From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
|
| (14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ===Section {{{{{1}}}prov|2(a)(iii)}} litigation===
| | {{isda 2(a)(iii) gen|isdaprov}} |
| 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}}
| |
Latest revision as of 09:01, 14 April 2023