82,891
edits
Template:2(a)(iii): Difference between revisions
→Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} litigation
No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Section 2(a)(iii) litigation== | ===Section 2(a)(iii) litigation=== | ||
There is a (generous) handful of important authorities on the effect under [[English law]] or [[New York law]] of the suspension of obligations under the most [[litigationey]] clause in the {{isdama}}, Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}}. They consider whether [[flawed asset]] provision amounts to an “[[ipso facto]] clause” under the [[US Bankruptcy Code]] or violates the “[[anti-deprivation]]” principle under [[English law]]. Those cases are: | |||
*{{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}} | *{{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}} | ||
*{{casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}} | *{{casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}} | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
*{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | *{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | ||
*{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} | *{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} | ||