Template:2(a)(iii): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "==Section 2(a)(iii) litigation== This is one of the handful of important authorities on the effect of the suspension of obligations under Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} of the..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Section 2(a)(iii) litigation== | ==Section 2(a)(iii) litigation== | ||
This is one of the handful of important authorities on the effect 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 a violation of the [[anti-deprivation principle]] (the equivalent under English law) or | This is one of the handful of important authorities on the effect 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 a violation of the [[anti-deprivation principle]] (the equivalent under English law) or | ||
==Resources== | ==Resources== | ||
*{{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}} | *{{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}} | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | *{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | ||
*{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} | *{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} | ||
==See also== | |||
**[[ISDA Anatomy]] | |||
Revision as of 15:44, 26 June 2012
Section 2(a)(iii) litigation
This is one of the handful of important authorities on the effect of the suspension of obligations under Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement, and whether flawed asset provision amounts to an ipso facto clause under the US Bankruptcy Code or a violation of the anti-deprivation principle (the equivalent under English law) or
Resources
- Lomas v Firth Rixson
- Marine Trade v Pioneer
- Pioneer v Cosco
- Pioneer v
- Enron v TXU
- Metavante v Lehman