|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{manual|MI|2002|5(b)(vi)|Section|5(b)(vi)|medium}} | | {{manual|MI|2002|5(b)(vi)|Section|5(b)(vi)|medium}} |
| {{ISDAnumberingdiscrepancy}} <br>
| |
| [[ATE]]s are likely to be the most haggled-over part of your {{isdama}}.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ==={{t|Trick for young players}}===
| |
| {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} is defined as “an {{isdaprov|Illegality}}, a {{isdaprov|Tax Event}} or a {{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}} or, if specified to be applicable, a {{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}} or an {{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”.
| |
|
| |
| '''Best Practice Note''': Therefore adding any new {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new {{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}} under Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(vi)}}<ref>Or {{isdaprov|5(b)(v)}} under the {{1992ma}}</ref>, and not a separate event under a new Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(vii)}}<ref>Or a nonexistent {{isdaprov|5(b)(vi)}}, if under the {{1992ma}}</ref> etc.
| |
| If, you try to make it into a new “{{isdaprov|5(b)(vii)}}” it is therefore ''neither'' an “{{isdaprov|Illegality}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” ''nor'' an “{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}”. Read literally, is will not be caught by the definition of “{{isdaprov|Termination Event}}” and none of the Termination provisions will bite on it.
| |
|
| |
| I mention this because I have seen it happen. Yes, 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?
| |
| {{ref}}
| |