Template:2(a)(iii): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| (8 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}} | ||
*{{casenote|Pioneer|Cosco}} | *{{casenote|Pioneer|Cosco}} | ||
*{{casenote|Pioneer|}} | *{{casenote|Pioneer|TMT}} | ||
*{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | *{{casenote|Enron|TXU}} | ||
*{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} | *{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:47, 23 May 2023
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 ISDA Master Agreement, Section 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: