Marine Trade v Pioneer: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Olly (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
''Marine Trade SA v Pioneer Freight Futures Co Ltd.'' is a recent case on the ambit of the {{isdaprov|General Conditions}} section of the ISDA master, and in particular {{isdaprov|Section 2(a)(iii)}}.
''Marine Trade SA v Pioneer Freight Futures Co Ltd.'' is a recent case on the ambit of the {{isdaprov|General Conditions}} section of the ISDA master, and in particular {{isdaprov|Section 2(a)(iii)}}.


It follows hard on the heels of the {{casenote|Metavante|Lehman]] and should also be considered in the light of casenote|Enron|TXU}}.
It follows hard on the heels of the {{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} and should also be considered in the light of {{casenote|Enron|TXU}}.


==Media==
==Media==

Revision as of 09:36, 28 January 2016

Marine Trade SA v Pioneer Freight Futures Co Ltd. is a recent case on the ambit of the General Conditions section of the ISDA master, and in particular Section 2(a)(iii).

It follows hard on the heels of the Metavante v Lehman and should also be considered in the light of Enron v TXU.

Media

Section 2(a)(iii) litigation

There is a (generous) handful of important authorities on the effect under English law or New York law of the suspension of obligations under the most litigationey clause in the ISDA Master Agreement, Section 2(a)(iii). They consider whether flawed asset provision amounts to an “ipso facto clause” under the US Bankruptcy Code or violates the “anti-deprivation” principle under English law. Those cases are: