82,976
edits
Metavante v Lehman: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cn}} | {{cn}} | ||
In which the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court found that poor old Metavante Corporation, a [[Non-defaulting party - ISDA Provision|non-defaulting counterparty]] relying on Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} to withhold payments under live derivatives with Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. due to a valid pending but un-triggered {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} — all standard operating procedure, so they thought — had to, um, sit or get off the pot. And, by the time they heard the case, it was too late to do either. Ouch ouch ouch. | In which the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court found that poor old Metavante Corporation, a [[Non-defaulting party - ISDA Provision|non-defaulting counterparty]] relying on Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} to withhold payments under live derivatives with Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. due to a valid pending but un-triggered {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} — all standard operating procedure, so they thought — had to, um, ''sit'' or ''get off the pot''. And, by the time they heard the case, thought their honours, ''it was too late to do either''. Ouch ouch ouch. | ||
In short, the Court held: | In short, the Court held: | ||