Indonesia-European Union Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA)

Latar belakang

Diawali dengan negosiasi pertama antara ASEAN dengan Uni Eropa yang dimulai pada tahun 2007 yang kemudian ditunda di tahun 2009. Dengan penundaan ini, Uni Eropa mencoba membuka jalan dengan melakukan negosiasi perjanjian perdagangan bebas bilateral dengan masing-masing negara anggota ASEAN, termasuk Indonesia. Presiden RI saat itu, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, dan Presiden Komisi Eropa, José Manuel Barroso, mengadakan pertemuan untuk mendiskusikan cara-cara memperkuat hubungan bilateral antara Indonesia dengan Uni Eropa (UE). Kedua belah pihak sepakat untuk membentuk Vision Group. Pada tahun 2011, Vision Group menyepakati bahwa kemitraan antara Indonesia dengan UE harus diperkuat untuk mencapai tujuan pertumbuhan ekonomi, penciptaan lapangan kerja, dan pengurangan angka kemiskinan dengan mempertimbangkan different levels of development dan fleksibilitas.

Upaya di atas dilanjutkan dengan dimulainya penyusunan Scoping Paper Indonesia-European Union (I-EU) Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) tahun 2012 sebagai pedoman prinsip yang berisi cakupan isu-isu perundingan I-EU CEPA. Pada tanggal 21 April 2016, penyusunan Scoping Paper I-EU CEPA dinyatakan selesai dan putaran perundingan secara resmi dimulai. Pada 18 Juli 2016, Indonesia dan Uni Eropa melakukan Joint Announcement Perundingan I-EU CEPA. Kemudian dilanjutkan dengan dilaksanakannya Kick Off Meeting sekaligus putaran pertama I-EU CEPA pada 20-21 September 2016 di Brussels, Belgia. Putaran kedua diadakan pada bulan Januari 2017, dan putaran ketiga pada bulan September 2017. Putaran keempat negosiasi berlangsung dari 19 hingga 23 Februari 2018. Putaran kelima negosiasi diadakan di Brussels pada tanggal 9 hingga 23 Februari 2019. Perkembangan perundingan dicapai dengan adanya putaran keenam negosiasi yang dilaksanakan di Palembang pada tanggal 15 hingga 19 Oktober 2019. Pada putaran keenam tersebut disampaikan usulan kedua belah pihak mengenai tarif pada perdagangan barang. Kemudian diadakan puatan ketujuh pada tanggal 11 hingga 15 Maret 2019 di Brussels, Terakhir perundingan dilaksanakan pada tanggal 17 – 21 Juni 2019 di Jakarta. CEPA diharapkan menjadi kesepakatan komprehensif yang membahas berbagai aspek hubungan ekonomi antara kedua negara.

Berdasarkan Studi tentang Dampak Indonesia-EU CEPA oleh Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), perjanjian ini diharapkan dapat memberikan setidaknya tiga kontribusi bagi Indonesia. Pertama, peningkatan perdagangan antara Indonesia dan UE. Fokus kesepakatan pada liberalisasi perdagangan akan meningkatkan intensitas hubungan perdagangan dengan menurunkan hambatan perdagangan, dan dengan fasilitas perdagangan. Kedua, terkait dampak liberalisasi pada perdagangan dan investasi di bidang jasa, CEPA diharapkan dapat meningkatkan transparansi dan prediktabilitas regulasi di bidang ekonomi, dan dengan demikian memberikan dorongan untuk peningkatan lebih lanjut dalam Penanaman Modal Langsung Luar Negeri (FDI). Ketentuan tersebut akan meningkatkan iklim investasi dan menciptakan lingkungan yang lebih tangguh dan adaptif untuk menghadapi tantangan ekonomi global yang tidak menentu dan meningkatkan persaingan. Ketiga, peningkatan alih teknologi dan keterampilan di sektor barang, jasa, dan investasi. Investasi modal, teknologi canggih, pengetahuan teknis dan inovasi, investasi dalam R&D, serta pengembangan sumber daya manusia dan keterampilan dapat diperoleh melalui investasi dari Uni Eropa.

Konteks Perundingan I-EU CEPA

Dengan pasar sebesar lebih dari 500 juta jiwa dan penguasaan teknologi yang tinggi, potensi hubungan kerja sama ekonomi, perdagangan dan investasi masih dapat ditingkatkan di antara Indonesia dan EU. EU adalah pasar utama ekspor ke-4 bagi Indonesia. Hingga saat ini Indonesia masih menikmati fasilitas Generalized System of Preference (GSP) berupa tarif rendah pada beberapa produk namun fasilitas tersebut akan dicabut apabila Indonesia telah memasuki kategori upper-middle income country (WB criteria) dengan Gross National Income per capita $4,125 – $ 12,735 (GNI per kapita Indonesia tahun 2015 adalah $3,650).

Hubungan transaksi perdagangan yang timbal balik antara UE dan Indonesia cukup penting untuk diperhatikan. Dalam bidang jasa, total perdagangan bilateral antara UE dan Indonesia mencapai € 6 miliar pada tahun 2014, dengan surplus € 2,2 miliar untuk UE. Uni Eropa juga memiliki saham penanaman modal langsung asing di Indonesia hampir € 26 miliar, kedua setelah Singapura. Sedangkan untuk perdagangan barang, total dari UE dan Indonesia mencapai lebih dari € 25 miliar pada tahun 2015 dengan ekspor UE senilai hampir € 10 miliar dan impor UE dari Indonesia senilai lebih dari € 15 miliar, menghasilkan surplus perdagangan lebih dari € 5 miliar untuk Indonesia. Namun, kapasitas penawaran (supply) Indonesia perlu ditingkatkan. Misalnya dalam perdagangan barang, masalah utama terletak pada aturan standar UE yang belum dipenuhi Indonesia akan tetapi di sisi lain juga tidak dapat diturunkan oleh UE. Selain hal tersebut, masih ada beberapa kendala yang menyebabkan Indonesia harus dapat lebih aktif pada saat proses perundingan sehingga nantinya keuntungan dapat lebih maksimal dapat dirasakan oleh kedua pihak.

Skema I-EU CEPA bukanlah merupakan sebuah charity project atau social-cultural project. CEPA ini adalah tentang kemitraan ekonomi melalui penghapusan hambatan-hambatan arus barang, jasa, investasi/ modal, tenaga profesional serta sinkronisasi kebijakan ekonomi lainnya (persaingan, HKI, BUMN dan lain-lain) yang mendukung kelancaran arus barang, jasa, investasi/modal dan tenaga profesional. Kebijakan proteksi akan diminimalkan bila tidak memungkinkan untuk dihapus. Demikian pula, kebijakan local content atau performance requirements akan menjadi sasaran UE dalam perundingan ini. Melalui CEPA, Indonesia diharapkan dapat mengamankan dan memperluas akses pasar barang dan jasa ke UE, mengundang investasi dan turis UE ke Indonesia dan meningkatkan kapasitas nasional (barang, jasa, SDM, dan lain-lain) untuk bersaing di pasar UE maupun pasar negara maju lainnya.

Cakupan I-EU CEPA

Perundingan CEPA antara Indonesia dan Uni Eropa berpedoman pada scoping paper yang telah disepakati kedua belah pihak. Oleh sebab itu, isu-isu di luar scoping paper atau tidak secara eksplisit disebutkan dalam scoping paper, tidak dapat serta merta dimasukkan ke dalam agenda perundingan RI. Adapun cakupan dari scoping paper I-EU CEPA secara garis besar sebagai berikut:

• Kesepakatan sejalan dengan peraturan nasional para pihak.
• Memberikan fleksibilitas dalam menerapkan kebijakan nasional para pihak.
• Penghapusan pajak ekspor yang ada dan larangan penerapan pajak ekspor baru di masa datang.
• Ketentuan asal barang disesuaikan dengan kesepakatan FTA antara Uni Eropa dengan negara ASEAN lainnya.
• Fasilitas Perdagangan melalui modernisasi dan simplifikasi prosedur ekspor dan impor.
• Perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (HKI) melalui pengawasan lalu lintas barang di kepabeanan.
• Pengurangan hambatan dagang melalui peningkatan aspek transparansi dan kerja sama teknis di bidang perkarantinaan.
• Mengurangi hambatan teknis perdagangan melalui harmonisasi dan kesesuaian regulasi teknis berdasarkan ketentuan standar internasional.
• Meningkatkan akses pasar perdagangan jasa melalui penghapusan pembatasan dan peraturan yang restriktif dan diskriminatif pada sektor-sektor yang disepakati.
• Fasilitasi kegiatan investasi melalui simplifikasi dan transparansi kebijakan dan prosedur serta menjamin adanya kepastian hukum.
• Meningkatkan akses pasar melalui penghapusan secara bertahap perlakuan diskriminatif dan penguatan aspek transparansi dalam pengadaan barang dan jasa oleh pemerintah pusat dan daerah.
• Perlindungan terhadap Hak Kekayaan Intelektual dan Geographical Indication dalam perdagangan produk pertanian sesuai ketentuan TRIPS, bilamana perlu dengan melakukan penyempurnaan atas Undang-undang (UU) yang ada.
• Mendorong iklim persaingan usaha yang kondusif, adil dan transparan melalui kepastian hukum di bidang persaingan usaha dengan tetap menghormati hak para pihak untuk mewujudkan tujuan-tujuan kebijakan publik (melalui penugasan BUMN).
• Menciptakan mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa investasi yang adil dan transparan bagi investor dan pemerintah.
• Menekankan komitmen para pihak terhadap upaya mendukung agenda sustainable development tahun 2030 melalui harmonisasi perlindungan lingkungan, sosial dan tenaga kerja sejalan dengan kesepakatan internasional.

Negosiasi antara Uni Eropa dan Indonesia secara resmi telah diluncurkan pada 18 Juli 2016. Tim negosiasi Uni Eropa dipimpin oleh Helena König, Direktur untuk Asia dan Amerika Latin, sementara tim Indonesia dipimpin oleh Iman Pambagyo, Direktur Jenderal Perundingan Perdagangan Internasional di Kementerian Perdagangan Indonesia. Diskusi mencakup perdagangan barang, aturan asal, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS), hambatan teknis untuk perdagangan (TBT), bea cukai dan fasilitasi perdagangan, pengadaan pemerintah, layanan dan investasi, hak kekayaan intelektual (termasuk indikasi geografis), persaingan, perdagangan dan pembangunan berkelanjutan, perbaikan perdagangan, penyelesaian sengketa, dan kerja sama ekonomi.

Referensi

EU-Indonesia Free Trade Agreement Webpage, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm? id=1620 diakses tanggal 23 Juni 2018.

Yose Rizal Damuri, et all, 2014, Study on the Impact of an EU-Indonesia CEPA, Report, CSIS Indonesia.

EU and Indonesia Launch Bilateral Trade Talks, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm ?id=1528, diakses tanggal 23 Juni 2018.

Witkjaksono, D.B., 2016, Perspektif Indonesia Terhadap IEU CEPA: Dalam Peningkatan Kerja Sama Perdagangan Dengan Kawasan Eropa, Makalah, 2016.

Pandangan tentang Perkembangan Terbaru di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, 2016-2018

Penulis: Taufiq Adiyanto dan Putra Perdana 

Kondisi Perekonomian Provinsi

Secara umum, kondisi perekonomian Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta (DIY) 2016 – 2018 mengalami fluktuasi, di mana pada Triwulan II 2018 mencatat pertumbuhan tertinggi selama 4 tahun terakhir, yaitu sebesar 5,90% (yoy), lebih tinggi dibanding pertumbuhan triwulan sebelumnya sebesar 5,38% (yoy) maupun periode yang sama tahun sebelumnya yang hanya tumbuh sebesar 5,21% (yoy) (Bank Indonesia 2018). Berdasarkan harga konstan 2010, angka PDRB DIY tahun 2017 mencapai 92,3 triliun rupiah, naik dari 87,69 triliun pada tahun 2016 (Badan Pusat Statistik 2018).

Selama 5 tahun terakhir, struktur perekonomian DIY didominasi oleh 3 (tiga) sektor yaitu Industri Pengolahan (13,2 %, menurun dari tahun 2013 dengan proporsi 13,62 %); Penyediaan Akomodasi dan Makan Minum (10,32 %, naik dari tahun 2013 dengan proporsi 9,75); dan Pertanian, Kehutanan, dan Perikanan (10,01%, turun dari tahun 2013 dengan proporsi 11,13 %) (Badan Pusat Statistik 2018).

Pada kuartal I tahun 2016, nilai ekspor nonmigas sebesar 79,98 juta USD. Pada kuartal ke IV tahun 2017, nilai ekspor nonmigas mencapai 106,03 juta USD. Selama tahun 2017, komoditas yang menjadi primadona ekspor adalah pakaian jadi bukan rajutan (136,7 juta USD) menyumbang sekitar 34,96 % dari total ekspor (Badan Pusat Statistik 2018). Sedangkan untuk impor, nilai impor DIY pada tahun 2016 adalah sebesar 6,20 juta USD dan 7,75 juta USD pada tahun 2017. Kain tenunan khusus menjadi komoditas impor utama DIY senilai 1,7 juta USD. Nilai tersebut setara dengan 21,64 % dari keseluruhan nilai impor (Badan Pusat Statistik 2018).

Perkembangan investasi di DIY dalam kurun waktu lima tahun terakhir menunjukkan pertumbuhan positif baik dalam Penanaman Modal Asing (PMA) maupun dalam Penanaman Modal Dalam Negeri  (PMDN). Tahun 2017 secara kumulatif total investasi tumbuh sebesar 6,42%. Total investasi di DIY sampai dengan tahun 2017 sebesar 12,8 triliun rupiah yang terdiri dari PMDN sebesar 4,8 triliun rupiah dan PMA sebesar 8,03 triliun rupiah. Investasi paling banyak ditanamkan pada sektor tersier (sebesar 8,4 triliun rupiah), diikuti sektor sekunder (sebesar 3,6 triliun rupiah) dan sektor primer sebesar 703 miliar rupiah (BKPM DIY 2017).

Kondisi Perkembangan Sosial

Tren peningkatan kinerja perekonomian DIY yang masih terus berlanjut turut berdampak terhadap perbaikan indikator kemiskinan di DIY. Pada Maret 2018, jumlah orang miskin di DIY tercatat sebanyak 460,10 ribu orang (12,13 %), atau terkoreksi sebesar -5,82% (yoy). Angka tersebut masih di atas atas angka nasional sebesar 9,82 % (Bank Indonesia 2018).

Dilihat dari indikator yang lain, Indeks Pembangunan Manusia (IPM) DIY secara umum mengalami peningkatan. Dari tahun 2014 hingga 2017, berturut-turut IPM DIY tercatat sebesar 76,81; 77,59; 78,38 dan 78,89. Kota Yogyakarta masih memegang nilai IPM tertinggi di DIY dan Kabupaten Gunung Kidul tercatat sebagai pemegang nilai IPM terendah di DIY (Badan Pusat Statistik 2018).

Berkenaan dengan gejolak horizontal di DIY, ada beberapa kejadian yang terjadi. Salah satunya adalah terkait pembangunan proyek New Yogyakarta International Airport (NYIA). Beberapa kali insiden bahkan kekerasan antara aparat keamanan dan warga penolak bandara terjadi bahkan hingga penangkapan aktivis. Kisruh ini terjadi akibat tiga faktor utama, yaitu (Pamungkas dan Bayu 2017) pertama adalah persoalan tanah atau agraria, kedua soal timpangnya kekuasaan dalam desentralisasi pemerintahan, ketiga, hadirnya investor asing.

Kebijakan Pemerintah Provinsi

Perkembangan terbaru kebijakan pemerintah provinsi cukup dinamis. Pada akhir 2017, Peraturan Daerah (Perda) DIY No. 9 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemberdayaan dan Perlindungan Industri Kreatif, Koperasi dan Usaha Kecil telah diundangkan. Perda ini dibuat didasari karena pelaku usaha tersebut memiliki peran yang strategis dalam menopang ketahanan ekonomi masyarakat dan menciptakan lapangan kerja. Selain itu, untuk mewujudkan tata kelola pertambangan yang lebih menguntungkan dan meningkatkan keselamatan kerja dan keselamatan lingkungan, Perda No. 1 Tahun 2018 tentang Pengelolaan Usaha Pertambangan Mineral Logam, Mineral Bukan Logam, dan Batuan juga telah diundangkan.

Pada tahun 2018 mulai diinisiasi Rancangan Perda (Raperda) tentang Energi Terbarukan. Raperda ini diharapkan menjadi dasar hukum bagi perorangan dan badan usaha yang mengadakan atau mengusahakan teknologi energi alternatif. Agus Setiawan, Akademisi UGM, menanggapi positif inisiatif ini karena potensi energi terbarukan di DIY masih sangat besar misalnya dalam penerapan sel surya di setiap rumah (Gatra 2018).

Beberapa proyek juga sedang dibangun untuk mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi di wilayah DIY. Pembangunan bandara New Yogyakarta International Airport (NYIA) di Kabupaten Kulon Progo dan Jalur Jalan Lintas Selatan (JJLS) yang melewati DIY masih terus berlanjut. Selain itu, sebagai bagian dari proyek strategis nasional,  Proyek Jalan Tol Surakarta – Yogyakarta – Kulonprogo juga sudah disetujui oleh Gubernur DIY (Tempo 2018).

Situasi Politik Setempat

Berdasarkan UU No. 13 Tahun 2012 tentang Keistimewaan DIY, DIY mempunyai keistimewaan dalam pengisian jabatan Gubernur dan Wakil Gubernur melalui penetapan oleh DPRD setiap 5 tahun terhadap Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono sebagai Gubernur dan Adipati Paku Alam sebagai Wakil Gubernur. Pada Agustus 2017, Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono X dan Adipati Paku Alam kembali ditetapkan sebagai Gubernur dan Wakil Gubernur DIY untuk periode 2017-2022 (Kompas 2017).

Pada tahun 2018 tidak ada Pemilihan Kepala Daerah (Pilkada). Sedangkan di 2017, Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU) menetapkan Haryadi Suyuti dan Heroe Poerwadi sebagai Walikota dan Wakil Walikota Kota Yogyakarta serta Hasto Wardoyo dan Sutedjo sebagai Bupati dan Wakil Bupati Kabupaten Kulon Progo. Pilkada di Kota Yogyakarta dimenangkan dengan selisih suara tipis yaitu 0.6 persen, sedangkan Pilkada di Kabupaten Kulon Progo dimenangkan dengan selisih yang signifikan yaitu 71.24 persen (KPU DIY 2017). Isu yang muncul di Pilkada 2017 ialah intoleransi yang meningkat sejak 2012 (Tempo 2016) dan khusus untuk Kulon Progo, isu mengenai pembangunan bandara NYIA masih berkembang di Kabupaten Kulon Progo (CNN Indonesia 2017). Pembangunan bandara NYIA memang akan mendorong berkembangnya sektor pariwisata, perdagangan, dan menciptakan lapangan kerja di Kabupaten Kulon Progo, tetapi pemerintah juga menghadapi dampak pembangunan terhadap masyarakat dan lingkungan.

Gambaran situasi politik di Yogyakarta juga dapat dilihat di DPRD DIY. Berdasarkan pemilihan anggota DPRD tahun 2014, DPRD DIY terdiri dari tujuh partai dengan Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDIP) sebagai partai dengan kursi terbanyak yaitu 14 kursi (25,45 persen) selanjutnya di duduki oleh Partai Golkar dan Partai Amanat Nasional dengan masing-masing mendapat 8 kursi (14, 54 persen) (DPRD DIY 2014). Walaupun PDIP mendominasi kursi di DPRD, namun demikian, tidak ada friksi politik yang signifikan karena tidak ada partai yang mengambil sikap sebagai oposisi.

 

Referensi

Badan Pusat Statistik. 2018. Indeks Pembangunan Manusia Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta.

—. 2018. Produk Domestik Regional Bruto Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Menurut Lapangan Usaha. Yogyakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta.

—. 2018. Statistik Ekspor dan Impor Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 2017. Yogyakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta.

Bank Indonesia. 2018. Kajian Ekonomi dan Keuangan Regional Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Kantor Perwakilan Bank Indonesia Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta.

BKPM DIY. 2017. Grafik Statistik. Diakses 2 Oktober 2018. http://jogjainvest.jogjaprov.go.id/grafik-statistik.html.

CNN Indonesia. 2017. Pembangunan Bandara di Kulon Progo Abaikan Hal Mendasar. 6 Desember. Diakses 1 Oktober 2018. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20171206085523-20-260425/pembangunan-bandara-di-kulon-progo-abaikan-hal-mendasar.

DPRD DIY. 2014. Daftar Caleg terpilih DPRD DIY periode 2014 – 2019. 25 April . Diakses 1 Oktober 2018. https://www.dprd-diy.go.id/daftar-caleg-terpilih-dprd-diy-periode-2014-2019/.

Gatra. 2018. Jogja Susun Perda Energi Terbarukan. 23 Maret. Diakses 1 Oktober 2018. https://www.gatra.com/rubrik/nasional/314094-Jogja-Susun-Perda-Energi-Terbarukan.

Kompas. 2017. Sultan HB X Ditetapkan Kembali sebagai Gubernur DIY. 3 Agustus. Diakses 1 Oktober 2018. https://regional.kompas.com/read/2017/08/03/13444271/sultan-hb-x-ditetapkan-kembali-sebagai-gubernur-diy.

KPU DIY. 2017. Hasil Pilkada Kota Yogyakarta dan Kabupaten Kulon Progo 2017. 28 FebruarI. Diakses 1 Oktober 2018. http://diy.kpu.go.id/web/2017/02/28/hasil-pilkada-kota-yogyakarta-dan-kabupaten-kulon-progo-2017/.

Pamungkas, Sri Bintang, dan Anggalih Bayu. 2017. nekropolis. 27 Desember. Diakses 3 Oktober 2018. https://medium.com/nekropolis/prahara-mega-proyek-pembangunan-bandara-kulon-progo-273274ccc601.

Pemprov DIY. 2018. Hari Anak 2018: Pemda DIY dan Gubernur DIY Dianugerahi Penghargaan Tingkat Nasional. 23 Juli. Diakses 1 Oktober 2018. https://jogjaprov.go.id/berita/detail/hari-anak-2018-pemda-diy-dan-gubernur-diy-dianugerahi-penghargaan-tingkat-nasional.

Tempo. 2016. 2 Calon Wali Kota Komentari Isu Toleransi di Yogyakarta. 6 November. Diakses 1 Oktober 2018. https://pilkada.tempo.co/read/818112/2-calon-wali-kota-komentari-isu-toleransi-di-yogyakarta/full&view=ok.

—. 2018. Sri Sultan HB X Sepakati Pembangunan Jalan Tol Yogyakarta-Solo. 25 Juni. Diakses Oktober 1, 2018. https://bisnis.tempo.co/read/1100702/sri-sultan-hb-x-sepakati-pembangunan-jalan-tol-yogyakarta-solo/full&view=ok.

Corporate Taxation In Indonesia

A company is important to perform business in gaining profit. In many countries, a company is subject to tax obligation. It needs to comply with a wide variety of taxes. One of them is corporate income tax. According to Indonesian Tax Regime, a company is imposed for tax if it has establishment or domicile (place of management) in Indonesia. A foreign company carrying out business activities through a permanent establishment (PE) and local entity will generally have same tax obligations as resident company. In the case a company does not have any PE in Indonesia but does generate income through business activities in Indonesia, then it needs to settle its tax liabilities through withholding system by Indonesian party paying income.

Generally, a corporate income tax rate in Indonesia is 25 percent. However, there are several exemptions. Firstly, for companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) or public companies (with additional Tbk in their company name) will get 5 percent tax cut, so they will be imposed tax rate 20 percent. Secondly, for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with an annual revenue below IDR 50 billion obtain 50 percent tax discount, which is imposed proportionally on taxable income of the part of gross turnover up to IDR 4.8 billion. Furthermore, there is one percent income tax tariff on companies with an annual gross turnover below IDR 4.8 billion.

Those tax liabilities shall be paid to the Indonesian State Treasury through a designated tax-payment bank (bank persepsi) and then accounted for Indonesian Tax Authority through the filing of tax returns. For corporate tax, tax returns must be submitted by the end of the fourth month after the end of the financial year with tax payments having completed prior to filing. But it can be extended by up to two months through written notification and tentative tax calculation filed prior to the deadline to the Directorate General of Tax.

Corporate tax can also be arranged to be paid in a prepayment system based on the previous tax year’s liabilities. In addition, late payments of the taxes will bring interests penalties at two per cent per month at a maximum of 48 per cent. Late filing or failure to file a tax return incurs an administrative penalty ranging between IDR 500,000 to 1 million.

Trade and Protectionism

There were some thought-provoking posts from Pierre Lemieux, a Canadian economist from Universite du Quebec en Outaouais. I took some ideas from his writes international trade and protectionism. In this article “You Can’t Benefit from Free Trade if You Don’t Have a Job. Right?” he carved that:

The important point is that free trade benefits consumers more than its competitive pressure harms producers. Economic theory provides a nice geometric demonstration of the proposition that the total cost of protectionism for consumers is higher than its total benefits to producers. The demonstration can be (imperfectly) explained in plain English: if free trade harmed producers more than it benefits consumers, the former could outcompete their foreign competitors by bribing domestic consumers with better prices and still gain compared to ceding the market to foreign producers – and protectionism would not be necessary. When domestic producers are unable to compensate consumers for not patronizing foreign suppliers, it means that free trade benefits consumers more than it harms producers.

From Pierre’s second post “A Protectionist Utopia?”

That free international trade benefits most people, that it increases general prosperity, can be grasped with a reductio ad absurdum. If protectionism were good between countries, it would also be good between states, regions, towns, etc. It would be worth protecting California against Mississippi, if only because wages are 39% lower in Mississippi than in California. “If it could save only one job…” is as bad an argument against international competition as against domestic competition. Protectionist measures do favour some individuals, but it is at the high cost of reducing opportunities for most individuals. And even those who seem to benefit from protectionism, or their children, are likely to lose out in the long run.

Amandemen KUHPerdata Perancis

Seperti diketahui bersama bahwa Hukum Perdata Perancis mempunyai hubungan yang dekat dengan hukum perdata Indonesia, terutama dari segi perundang-undangannya: Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (“KUHPerdata”). KUHPerdata Perancis secara historis telah memberi pengaruh besar terhadap KUHPerdata Belanda pada abad kesembilan belas dan akhirnya kodifikasi tersebut sampai ke Indonesia pada abad ke-20. Mengetahui bahwa KUHPerdata Indonesia telah dipengaruhi oleh KUHPerdata Belanda yang lama dan KUHPerdata Perancis sebelum amandemen, maka tidak mengherankan jika ketentuan dalam berbagai undang-undang di atas juga berbagi gagasan yang sama. Mengenai asas pacta sunt servanda misalnya di KUHPerdata Indonesia pada Pasal 1338, kita dapat menemukan hal yang serupa dengan Pasal 1374 KUHPerdata Belanda yang lama dan Pasal 1134 dari KUHPerdata Perancis sebelum amandemen dengan kata-kata yang persis sama.

Menariknya, KUHPerdata Belanda dan Perancis sudah diperbaharui agar sesuai dengan perkembangan zaman. Dalam tulisan kali ini penulis tidak akan berbicara banyak mengenai perubahan KUHPerdata Belanda di tahun 1992. Penulis lebih menyoroti amandemen KUHPerdata Perancis yang baru saja dilakukan. Pemerintah Prancis, melalui Ordonansi n°2016-131 tertanggal 10 Februari 2016, telah mengubah KUHPerdata Perdata khususnya mengenai hukum kontrak yang sebelumnya tidak berubah sejak tahun 1804. Reformasi KUHPerdata dari zaman Napoleon yang cukup fenomenal ini dimaksudkan untuk meningkatkan daya tarik Perancis dalam lanskap hukum global yang sangat kompetitif terutama jika diperbandingkan dengan sistem common law (the United States atau the United Kingdom).

Hukum kontrak Perancis yang sudah beku selama lebih dari 200 tahun telah dilakukan modernisasi dengan mengadopsi berbagai solusi inovatif. Namun, perlu ditekankan bahwa tujuan Reformasi KUHPerdata Perancis, menurut para ahli, pada dasarnya tidak mengubah undang-undang kontrak Perancis, melainkan untuk menyusun perubahan yang diperkenalkan oleh putusan-putusan hakim terdahulu (case law). Hanya saja kenyataanya, beberapa ketentuan baru memang berbeda dari undang-undang yang ada dan mungkin memerlukan beberapa perubahan penting, yang akan dijelaskan pada tulisan-tulisan selanjutnya.

Bagian utama dari amandemen sudah berlaku efektif pada tanggal 1 Oktober 2016 untuk kontrak yang disepakati atau diperbaharui setelah tanggal ini. Beberapa situasi yang kompleks (seperti Framework Agreements dan Application Agreements) sebagian diatur oleh ketentuan lama dari KUHPerdata Perancis dan sebagian oleh aturan yang baru. Demikian juga, proses peradilan yang dimulai sebelum tanggal tersebut tetap tunduk pada rezim hukum yang lama.

Untuk dokumen lengkapnya bisa diakses dalam link berikut ini.

ISDA Determination Committee in Determining Credit Event

Overview ISDA

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) is a trade organisation of participants in the market for over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. Since 1985, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) has worked to make the global derivatives markets safer and more efficient, for example by creating a standardised contract (the ISDA Master Agreement) for all participants who want to enter into derivatives transactions.[1]

Not only ISDA Master Agreement, but ISDA has also developed standard documentation for derivatives such as schedule to the master agreement, credit support documents (optional), and confirmation.[2] The results of this are that (i) the time and cost involved to negotiate and agree on derivative transactions have been significantly reduced (ii) the use of derivatives has grown significantly.[3] Therefore, it is not surprising that derivatives account nearly half of the total outstanding notional worldwide and up to 85 percent of total outstanding notional of contracts concerning emerging market issuers.[4]

Nowadays, ISDA has over 850 member institutions from 67 countries. In reflecting the global scope of the OTC derivatives markets and its membership, the Association’s presence is divided into several regions, which are Canada, United States, Latin America, Japan, Asia Pacific, Europe and Emerging Markets across Europe, the Middle East and Africa.[5] Besides having specific regional offices, ISDA also has several committees namely:[6]

• Functional Committees;
• Product Committees;
• Region-Specific Committees;
• ISDA Industry Governance Committee (IIGC) and Regulatory Implementation Committees;
• Benchmark Committee; and
• Determination Committees (DC).

The ISDA Credit Derivatives Determination Committee

The Determination Committee (DC) was formally established in 2009 with the publication of the DC Rules in connection with the Big Bang Protocol and the March 2009 Supplement to the Credit Derivatives Definitions.[7] The ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees (DCs) each comprise ten sell-side and five buy-side voting firms, alongside three consultative firms and central counterparty observer members. The DC currently exists in each of the following regions: Americas, Asia excluding Japan, Australia-New Zealand, EMEA (Europe), and Japan.[8] Each DC deliberates issues involving reference entities traded under transaction types that relate to the relevant region. The determinations made by the DCs are governed by the Determinations Committees Rules. The latest amendment of DC Rules is on 2016 ISDA DC Rules January 10, 2016.[9]

The existence of the DC is to compare the facts of particular events with the provisions of standard CDS contracts (including Credit Derivatives Definitions) to make determinations regarding the key provisions of such contracts, including:[10]

• Whether a Credit Event (an event that would trigger the settlement of the CDS and allow the protection buyer to obtain payment for the credit protection purchased) has occurred;
• Whether an auction should be held to determine the final price for CDS settlement; and
• Which obligations should be delivered or valued in the auction.

However, the Determination Committee is different from international commercial arbitration, because the decisions of DC applies to all affected transactions of market participants who have adhered to the Big Bang Protocol.[11] Additionally, unlike traditional adjudicative bodies, the DCs do not resolve party disputes based on adversarial submissions. Instead, they answer standard-form questions posed by market participants, who choose the questions from a limited menu.[12]

The Role of The ISDA Credit Derivatives Determination Committee in Credit Default Swap Transactions

In principle, when a CDS contract is entered into, the two parties thereto agree that the contract will be governed by the Credit Derivatives Definitions and that the determinations of the relevant DC will be binding on the contract. This section will discuss the procedures of the DC when to examine a question from an eligible market participant.

1. Procedures in Determination Committee

First of all, if there is a potential occurrence of a credit event, in order to convene the Committee, any eligible market participant (any counterparty to a relevant CDS transaction) can request a meeting of the Committee by notifying the DC Secretary (ISDA) regarding the issue. The issue posted is in the form of a question to the Determinations Committee on its website (http://dc.isda.org/submit-a-request/), and it shall include a reasonably detailed description of all of the issues. [13] When raising a question to the DC, supporting publicly available information are required as evidence. Therefore it is essential.

Following valid receipt of a request for a meeting of a Committee, the DC Secretary will determine each affected reference entity, the implicated transaction type and the relevant DC Voting Members for each Region.[14]

In order to hold a meeting of a Convened DC to deliberate the request, at least one Convened DC Voting Member must agree to ponder such request, while regarding to a request that has been designated as a general interest question (anonymous), in this case, at least two Convened DC Voting Members must agree to deliberate such request.  However, in instances where a Convened DC Voting Member proposes a request, such Convened DC Voting Member shall count fulfil the applicable agreement requirements (automatically accepted).[15]

Furthermore, a Convened DC cannot hold any deliberations or take any vote unless a quorum is reached. At least 80% of the Convened DC Voting Members must be present (either in person or by telephone, video conference or web conference), if the 80% Requirement is not satisfied at any meeting of the Convened DC, at least 60% of the Convened DC Voting Members must be present for the next meeting and all subsequent meetings of such Convened DC, and if the 60% Requirement is not satisfied at a relevant meeting, at least 50% of the Convened DC Voting Members must be present for all subsequent meetings of such Convened DC is required for a credit event to be declared.[16

There are two things that matter in determining a credit event. First, the decision can only be made based on publicly available facts submitted to the DC. Second, these facts need to be referenced to the ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions to determine whether a credit event has occurred. This makes the process objective and predictable as possible; the decisions quickly made as well as providing certainty to market participants.

If the DC members have accepted the question and present in accordance with quorum rules, then the DC begins its discussion. Each Convened DC Voting Member only has one vote on a Convened DC, and it is deemed a binding vote.[17] After obtaining a result, the DC Secretary will promptly publish the result on its Website, and an eligible market participant will know whether a Credit Event has occurred.

If it is deemed that a credit event has occurred, the DC will also consider whether to hold an auction to determine the final price for CDS settlement and which obligations the reference entity that the credit protection buyer must deliver to the credit protection seller or valued in the auction. The DC will also publish the auction settlement terms as a regulation to conduct the auction on its website.

2. Procedures for External Review

If DC has made a binding vote, but it is not by a supermajority. Then it shall be referred to the External Review.[18] The external review contains a minimum of 3 (three) external reviewers and up to five independent experts for consideration (the fourth and fifth members, if any, are primarily back-ups). They are selected by Convened DC from the list which provided by ISDA.[19]

In relation to the external review procedure, each voting members in his particular position shall appoint one or more person to present their argument to the external reviewers and participate in oral argument.[20] Then the decision of external review should be decided by the DC decision based on two conditions. The first condition, if more than 60% but less than 80% of the Convened DC votes for a particular outcome, unless the external reviewers unanimously conclude that other outcome is the better answer.[21]

The second condition, while the DC decision is less than or equal to 60% in favour of a specific outcome, the external review decision will be decided in accordance with such DC decision, unless two of three external reviewers consider that another outcome is the better answer.[22] And such decision shall be deemed as the final determination. The External Reviewers will notify the DC Secretary for publishing the decision of the External Reviewers on its website within 5 hours after receiving such information from the External Reviewers.[23]

 

Case Study: General Motors

On 1 June 2009, General Motors and three domestic subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.[24] Immediately, ISDA Determinations Committees in America deliberated DC Issue No. 2009060102 containing 4 (four) questions as follows:[25]

• Has a Bankruptcy Credit Event occurred concerning General Motors Corporation?
• If a Credit Event did occur, is the date of the Credit Event June 1, 2009?
• Is the date on which the DC Secretary first effectively received both a request to convene the Committee and Publicly Available Information that satisfies the requirements of Section 2.1(b) for the Credit Event with respect to General Motors Corporation June 1, 2009?
• Should ISDA hold one or more auctions to settle Relevant Transactions with respect to which a Credit Event Resolution has occurred by the terms set out in the form of Credit Derivatives Auction Settlement Terms with respect to General Motors Corporation?

Then The ISDA announced that its Americas Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee resolved that a bankruptcy credit event occurred in respect of General Motors Corporation, one of the world’s largest automakers. All Convened DC Voting Members who were present at that day gave 15 ‘Yes’ votes and 0 ‘No’ votes for all questions. The Committee also voted to hold an auction for General Motors Corporation. The members of America Determination Committee as follows:

No.	DC Voting Members	Vote
1.	Bank of America / Merrill Lynch	Yes
2.	Barclays	Yes
3.	Citibank	Yes
4.	Credit Suisse	Yes
5.	Deutsche Bank AG	Yes
6.	Elliott Management Corporation	Yes
7.	Goldman Sachs	Yes
8.	JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.	Yes
9.	Legal & General Investment Management Limited	Yes
10.	Morgan Stanley	Yes
11.	Pacific Investment Management Company LLC	Yes
12.	Primus Asset Management, Inc.	Yes
13.	Rabo Bank International	Yes
14.	The Royal Bank of Scotland	Yes
15.	UBS	Yes

Table 1. DC Voting Members America 2009

In light of the speed, the Obama administration was keen to finalise the situation with General Motors; there was concern that unless the auction was held quickly, there might not be any deliverable obligations remaining due to the speed at which the process was proceeding and the potential for a widespread debt-for-equity swap.[26]

As a result, the DC expedited the auction timetable. The final list was published on 10 June 2009 with the auction on 12 June 2009.

Bibliography

[1] (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/isda-master-agreement.asp) last visited (5-11- 2016)

[2] The master agreement is an umbrella document which includes the boilerplate provisions (unless varied by the schedule to the master agreement); The schedule to the master agreement is an amendment of the terms of the master agreement as required by the parties; The credit support documents (optional) is a method of providing collateral or security for the obligations under derivative transactions; The confirmation is a document which contains the economic terms of an individual trade.

[3] (https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/bankingandfinance/document/) last visited (5-11- 2016)

[4] See J. Chan-Lau, Anticipating Credit Events Using CDS with an Application to Sovereign Debt Crises, IMF Working Paper, at 4 (2003)

[5] (http://www2.isda.org/regions/) last visited (5-11- 2016)

[6] (http://www2.isda.org/committees/) last visited (5-11- 2016)

[7] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees, Paper on the four-year history of the formation, structure and workings of the ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees, at 1-2 (2012)

[8] (http://dc.isda.org/about-dc-committees/) last visited (5-11- 2016)

[9] (http://dc.isda.org/dc-rules/) last visited (5-11-2016)

[10] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees, Paper on the four-year history of the formation, structure and workings of the ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees, at 1-2 (2012)

[11] C. Baker, Regulating the Invisible: The Case of Over-the-Counter Derivatives, Notre Dame Law Review, at 1287 (2010)

[12] A. Gelpern & M. Gulati, CDS zombies, European Business Organization Law Review, at 9 (2012)

[13] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version Section 2. 2.1 (a)

[14] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version Section 2.2.1 (e)

[15] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version Section 2.2.2 (a)

[16] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version, Section 2.2.3 (a)

[17] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version, Section 2.2.3 (b)

[18] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version, Section 4.1. (a)

[19] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version, Section 4.3

[20] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version, Section 4.5 (a)

[21] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version, Section 4.6 (d)

[22] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version, Section 4.6 (d)

[23] ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees Rules 2016 version, Section 4.6 (f)

[24] (http://www.isda.org/press/press060109.html) last visited (8-11-2016)

[25] (http://dc.isda.org/cds/general-motors-corporation/) last visited (8-11-2016)

[26] (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-obama-administration-auto-restructuring-initiative-general-motors) last visited (10-11-2016)

 

Credit Default Swap and Credit Event

Introduction

Warren Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, described Credit Derivatives six years before the financial crisis in the US as ‘financial weapons of mass destruction’, carrying dangers that, are potentially dangerous.[1] However, Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet’s Company) gained $633 Million from derivatives transactions in 2015; it was increased significantly from $329 Million in 2014.  Recently, he has reissued a fresh warning that “the complex derivatives lurking on banks’ balance sheets are a potential time bomb that could explode in times of stress”.[2] It can be assumed that credit derivatives can be dangerous on the one hand, but also it can be so beneficial on the contrary.

Credit derivatives are financial instruments that trade over the counter (OTC), and its profits are related to the risk of the default of an underlying asset. Within the credit derivative market, the credit default swap (CDS) is the most popular instrument.[3] A CDS is also categorised as the derivatives with contingent payment which means payment is triggered when a credit events occurred; those can be bankruptcy or default on reference entity or a rating downgrade of a reference entity below a threshold level (default requirement) agreed in the contract.[4]

Credit Default Swap

1. Concept

Basically, Credit Default Swap (CDS) works in a transaction when the seller of protection agrees to pay the buyer of protection with an amount in relation to the reference obligation of a reference entity if during such accepted period credit event occurs.[5] The simple description of the mechanism of the Credit Event in CDS transaction can be seen as follows.

Diagram 1. Credit Default Swap

Many people would argue that CDS transactions resemble an insurance contract, because it protects the protection buyer against pre-defined credit events, in particular, the risk of default, affecting the reference entity, during the term of the contract, in return for a periodic fee paid to the protection seller.[6] However, an important difference is that neither party of a CDS contract needs to own the referenced underlying entity, have an insurable interest, or suffer any loss. These are called “naked swaps”.[7]

In terms of Credit Default Swap, the buyer of protection typically has certain commercial objectives such as to create a right to receive a cash flow in the event that an entity to which the investor has a direct exposure fails to make a payment obligation and to speculate on the performance of a particular entity, or category of entities to perform on their debt or other obligation.[8]

2. Credit event

The system works when there is a credit event. The seller of protection (the party assuming the credit risk) either pays the buyer of protection an amount equal to the loss in value of the reference obligation attributable to credit event, which is called cash settlement, or more usually buys reference obligation or an equivalent obligation at its nominal value which is called physical settlement.[9]

As mentioned above, it is essential that the credit event is properly phrasing and restructuring in the operation of credit derivative transaction. Therefore, ISDA has produced ISDA 2014 Credit Derivatives Definition. There are some possible credit events of CDS transactions based on ISDA 2014 Credit Derivatives Definition. [10]

2.1. Bankruptcy

ISDA 2014 Credit Derivatives Definition has completely defined the term of bankruptcy. It includes not just hard insolvency events determined through a court process, but also various events that may occur prior to an insolvency. Broadly speaking a Bankruptcy event happens if a Reference Entity:

• is dissolved (other than pursuant to a consolidation, amalgamation or merger);
• becomes insolvent or is unable to pay its debts;
• makes a general assignment, arrangement or composition with or for its creditors;
• wound up or liquidated (other than pursuant to a consolidation, amalgamation or merger);
• becomes subject to the appointment of an administrator, provisional liquidator, conservator, receiver, trustee, custodian or other similar for all or substantially of its assets;
• has a secured party take possession of all or substantially all its assets.[11]

2.2. Obligation Acceleration

Obligation acceleration means one or more obligations in an aggregate amount of not less than the default requirement (exceed a minimum threshold) have become due and payable before they would have been due and payable on the basis of a default, other than a failure to make any required payment, in respect of the reference entity under one or more obligations.[12]

2.3. Obligation Default

Obligation default covers the situation, other than a failure to pay, where the relevant obligation becomes capable of being declared due and payable as a result of a default by the reference entity before the time when such obligation would otherwise have been capable of being so declared. The default requirement builds in a minimum threshold which the relevant sum being defaulted must exceed before the credit event occurs.[13]

2.4. Failure to pay

One of the causes of a credit event is a failure to pay. This event is exactly as it says: if a reference entity fails to make a payment when and where due on one or more of its obligations in an amount at least as large as the payment requirement, then once any applicable grace period has passed, a failure to pay event occurs.[14]

2.5. Restructuring

Restructuring means that any one or more of the following events takes place in a form that binds all holders of such obligations, such as [15]

• A reduction, postponement or deferral of Obligation principal or contractually agreed interest payments;
• A decrease of principal or premium payable at redemption;
• A deferral of the payment;
• A change in priority ranking causing subordination to another Obligation.

Restructuring differs than bankruptcy, failure to pay, moratorium, obligation acceleration and obligation default which automatically trigger a credit event. It does not automatically trigger of the CDS contract once a Restructuring occurs. It is up to the protection buyer or protection seller to decide whether or not to trigger (with only one required to trigger for the contract to be triggered).[16]

2.6. Repudiation/Moratorium

Repudiation/Moratorium is an event when an authorised officer of the reference entity rejects or challenges the validity of, one or more obligations or declares a moratorium concerning one or more obligations in an aggregate amount of not less than the default requirement. [17]

2.7. Governmental Intervention

Governmental intervention is caused when a government’s action or announcement results in binding changes to certain obligations of a reference entity including a reduction or postponement of principal or interest or further subordination of the obligation, an expropriation, transfer or other event which mandatorily changes the beneficial holder of the obligation, or a mandatory cancellation, conversion or exchange of the reference entity’s obligations.[18]

Bibliography

[1] W. Buffet, Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report, (2002)

[2] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/01/warren-buffett-issues-a-fresh-warning-about-derivatives-timebomb/) last visited (8-11-2016)

[3] (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creditdefaultswap.asp) last visited (8-11-2016)

[4] J. Chan-Lau, Anticipating Credit Events Using CDS with an Application to Sovereign Debt Crises, IMF Working Paper, at 3 (2003)

[5] P. Wood, Law and Practice of International Finance, at 432 (2007)

[6] J. Kiff, et all, Credit Derivatives: Systemic Risks and Policy Options, IMF Working Paper, at 4 (2009)

[7] M. Swantek, A Brave New World: Credit Default Swaps and Voluntary Debt Exchanges, John Marshall Law Review, at 1232 (2012).

[8] A. Hudson, The Law of Financial Derivatives, 3^rd edition, at 77 (2002)

[9] P. Wood, Law and Practice of International Finance, at 434 (2007)

[10] The 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions are an updated and revised version of the 2003 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions. This document contains the basic terms used in the documentation of most credit derivatives transactions. The ISDA 2014 Credit Derivatives Definitions Protocol was open from August 21 to September 17, 2014.

[11] ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions 2014, Section 4.2.

[12] ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions 2014, Section 4.3.

[13] ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions 2014, Section 4.4.

[14] ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions 2014, Section 4.5.

[15] ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions 2014, Section 4.7.

[16] H. Haworth, A guide to Credit Events and auctions, Credit Suisse Paper, at 9 (2012)

[17] ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions 2014, Section 4.6.

[18] ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions 2014, Section 4.8.