83,357
edits
Marine Trade v Pioneer: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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}}. | ||
===Settlement netting under Section {{isdaprov|2(c)}}=== | |||
Marine Trade and Pioneer were parties to 14 standard [[cash-settled]] [[contracts for difference]] called freight forwarding agreements ('''FFA'''s) under an {{isdama}}. Each month the parties exchanged a net “settlement sum” under each transaction FFA. | Marine Trade and Pioneer were parties to 14 standard [[cash-settled]] [[contracts for difference]] called freight forwarding agreements ('''FFA'''s) under an {{isdama}}. Each month the parties exchanged a net “settlement sum” under each transaction FFA. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
===Permanence of Section 2(a)(iii)=== | ===Permanence of Section 2(a)(iii)=== | ||
But would a payment, which was meant to have been due but was not because the Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} [[conditions precedent]] were not satisfied, come back to life and be required if the defaulting party subsequently satisfied its Section 2(a)(iii) conditions? | But would a payment, which was meant to have been due but was not because the Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} [[conditions precedent]] were not satisfied, come back to life and be required if the defaulting party subsequently satisfied its Section 2(a)(iii) conditions? Flaux J thought ''no'': the conditions were assessed for once and for all on the due date. If not satisfied on the then, then the party would ''never'' have to make that payment. It was cancelled. | ||
This is ''mad''. After all, if an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} is subsequently designated, any payments suspended under Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} are considered when determining the Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}}. | This is ''mad''. After all, if an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} is subsequently designated, any payments suspended under Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} are considered when determining the Section {{isdaprov|6(e)}} {{isdaprov|Early Termination Amount}}. | ||