|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[6(b) - ISDA Provision|There]] is a difference between {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}s that are:
| | {{isda 6(b) summ|isdaprov}} |
| *'''Non-catastrophic''': that affect one, some, or just a subset of {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s under the {{isdama}} — these might be caused by, say, a {{isdaprov|Tax Event}} or a local {{isdaprov|Illegality}}, but in any weather they are not much about the [[solvency]], [[creditworthiness]] or mendacity of your counterparty (and might have nothing to do with your counterparty at all); and
| |
| *'''Catastrophic''': that, by their nature affect — that is, “[[Affected Transaction - 1992 ISDA Provision|Affect]]” — '''''all''' {{isdaprov|Transactions}}''. These generally are the bespoke ones your [[credit department]] insisted on — or ''theirs'' did; they ''will'' have something to do with the naughtiness of lack of fibre of your counterparty (or you!), and these function for most respects a lot more like {{isdaprov|Events of Default}}.
| |
| | |
| Thus, in the drafting of ISDA Schedules, CSAs and so on, you will often find laboured reference to {{isdaprov|Events of Default}} [[and/or]] {{isdaprov|Termination Events}} which lead to {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}}s ''with respect to all outstanding {{isdaprov|Transaction}}s'' as some kind of special, hyper-exciting, class of {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}.
| |