Template:2(a)(iii): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*{{casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}} | *{{casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}} | ||
*{{casenote|Pioneer|Cosco}} | *{{casenote|Pioneer|Cosco}} | ||
*{{casenote|Pioneer|}} | *{{casenote|Pioneer|TMT}} | ||
*{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | *{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | ||
*{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} | *{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[ISDA Anatomy]] | *[[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 TMT
- Enron v TXU
- Metavante v Lehman