Sovereign-owned entity: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|netting|File:Who's queen.png}}One of {{t|ISDA}}’s vaunted {{tag|netting}} categories.
{{a|netting|
[[File:Who's queen.png|450px|thumb|center|Right, I’ll see you court. Oh, bugger.]]
}}One of {{t|ISDA}}’s vaunted {{tag|netting}} categories.


{{quote| {{Sovereignownedentity}}
{{quote| {{Sovereignownedentity}}
<small><small>''[[:template:Sovereignownedentity|view template]]''</small></small>}}
<small><small>''[[:template:Sovereignownedentity|view template]]''</small></small>}}


===[[Sovereign immunity]] and  [[close-out netting]]===
{{sovereign immunity and closeout}}
Does the fact that a counterparty may have, or  may claim, sovereign immunity from legal proceedings before a foreign court (or its own courts, for that matter) invalidate a close-out netting clause? We think not: the close-out mechanism does not require the intervention of any court to work: it is a self-help mechanism. To the contrary, it would only come before a court were the {{isdaprov|Defaulting Party}} to apply to the court to challenge its exercise. And you can’t havce it both ways: a sovereign immunity right only avails you ''if you stay away from court''. The moment a sovereign puts the matter before a court it submits to the court and, QED, waives its immunity.
 


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
Line 13: Line 13:
*[[ISDA Anatomy]]
*[[ISDA Anatomy]]


{{c|Entities}}
{{c|Netting Categories}}
{{ref}}