Isda definitions unclear, says US court
September 01, 2004
A ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has shown that the 1999 Isda Credit Derivatives definitions are not as unambiguous as intended. James Warnot and Justin Williamson explain
The credit derivatives industry has succeeded in streamlining
and standardizing the documentation for credit derivative
transactions in recent years, but even the best efforts to create
certainty can be thwarted by sophisticated lawyers and a
sympathetic court. Some observers might say that this is the case
in Eternity Global Master Fund Ltd v Morgan Guaranty Trust Co of
New York, which is pending in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York. As it stands, Eternity Global
is a breach of contract action that may rise or fall on the meaning
of a mandatory debt exchange.
At the heart of the dispute is what conventional wisdom and
common sense might suggest is legal hair-splitting: whether a
voluntary debt exchange was really a mandatory debt
exchange. Resolving this question may be the determining factor in
whether Morgan breached a credit default swap when it took the
position that Argentina's November 2001 voluntary debt...
The rest of this article is available to subscribers only. Subscribe today for full access to this article.
Alternatively take a free trial, giving you access for 48 hours*.
If you are already a subscriber, please log in below to access the rest of this article.
*some articles may be excluded.