Termination Event - 1992 ISDA Provision

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search

1992 ISDA Master Agreement
A Jolly Contrarian owner’s manual™

Resources and navigation

Section Termination Event in a Nutshell

Use at your own risk, campers!

Full text of Section Termination Event

Termination Event” means an Illegality, a Tax Event or a Tax Event Upon Merger or, if specified to be applicable, a Credit Event Upon Merger or an Additional Termination Event.

Related agreements and comparisons

Related Agreements
Click here for the text of Section Termination Event in the 2002 ISDA
Template:Isdadiff Termination Event

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Content and comparisons

A comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA can be found on the ISDA Comparison page.

Numbering Discrepancy: Note the numbering discrepancy in Section 5(b) between the 1992 ISDA and 2002 ISDA. This is caused by a new 5(b)(ii) (Force Majeure Event) in the 2002 ISDA before Tax Event, which is thus shunted from Section 5(b)(ii) (in the 1992 ISDA) to Section 5(b)(iii) (in the 2002 ISDA).

A Termination Event is an event justifying one party unilaterally terminating a Transaction — or sometimes all Transactions — but that is generally of a nature that does not cast aspersions of impropriety on the other, or “Affected”, party. This makes a difference when it comes to how one calculates the Close-out Amount for the Transaction in question.



Adding any new Termination Event must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “Additional Termination Event” under Section 5(b)(v), and not a separate event under a new Section 5(b)(vi) etc. If, instead of being expressed as an “Additional Termination Event”, which is how the ISDA Mechanism is intended to operate, it is set out as a new “5(b)(vi)” it is not designated therefore as any of an “Illegality”, “Tax Event”, “Tax Event Upon Merger”, “Credit Event Upon Merger” or “Additional Termination Event”, so therefore, read literally, is not caught by the definition of “Termination Event” and none of the Termination provisions bite on it.

I mention this because we have seen it happen. You can take a “fair, large and liberal view" that what the parties intended was to create an ATE, but why suffer that anxiety?


See also

Template:M sa 1992 ISDA Termination Event