Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 2(a)(iii): Difference between revisions

Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 2(a)(iii) (view source)

Revision as of 17:53, 1 February 2020

286 bytes added , 1 February 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,927

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 With the effluxion of time some of the heat seems to have gone out of the debate, and new policies, or market-led solutions, have taken hold.
+====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 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]].
-===Section {{isdaprov|2(a)(iii)}} litigation===
+{{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.
-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]]. Those cases are:
-===Resources===
+Also of interest in the back issues of the {{jclr}} are:
 *{{casenote|Lomas|Firth Rixson}}
 *{{casenote|Marine Trade|Pioneer}}
 *{{casenote|Pioneer|Cosco}}
 *{{casenote|Pioneer|TMT}}
-*{{casenote|Enron|TXU}}
-*{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}}