83,371
edits
Metavante v Lehman: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{2(a)(iii)}}") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{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, thought their honours, ''it was too late to do either''. Ouch ouch ouch. | |||
In short, the Court held: | |||
*that the [[safe harbor]]s in the US [[Bankruptcy Code]] only protect a [[non-defaulting party]]’s right to terminate a swap, and enforce net termination values but do not allow it to withhold performance under a swap if the swap is not terminated; | |||
*that Metavante must make all past payments due under the {{isdama}} with [[default interest]], and resume future payments, despite Metavante's contractual right under section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} to withhold them based upon LBSFs’ ongoing bankruptcy; and, | |||
*11 months after the bankruptcy filing was too late for Metavante to suddenly go “oh whoopsie” and trigger early termination. It imposed a [[sunset clause|sunset]] on a Metavante’s right to early termination following a bankruptcy even though there wasn’t one in the {{isdama}} or the [[Bankruptcy Code]] itself. | |||
===Media=== | |||
*[http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/09/30/74606/lehman-metavante-and-the-isda-master-agreement/ Lehman, Metavante and the ISDA Master Agreement - FT Alphaville] | |||
{{2(a)(iii)}} | {{2(a)(iii)}} | ||