Termination Event - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - ""{" to ""'''{") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - " "" to " “") |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Be Careful== | ==Be Careful== | ||
'''Best Practice''' Note: Therefore adding any new Termination Event must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new | '''Best Practice''' Note: Therefore adding any new Termination Event must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “'''{{isdaprov|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” under section 5(b)(v), 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 “{{isdaprov|Illegality}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event}}”, “{{isdaprov|Tax Event Upon Merger}}”, “{{isdaprov|Credit Event Upon Merger}}” or “{{isdaprov|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 | 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? | ||
{{Isdaanatomy}} | {{Isdaanatomy}} | ||
*{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}} | *{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}} | ||
Revision as of 10:11, 8 September 2016
A comparison between the 1992 ISDA and the 2002 ISDA can be found on the ISDA Comparison page.
In gory detail
|
1992 ISDA |
2002 ISDA |
Be Careful
Best Practice Note: Therefore 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” under section 5(b)(v), 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?