Template:Isda Specified Entity summ

A {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}} is any affiliate of a counterparty to an ISDA Master Agreement which is designated in the relevant Schedule.

It is relevant to the definition of {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} and {{{{{1}}}|Default under Specified Transaction}} in that it widens the effect of those provisions to include defaults by the parties specified.

It is so (~ cough ~) important that it is, literally, the first thing you see when you regard an ISDA {{{{{1}}}|Schedule}}.

The same concept in both versions of the ISDA Master Agreement only with different clause numberings. {{{{{1}}}|Specified Entity}} is relevant to:

• {{{{{1}}}|DUST}}
• {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}}
• {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}}
• {{{{{1}}}|Credit Event Upon Merger}}

And of course the {{{{{1}}}|Absence of Litigation}} representation. Let’s not forget that.

Each party designates its Specified Entities for each of these events in Part 1(a) of the Schedule, which gives the Schedule its familiar layout:

(a) “Specified Entity” means in relation to Party A for the purpose of:― Section 5(a)(v), [SPECIFY]. Section 5(a)(vi), [SPECIFY]. Section 5(a)(vii), [SPECIFY]. Section 5(b)(v), [SPECIFY]. and in relation to Party B for the purpose of:― Section 5(a)(v), [SPECIFY]. Section 5(a)(vi), [SPECIFY]. Section 5(a)(vii), [SPECIFY]. Section 5(b)(v), [SPECIFY].

Now, why would anyone want different Affiliates to trigger this a {{{{{1}}}|Event of Default}} depending precisely upon how they cork-screwed into the side of a hill? Well, there is one reason where it might make a big difference when it comes to {{{{{1}}}|Bankruptcy}}, and we will pick that up in the premium section. But generally — and even in that case, really — in our time of variation margin it really ought not to be the thing that is bringing down your ISDA Master Agreement.

Note it also pops up as relevant in the “{{{{{1}}}|Absence of Litigation}}” representation in Section {{{{{1}}}|3(c)}} of the 2002 ISDA.