82,927
edits
Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 2(a)(iii): Difference between revisions
Template:M gen 2002 ISDA 2(a)(iii) (view source)
Revision as of 15:05, 23 February 2020
, 23 February 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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. | 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=== | ===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]]. These are amusing, as they are conducted in front of judges and between litigators none of whom has spent more than a fleeting morning in their professional careers | 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]]. These are amusing, as they are conducted in front of judges and between litigators none of whom has spent more than a fleeting morning in their professional careers considering the legal complications, let alone commercial implications, of derivative contracts. Thus, expect some random results<ref>For example, {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} albeit not related to [[flawed asset]]s.</ref>. | ||
{{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. | ||