Termination Event - ISDA Provision: Difference between revisions

=={{tag|A trick for young players}}==

'''Best Practice''' Note: Therefore adding any new {{isdaprov|Termination Event}} must ALWAYS be achieved by labelling it a new “'''{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}''' under Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(v)}}, and not a separate event under a new Section {{isdaprov|5(b)(vi)}} etc. If, instead of being expressed as an “{{isdaprov|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 “{{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 “{{isdaprov|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 {{isdaprov|ATE}}, but why suffer that anxiety?