Skip to content

Metavante v Lehman Brothers (2009) – USA turns precedent from Down Under upside down

In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, Case no 08-013555 (JMP) (Bankr. 17 SDNY Sept 2009) Introduction Re Lehman Brothers outlines the USA’s approach to the interpretation of Section 2(a)(iii) ISDA Master Agreement (MA) 1992. The Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court assessed its compliance with the US Bankruptcy Code, determining whether a defaulting party could […]

Marine Trade v Pioneer (2009) – Payment under protest is no mistake

Marine Trade S.A. v Pioneer Freight Futures Co Ltd BVI [2009] EWHC 2656 (Comm) IntroductionThis case provides the inaugural UK decision on the application of Section 2 (a)(iii) of theISDA Master Agreement (MA) 1992. The High Court would determine two points:(1) the provision was applicable to lawfully suspend payment.(2) the potential for payment made under […]

Enron v TXU (2003) ‘Obligated to terminate? – To be or not to be under Section 2 (a)(iii)’

Enron Australia v TXU Electricity [2003] NSWSC 1169 Introduction Enron v TXU outlined the Australian approach on the application of Section 2 (a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement (MA) 1992. It would determine whether the non-defaulting party bears an obligation to designate an early termination date, thereby obtaining the power to lawfully suspend payments owed […]

Press enter or esc to cancel