Template:M summ 2002 ISDA Affected Party: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Note that, in its wisdom, {{icds}} chose not to have a generic term for the sort of person who is subject to ''either'' a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} ''or'' an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, so there is much “{{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} [[and/or]] {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, [[as the case may be]]” sort of malarkey. This depresses we prose stylists, but {{icds}} has ''never'' cared about us, so we should hardly be surprised. | Note that, in its wisdom, {{icds}} chose not to have a generic term for the sort of person who is subject to ''either'' a {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} ''or'' an {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}, so there is much “{{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} [[and/or]] {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, [[as the case may be]]” sort of malarkey. This depresses we prose stylists, but {{icds}} has ''never'' cared about us, so we should hardly be surprised. | ||
And given its relentless quest for infinitesimal particularity — and accepting for a moment it is ''warranted''<ref>~''Grimaces''~ Right. Moment over.</ref> | And given its relentless quest for infinitesimal particularity — and accepting for a moment it is ''warranted''<ref>~''Grimaces''~ Right. Moment over.</ref> — perhaps {{icds}} has a point, for “{{isdaprov|Affected Party}} appears in subtly different guises in each of the {{isdaprov|Termination Events}}. Sometimes there is one {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}; sometimes there are two. Where there are two {{isdaprov|Affected Parties}} there is not a “victim” and a “perpetrator” as such, but you are in this odd new millennial world where everyone’s a victim, either party may trigger the {{isdaprov|Termination Event}}, both may estimate replacement prices on termination and they have to split the difference. | ||
Where there is one {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, only the {{isdaprov|Unaffected Party}} can terminate, and it is responsible for obtaining the valuation. | Where there is one {{isdaprov|Affected Party}}, only the {{isdaprov|Unaffected Party}} can terminate, and it is responsible for obtaining the valuation. | ||
Revision as of 08:20, 29 February 2020
One who is subject to a Section 5(b) Termination Event, but not a Section 5(a) Event of Default — thus one of a marginally less opprobrious character, seeing as Termination Events are generally not considered to be one’s fault as such, but just sad things that happen that no-one expected, or wanted, but bring what was once a beautiful relationship to an end. It’s not you, it’s — well, it’s not me either, it’s just that confounded tax event that occurred upon your recent merger.
Note that, in its wisdom, ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ chose not to have a generic term for the sort of person who is subject to either a Termination Event or an Event of Default, so there is much “Defaulting Party and/or Affected Party, as the case may be” sort of malarkey. This depresses we prose stylists, but ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ has never cared about us, so we should hardly be surprised.
And given its relentless quest for infinitesimal particularity — and accepting for a moment it is warranted[1] — perhaps ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ has a point, for “Affected Party appears in subtly different guises in each of the Termination Events. Sometimes there is one Affected Party; sometimes there are two. Where there are two Affected Parties there is not a “victim” and a “perpetrator” as such, but you are in this odd new millennial world where everyone’s a victim, either party may trigger the Termination Event, both may estimate replacement prices on termination and they have to split the difference.
Where there is one Affected Party, only the Unaffected Party can terminate, and it is responsible for obtaining the valuation.
- ↑ ~Grimaces~ Right. Moment over.