Template:Repack and the single agreement

Revision as of 11:04, 4 October 2022 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Okay, do not adjust the {{{{{1}}}|Single Agreement}} provision ''unless'' you are writing an {{isdama}} for a repackaging vehicle issuing segregated, secured, limited re...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Okay, do not adjust the {{{{{1}}}|Single Agreement}} provision unless you are writing an ISDA Master Agreement for a repackaging vehicle issuing segregated, secured, limited recourse obligations. In that case you — and here I am supposing that “you” are the inhouse legal eagle at the arranging bank, or someone advising her — will have multiple {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s nominally between the same two entities — your employer and the SPV — but economically being totally distinct, relating as they do to discrete ring-fenced “Series” issued by the SPV and you absolutely do not want these to form a single agreement with each other, or net, or do anything ostensibly desirable like that.

Each {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} (or set of {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}s, if more than one {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}} attaches to a single Series) stands quite alone, should not be accelerated, cross-defaulted, DUSTed, closed out or heaven forbid netted, just because some other {{{{{1}}}|Transaction}}, relating to another series, has gone arriba. Treat them as if each Series had its own distinct ISDA Master Agreement, completely isolated, air-gapped and insulated against misadventure occurring in other ISDA Master Agreements the SPV has entered with you relating to other Series.[1]

  1. Except as regards “Bankruptcy” of the SPV, but if you have structured your vehicle correctly, it won’t be able to go bankrupt. And in any case the same bankruptcy event would be an independent Event of Default occurring under each discrete Master Agreement.