82,891
edits
Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 6(f): Difference between revisions
Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 6(f) (view source)
Revision as of 09:53, 27 September 2021
, 27 September 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Red letter day for {{icds}}=== | |||
Whatever else you might have to say about ISDA’s set off provision — and as this page demonstrates, there’s quite a bit to say — one thing that stands out is ''how appallingly drafted it is''. | |||
The expression, “in circumstances where there is a Defaulting Party or where there is one Affected Party in the case where either a Credit Event Upon Merger has occurred or any other Termination Event in respect of which all outstanding Transactions are Affected Transactions has occurred” will make your head spin, but it is meant to strike two contingencies: ''All'' {{isdaprov|Transactions}} are being terminated, and ''one'' Party is at fault. | |||
===Cross-[[affiliate]] [[set-off]]=== | ===Cross-[[affiliate]] [[set-off]]=== | ||
The {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Set-off}} provision refers to a “{{isdaprov|Payer}}” and “{{isdaprov|Payee}}”. Since either the “{{isdaprov|Payer}}” or the “{{isdaprov|Payee}}” could be the {{isdaprov|Innocent Party}}<ref>i.e., non-{{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} or the non-{{isdaprov|Affected Party}}.</ref>, including {{isdaprov|Affiliates}} into the 2002 definition becomes problematic and cumbersome. | The {{2002ma}}’s {{isdaprov|Set-off}} provision refers to a “{{isdaprov|Payer}}” and “{{isdaprov|Payee}}”. Since either the “{{isdaprov|Payer}}” or the “{{isdaprov|Payee}}” could be the {{isdaprov|Innocent Party}}<ref>i.e., non-{{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} or the non-{{isdaprov|Affected Party}}.</ref>, including {{isdaprov|Affiliates}} into the 2002 definition becomes problematic and cumbersome. | ||