Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Audit on Sovereign Bonds and National Relativism

February 24, 2014/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

Mathias Audit (University Paris Ouest Nanterre la Defense) has posted Sovereign Bonds and National Relativism: Can New York Law Contracts Safely Cross the Atlantic? on SSRN.

Based on an overview of European cases related to the NML vs Argentina litigation saga, this article aims to show that the crossing of the Atlantic is perilous travel for sovereign bonds contracts terms. Normally, the choice of New York as providing governing law and as the competent court would ensure a certain degree of uniformity of interpretation and application of those contracts terms. However, it appears that some European countries’ rules might interfere with this goal of uniformity, particularly in the context of two clauses: the waiver of immunity from attachment and execution and the pari passu clause.
 
The paper is forthcoming in The Capital Markets Law Journal (2014)
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2014-02-24 07:22:272014-02-24 08:50:21Audit on Sovereign Bonds and National Relativism

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Not So Fast: Canadian Courts Cannot Sit Everywhere Link to: Not So Fast: Canadian Courts Cannot Sit Everywhere Not So Fast: Canadian Courts Cannot Sit Everywhere Link to: Liber Amicorum Bernard Audit Link to: Liber Amicorum Bernard Audit Liber Amicorum Bernard Audit
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top