Lehman Brothers International (Europe) v AG Financial Products, Inc.: Difference between revisions

Lehman Brothers International (Europe) v AG Financial Products, Inc. (view source)

Revision as of 10:01, 21 April 2023

1,380 bytes added , 21 April 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,196

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{cn}}{{casenote|Lehman Brothers International (Europe)|AG Financial Products, Inc.}}
+A case that came to the Supreme Court, New York County<ref>This is a state, not federal, court: Civil Branch of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. Our court is the highest trial-level court for civil cases in the state court system in New York County</ref> and which concermed our old friends [[Lehman]] horcrux and the {{1992ma}} and, in particular, its {{isda92prov|Loss}} method of determining an {{isda92prov|Early Termination Amount}}.
+While there is no Loss concept in the {{2002ma}} this case is relevant in that a 2002-style “{{isdaprov|Close-out Amount}}” is ''broadly'' the same thing as a {{isdaprov|Loss}} calculation.
+What can we learn from this:
+==Litigation takes ages==
+==No-one really understands the practicalities of how ISDAs close out==
+==Dealer polls are not a thing==
+Oh, they are a ''[[legal contract]]'' thing, totally: they are just not a “this exists in the real world of derivatives trading” thing. The fact that so many legal contracts rely for their successful conclusion upon a dealer poll as a means of resolving valuationdisputes — the {{isdama}} does, as does the {{gmsla}} and the {{gmra}} — provision and no-one knows this, really only goes to show how pointless and falsely comforting is much of the [[verbiage]] that accompanies the construction and execution of modern financial instruments.
 {{Dealer polls after LBIE v AGFP}}
 {{sa}}
 *[https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter//pdfs/2023/2023_30692.pdf Judgment]
+{{ref}}