Template:M summ 2002 ISDA 5(c): Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "In which the JC thinks he might have found a ''bona fide'' use for the awful legalism “and/or”. Crikey. What to do if the same thing counts as an {{isdaprov|Illeg...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
What to do if the same thing counts as an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} ''[[and/or]]'' a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} ''[[and]]'' an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} ''[[and/or]]'' a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}. | What to do if the same thing counts as an {{isdaprov|Illegality}} ''[[and/or]]'' a {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} ''[[and]]'' an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} ''[[and/or]]'' a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}. | ||
Why do we need this? Remember an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} is an apocalyptic disaster scenario which blows your whole agreement up with extreme prejudice; a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} is just “one of those things” which justifies termination, but may relate only to a single | Why do we need this? Remember, an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} is an apocalyptic disaster scenario which blows your whole agreement up with extreme prejudice; a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} is just “one of those things” which justifies termination, but may relate only to a single {{isdaprov|Transaction}}, and even if it affects the whole portfolio, it isn’t something one needs necessarily to hang one’s head about. (It’s hardly your fault if they go and change the law on you, is it?) | ||
A {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} is something that is so beyond one’s control or expectation that it shouldn’t count as an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} or even a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} ''at all'' | A {{isdaprov|Force Majeure Event}} is something that is so beyond one’s control or expectation that it shouldn’t count as an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} or even a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} ''at all'' — at least until you’ve had a chance to sort yourself out, fashion a canoe paddle with a Swiss Army knife, jury-rig an aerial and get reconnected to the world wide web. | ||
Revision as of 18:07, 26 February 2020
In which the JC thinks he might have found a bona fide use for the awful legalism “and/or”. Crikey.
What to do if the same thing counts as an Illegality and/or a Force Majeure Event and an Event of Default and/or a Termination Event.
Why do we need this? Remember, an Event of Default is an apocalyptic disaster scenario which blows your whole agreement up with extreme prejudice; a Termination Event is just “one of those things” which justifies termination, but may relate only to a single Transaction, and even if it affects the whole portfolio, it isn’t something one needs necessarily to hang one’s head about. (It’s hardly your fault if they go and change the law on you, is it?)
A Force Majeure Event is something that is so beyond one’s control or expectation that it shouldn’t count as an Event of Default or even a Termination Event at all — at least until you’ve had a chance to sort yourself out, fashion a canoe paddle with a Swiss Army knife, jury-rig an aerial and get reconnected to the world wide web.