Template:2(a)(iii): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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 under English law. | 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 under English law. | ||
==Resources== | ===Resources=== | ||
*{{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}} | *{{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}} | ||
*{{casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}} | *{{casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}} | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
*{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | *{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | ||
*{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} | *{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} | ||
==See also== | ===See also=== | ||
*[[ISDA Anatomy]] | *[[ISDA Anatomy]] | ||
Revision as of 16:05, 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 under English law.
Resources
- Lomas v Firth Rixson
- Marine Trade v Pioneer
- Pioneer v Cosco
- Pioneer v TMT
- Enron v TXU
- Metavante v Lehman