83,260
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{2(a)(iii)}}") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{2(a)(iii)}} | ===Section {{isdaprov|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 Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} of the {{isdama}}, and 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: | |||
===Resources=== | |||
*{{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}} | |||
*{{casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}} | |||
*{{casenote|Pioneer|Cosco}} | |||
*{{casenote|Pioneer|TMT}} | |||
*{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | |||
*{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} |