Marine Trade v Pioneer: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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..." |
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) | {{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: