|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{isdacomparison}} | | {{isdamanual|Termination Event}} |
| {{fullanat2|isda|14 - Termination Event|2002|14 - Termination Event|1992}}
| |
| ===A {{tag|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?
| |
| | |
| {{Isdaanatomy}}
| |
| *{{isdaprov|Additional Termination Event}}
| |