82,882
edits
Enron v TXU: Difference between revisions
m
Text replace - " "" to " “"
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - " "" to " “") |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The Australian Court found that, upon a {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}} {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} occurring under an {{isdama}} between Enron Australia and TXU Electricity Ltd, TXU, as the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}, could, but was not obliged to, designate an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} under the {{isdama}}. | The Australian Court found that, upon a {{isdaprov|Bankruptcy}} {{isdaprov|Event of Default}} occurring under an {{isdama}} between Enron Australia and TXU Electricity Ltd, TXU, as the {{isdaprov|Non-defaulting Party}}, could, but was not obliged to, designate an {{isdaprov|Early Termination Date}} under the {{isdama}}. | ||
At the time of insolvency Enron was | At the time of insolvency Enron was “[[in-the-money]]". TXU chose not to terminate, as {{isdaprov|Section 2(a)(iii)}} appears on its face to allow. | ||
Further, on the basis of the [[condition precedent]] in Section 2(a)(iii) of the {{isdama}}, pursuant to which no payments or deliveries need to be made by a party if the other party is in default, TXU was not obliged to, and did not, | Further, on the basis of the [[condition precedent]] in Section 2(a)(iii) of the {{isdama}}, pursuant to which no payments or deliveries need to be made by a party if the other party is in default, TXU was not obliged to, and did not, | ||