Eternity Global Master Fund Limited v. Morgan Guaranty Trust

375 F.3d 168 (2004)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Eternity Global Master Fund Limited v. Morgan Guaranty Trust

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
375 F.3d 168 (2004)

Facts

Eternity Global Master Fund Limited (Eternity) (plaintiff) purchased credit-default swaps (CDSs) from Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York and JPMorgan Chase Bank (collectively, Morgan) (defendants). The CDSs were made against Argentine bonds. The terms of the CDS contracts were based on a standardized master agreement published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). The ISDA master agreement in turn incorporated official ISDA definitions. The CDS contracts provided that Morgan’s obligation to settle—that is, pay on the contracts—would be triggered by one of four default events: (1) failure to pay; (2) obligation acceleration, i.e., mandatory transfer; (3) repudiation or moratorium; or (4) restructuring. The ISDA definition of restructuring included (1) a reduction in the rate of payable interest or the principal, (2) a postponement of payment, and (3) a subordination of the obligation that did not exist prior to the event. Argentina experienced an economic crisis. In November 2001, the Argentine government initiated a voluntary debt exchange under which bondholders could exchange their bonds for loans secured by tax revenues but with less favorable terms. The voluntary debt exchange included an extension of the bonds’ maturity and a suspension of payment while the bonds were placed in trust. In response to this event, Eternity unsuccessfully sought payment on the CDSs from Morgan. In December 2001, the newly elected Argentine president announced a public-debt moratorium. Although the moratorium was a triggering event under the CDSs, Eternity argued that the voluntary debt exchange had itself been a triggering event, and that Morgan’s failure to settle in November caused Eternity to lose $3 million. Eternity brought a breach-of-contract claim in federal district court. The court took no submissions on industry custom and usage for credit derivatives. The court ruled in favor of Morgan, concluding that the voluntary debt exchange was unambiguously not among the triggering default events for the CDSs. Eternity appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jacobs, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 788,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership