Marine Trade v Pioneer: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Olly (talk | contribs)
Created page with "''Marine Trade SA v Pioneer Freight Futures Co Ltd.'' is a recent case on the ambit of the {{isdaprov|General Conditions}} section of the ISDA master, and in particular {{isda..."
 
Olly (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
*[http://www.ffw.com/publications/all/alerts/isda-master-agreement.aspx Field Fisher Waterhouse case note]
*[http://www.ffw.com/publications/all/alerts/isda-master-agreement.aspx Field Fisher Waterhouse case note]


{{2(a){iii)}}
{{2(a)(iii)}}

Revision as of 16:08, 26 June 2012

Marine Trade SA v Pioneer Freight Futures Co Ltd. is a recent case on the ambit of the General Conditions section of the ISDA master, and in particular Section 2(a)(iii).

It follows hard on the heels of the Metavante v Lehman and should also be considered in the light of casenote]].

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: