Template:Isda 1 summ: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


In a nutshell: DO NOT ADJUST THIS PROVISION. It does no-one any harm. How ''could'' it?
In a nutshell: DO NOT ADJUST THIS PROVISION. It does no-one any harm. How ''could'' it?
{{Repack and the single agreement|{{{1}}}}}
{{Repack and the single agreement|{{{1}}}}}

Revision as of 11:04, 4 October 2022

Section {{{{{1}}}|1}} is a gentle introduction indeed to the dappled world of the ISDA Master Agreement: much coming from the “goes without saying, but let’s say it anyway” dept of legal wordwrightery — a large department indeed, in the annals of modern legal practice. It starts getting a bit tasty in Section {{{{{1}}}|1(c)}} with the {{{{{1}}}|Single Agreement}}, but it’s not until the Section {{{{{1}}}|2(a)(iii)}} flawed asset provision that you’re properly in the ISDA ninja twilight zone.

In a nutshell: DO NOT ADJUST THIS PROVISION. It does no-one any harm. How could it?

Okay, do not adjust the Single Agreement provision unless you are writing an ISDA Master Agreement for a repackaging vehicle issuing segregated, secured, limited recourse obligations. In that case you — and here I am supposing that “you” are the inhouse legal eagle at the arranging bank, or someone advising her — will have multiple ISDA Transactions nominally between the same two entities — your employer and the SPV — but economically being totally distinct, relating as they do to discrete ring-fenced “Series” issued by the SPV and you absolutely do not want these to form a single agreement with each other, or net, or do anything ostensibly desirable like that.

Each Transaction (or set of Transactions, if more than one Transaction}} attaches to a single Series) stands quite alone, should not be accelerated, cross-defaulted, DUSTed, closed out or heaven forbid netted, just because some other Transaction, relating to another series, has gone arriba.

Treat them as if each Series had its own distinct ISDA Master Agreement, completely isolated, air-gapped and insulated against misadventure occurring in other ISDA Master Agreements the SPV has entered with you relating to other Series.[1]

In point of fact, your best bet is a bit of “deemery”: the Transactions entered into for each new Series should be under a deemed separate ISDA Master Agreement, constituted specifically for the Series in question, on the standard terms set out in your repack programme. If you do this, then no amendment to the Single Agreement clause is necessary, since the way you have structured your ISDA, it is just a Single Agreement for the Series. Do not be surprised or alarmed if counterparts to the deal don’t buy this, or trust such deemery, and may wish to amend the Section 1(c) language as well. Try to resist this, but don’t die in a ditch about it.

  1. Except as regards “Bankruptcy” of the SPV, but if you have structured your vehicle correctly, it won’t be able to go bankrupt. And in any case the same bankruptcy event would be an independent Event of Default occurring under each discrete Master Agreement.