83,260
edits
Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 2(a)(iii): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 2(a)(iii) (view source)
Revision as of 17:53, 1 February 2020
, 1 February 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
There is a (generous) handful of important authorities on the effect under [[English law]] or [[New York law]] of the suspension of obligations under Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} of the {{isdama}}, and whether [[flawed asset]] provision amounts to an “[[ipso facto]] clause” under the [[US Bankruptcy Code]] or violates the “[[anti-deprivation]]” principle under [[English law]]. | There is a (generous) handful of important authorities on the effect under [[English law]] or [[New York law]] of the suspension of obligations under Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} of the {{isdama}}, and whether [[flawed asset]] provision amounts to an “[[ipso facto]] clause” under the [[US Bankruptcy Code]] or violates the “[[anti-deprivation]]” principle under [[English law]]. | ||
{{Casenote|Enron|TXU}} upheld the validity of Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}<ref>You wonder how much of that was influenced by what a bunch of odious jerks Enron were in their derivative trading history, mind you.</ref> {{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} considered Section 2(a)(iii) of the {{isdama}} and reached more or less the opposite conclusion. | {{Casenote|Enron|TXU}} upheld the validity of Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}}<ref>You wonder how much of that was influenced by what a bunch of odious jerks Enron were in their derivative trading history, mind you.</ref> {{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} considered Section 2(a)(iii) of the {{isdama}} and reached more or less the opposite conclusion. | ||
Also of interest in the back issues of the {{jclr}} are: | Also of interest in the back issues of the {{jclr}} are: | ||