82,853
edits
Template:Isda 6(b)(ii) summ: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Once the {{{{{1}}}|Waiting Period}} expires, it will be a {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} entitling either party to terminate some or all {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transactions}}. Partial termination is permitted because the impact on an event on each {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} may differ from case to case (eg transactions forming part of a [[structured finance]] deal like a [[Repackaging|repack]] or a [[CDO]]) might not be easily replaced, so the disadvantages of terminating may outweigh the advantages. | Once the {{{{{1}}}|Waiting Period}} expires, it will be a {{{{{1}}}|Termination Event}} entitling either party to terminate some or all {{{{{1}}}|Affected Transactions}}. Partial termination is permitted because the impact on an event on each {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} may differ from case to case (eg transactions forming part of a [[structured finance]] deal like a [[Repackaging|repack]] or a [[CDO]]) might not be easily replaced, so the disadvantages of terminating may outweigh the advantages. | ||
As far as ''[[Branch|branches]]'' are concerned this is relatively uncontroversial, especially if yours is a multi-branch {{isdama}}. But there is an interesting philosophical question here, for, without an express pre-existing contractual right to do so, a party may not ''unilaterally'' transfer its obligations under a contract to someone else. That, being a [[novation]], requires the other party’s consent. This is deep contractual lore, predating the [[First Men]] and even the | As far as ''[[Branch|branches]]'' are concerned this is relatively uncontroversial, especially if yours is a multi-branch {{isdama}}. But there is an interesting philosophical question here, for, without an express pre-existing contractual right to do so, a party may not ''unilaterally'' transfer its obligations under a contract to someone else. That, being a [[novation]], requires the other party’s consent. This is deep contractual lore, predating the [[First Men]] and even the {{cotw}}. So if the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} identifies an affiliate to whom it can transfer its rights and obligations, the {{{{{1}}}|Non-affected Party}} still may withhold consent. True, it is obliged to provide consent if its policies permit but — well — y’know. ''Polices''? Given the [[credit department]]’s proclivities for the fantastical, it’s a fairly safe bet they’ll be able to find ''something'' if they don’t feel up to it. | ||
That is to say, this commitment falls some wat short of the [[JC]]’s favourite confection: “[[in good faith]] and a [[commercially reasonable manner]]”. | That is to say, this commitment falls some wat short of the [[JC]]’s favourite confection: “[[in good faith]] and a [[commercially reasonable manner]]”. | ||
Note also that if an {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Party}} ''does'' elect partial termination, the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} has the right to terminate some or all of the remaining {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}}: this prevents {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Parties}} being opportunistic. Heaven forfend. | Note also that if an {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Party}} ''does'' elect partial termination, the {{{{{1}}}|Affected Party}} has the right to terminate some or all of the remaining {{{{{1}}}|Transactions}}: this prevents {{{{{1}}}|Non-Affected Parties}} being opportunistic. Heaven forfend. | ||