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...



Related articles

It's much more efficient in terms of regulatory capital. But it's mad how big they have become

A UK partner reacts to banks' use of derivatives to fund acquisitions

Web seminars

US and EU hybrid capital
February 3 2010
The future of hybrids, in a popular discussion between IFLR, Morrison & Foerster and Calyon

Latest Issue

March 2010

Basel III: The revenge of Basel
New Basel rules are affecting everyone differently. In the UK banks are worried about grandfathering, in Germany the headache is hybrids and in the US it's risk structures. Meanwhile Japan has some tips and Hong Kong structured its first hybrid [more]