Metavante v Lehman: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "{{2(a)(iii)}}" |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Media=== | |||
*[http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/09/30/74606/lehman-metavante-and-the-isda-master-agreement/ Lehman, Metavante and the ISDA Master Agreement - FT Alphaville] | |||
{{2(a)(iii)}} | {{2(a)(iii)}} |
Revision as of 16:06, 26 June 2012
Media
Section 2(a)(iii) litigation
There is a (generous) handful of important authorities on the effect under English law or New York law of the suspension of obligations under the most litigationey clause in the ISDA Master Agreement, Section 2(a)(iii). They consider 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: