|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ===ISDA’s is the market standard way of defining “[[bankruptcy]]”===
| | {{isda 5(a)(vii) summ|isdaprov}} |
| The ISDA {{isdaprov|bankruptcy}} definition is rarely a source of great controversy (except for the [[grace period]], which gets negotiated only through custom amongst ISDA [[negotiator]]s because, in its wisdom, {{icds}} thought fit to halve it from 30 days to 15 in the {{2002ma}}.
| |
| | |
| So you have a sort of ''pas-de-deux'' between [[negotiator|negotiators]] where they argue about it for a while before getting tired, being shouted at by their [[Salespeople|business people]], and moving on to something more important to argue about, like {{isdaprov|Cross Default}}).<ref>This, by the way, is an [[ISDA]] In-joke. In fact, {{isdaprov|Cross Default}} is pretty much pointless, a fact that every [[Mediocre lawyer|ISDA lawyer]] and [[credit officer]] knows, but none will admit on the record.</ref>
| |
| | |
| Otherwise, the ISDA ''{{isdaprov|bankruptcy}}'' clause is a much loved and well-used market standard and you often see it being op-opted into other trading agreements precisely because everyone knows it and no one really argues about it.
| |