.g. in jurisdictons where [[close-out netting]] may be challenged in an insolvency but not before). (That is to say, this is one provision you should {{isdaprov|not}} insist on just because the other party insists upon it against you). | * Note that {{isdaprov|Automatic Early Termination}} removes that optionality in the event of a counterparty's insolvency and is therefore sub-optimal from the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}'s perspective, and thus should only be employed where the consequences of not having it would be worse (e.g. in jurisdictons where [[close-out netting]] may be challenged in an insolvency but not before). (That is to say, this is one provision you should {{isdaprov|not}} insist on just because the other party insists upon it against you). | ||