|
|
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| <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 15: |
Line 13: |
| *[[ISDA Anatomy]] | | *[[ISDA Anatomy]] |
|
| |
|
| {{c|Entities}} | | {{c|Netting Categories}} |
| | {{ref}} |