This type is defined as having 3 elements named: – adjustedEarlyTerminationDate – adjustedCashSettlementValuationDate – adjustedCashSettlementPaymentDate each of which is of type date; i.e., not of type AdjustableDate nor of type AdjustableOrRelativeDate. The definitions for each element remark, in part pertinent: “This date should already be adjusted for any applicable business day convention.” At the time a deal is dealt the parties can inspect the then-prevailing applicable holiday calendar(s) and choose dates which are expected to be business days. Nevertheless, there is always the risk that a holiday might be adopted after the dealt-date which could fall on one of these 3 dates. Is there some compelling reason why these 3 elements were not declared to be of type AdjustableDate or AdjustableOrRelativeDate? The only answer that seems plausible to me is that in the event of a holiday the obvious solution would be to adjust on a “Following” day-convention. Or, perhaps the parties would readily agree to adjust to “Previous” or some other mutually agreeable day. And, perhaps, such is deemed entirely satisfactory for this particular contingency. Is this the explanation? Or, should I consider implementing using an AdjustableDate or AdjustableOrRelativeDate? Thanks Mark
