Facts
The facts varied between the individual appeals, but the common theme in each of them was that an Event of Default (as defined) had occurred under an ISDA Master Agreement, but the Defaulting Party (as defined) was "in the money", in the sense that if the open positions were all to be terminated, the non-Defaulting Party would have had to pay over considerable sums to the Defaulting Party to close out the various positions. However, in each case the relevant Master Agreements had not provided for automatic early termination upon an Event of Default. Accordingly, each non-Defaulting Party could simply elect not to terminate on the basis of the Event of Default and avoid paying the sums otherwise due to the Defaulting Party.
This problem was then compounded by the drafting of the ISDA Master Agreement which stated that non-occurrence of an Event of Default was a "condition precedent" to any payment obligation. In the cases before the court, because the Event of Default was continuing up until the time when the financial contracts would naturally have come due for payment, the non-Defaulting Parties argued that they never had to pay the sums due because the condition precedent was not satisfied; in essence they were entitled to a windfall and could avoid their liabilities under the relevant derivative contracts because of the other party's default.
The need for a comprehensive statement of the law by the Court of Appeal had been driven in part by a decision of Flaux J in Marine Trade SA v Pioneer Freight Futures Co Ltd [2010] Lloyds Rep 631 where the court had taken a position contrary to the orthodox market view in relation to the close-out provisions. [2]
The different appeals had different derivative contracts under consideration, but most of the legal issues which arose were capable of being dealt with on a cojoined basis. The consolidated appeals were:
Summary of co-joined appeals| No. | Litigants | Type of derivative(s) | Automatic Early Termination? |
|---|
| 1. | Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc | Multiple interest rate swaps | No AET |
| 2. | Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc v Carlton Communications Limited | Two linked interest rate swaps | No AET |
| 3. | Pioneer Freight Futures Company Limited (in liquidation) v Cosco Bulk Carrier Company Limited | Eleven forward freight agreements | AET |
| 4. | Bulk Trading SA v Britannia Bulk plc (in liquidation) | Single forward freight agreement | AET |
Judgment
In a long and often difficult judgment, the Court of Appeal sought to break the various points into individual issues which it addressed separately.
Suspension of payment
The Court of Appeal confirmed that because the non-occurrence of an Event of Default was a condition precedent to payment under the Master Agreement, this meant that if an Event of Default was continuing that no party could be under an obligation to make payment even if payment was otherwise due unless the non-Defaulting Party exercised its right to early termination. Effectively, under the contractual terms of the ISDA Master Agreement, the non-Defaulting Party was able to preclude its own liability to pay by relying upon the occurrence of an Event of Default in relation to the other party and simply not exercising the right to terminate. They rejected any argument that there was an implied term on the part of the non-Defaulting Party to terminate within a reasonable period of time or at all after the occurrence of an Event of Default.
Extinguishment of underlying right
Whilst an Event of Default subsisted any right to payment was effectively suspended. However, it was necessary to distinguish the debt from the obligation to pay; the underlying debt would continue to exist despite the fact that the payment obligation in respect of that debt did not arise under the terms of the Master Agreement. [5]
Accordingly, the Court held, following the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Enron Australia v TXU Electricity [2003] NSWSC 1169, [6] that the underlying debt remains in existing even though the payment obligation is inoperable. Accordingly, if the provisions preventing the operation of the payment obligation fall away, the "payment obligation will spring up under a pre-existing trade once the relevant condition is satisfied, and in that sense it might be said (with only approximate accuracy) that the payment obligation is 'suspended' while the condition remains unfulfilled."
It is important to note that these issues only arose in the first two appeals because the parties elected not to utilise the automatic early termination (AET) provisions in the Master Agreement. Accordingly, early termination could only by election, and that left the non-Defaulting Parties free to withhold making that election and crystallising their payment obligations. However the underlying analysis would be relevant to issues raised in the second two appeals.
Revival of payment right
The Court further held that there is no necessary implication that the payment right must inevitably revive at some point, after effluxion of time or otherwise. Arguments to the effect that there should be an implied term in the ISDA Master Agreement to that effect were dismissed. [7] Although it might be administratively inconvenient, the result of the factual situation was that the non-Defaulting Party would remain liable to the Defaulting Party potentially forever, but never be under an obligation to make actual payment with respect to that liability. [8]
Maturity of the transaction
At first instance it was held that the payment obligation of the non-Defaulting Party was suspended during the currency of the transaction, the suspension ended on maturity whereupon the liability was then extinguished. The court at first instance appeared to feel compelled to so hold, as otherwise the obligation would remain outstanding but not due for payment indefinitely. After considerably analysis of the various issues the Court of Appeal held however that this in fact the result:
We decide therefore that Mr Zacaroli's submissions are correct and that there is no terminus, either by way of extinction or revival, to the condition precedent. It continues in force until the Event of Default is cured. If it is never cured, there continues to be no obligation on the Non-defaulting Party to make payment. [9]
The Court noted that this arguably was an administratively inconvenient result. It meant that one party continued to be indebted to another party, but that other party could never enforce the right to payment. The Court further noted that if the condition precedent was subsequently cured after maturity, then payment could still occur at that time. Ironically, under the defined terms in the agreement that would constitute "early" termination, although the actual termination would occur long after stated maturity.
Effect of condition precedent on netting
The Court of Appeal also had to consider (in the context of the second appeal) whether the fact that a condition precedent remained unsatisfied would prevent an underlying obligation accruing for the purposes of calculating a net position between the parties. In line with the decisions on the other issues, the Court of Appeal held that the rights may accrue, and may net-out; only the payment obligation is suspended. This followed from the analysis of the earlier points, but the Court was also reinforced in its conclusions by the wording of the netting provisions which used the express words "would otherwise be payable".
Anti-deprivation rule
In one of the cojoined appeals it was argued that if an Event of Default suspended the right of the Defaulting Party to receive payment indefinitely, then that would be a breach of the anti-deprivation rule. [10] Because in this case the Event of Default was one party going into liquidation, that meant that the operating effect of the provision was to deprive the company's creditors of assets as a consequence of it going into liquidation. The Court referred to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd [2011] UKSC 38 and held that relevant test was to consider each transaction on its merits to see whether the shift in interests complained of could be justified as a genuine and justifiable commercial response to the consequences of insolvency. The Court of Appeal held that "If this is the touchstone then it is difficult to see how Section 2(a)(iii) of the Master Agreement can be said to offend against the anti-deprivation principle. ... There is no suggestion that it was formulated in order to avoid the effect of any insolvency law or to give the non-defaulting party a greater or disproportionate return as a creditor of the bankrupt estate." [11]
Calculation of "Loss"
In the fourth appeal the Court of Appeal had to consider a Master Agreement where the parties had selected automatic early termination (AET). They had to therefore consider a separate point raised whereby whether the AET provisions necessarily assumed that all conditions precedent were satisfied (i.e. amongst other things, there was no Event of Default) for the purposes of carrying out the calculation of the amounts payable (defined as "Loss" under the agreement). The Court framed the question thus: "is Bulk as the Non-defaulting Party obliged to calculate its loss by reference to sums which would have become due to Britannia Bulk had Britannia Bulk not remained subject to an Event of Default after Automatic Early Termination?" The Court held not, [12] and upheld the existing line of authority on this point, most notably in the decision of Gloster J in Pioneer Freight Co Ltd v TMT Asia Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyds Rep 96. [13] In line with its decision on the earlier points in the decision, the Court of Appeal held that absence of a condition precedent preventing the payment mechanism working, but it did not otherwise affect the underlying debt accruing and being calculated in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
In finance, a derivative is a contract that derives its value from the performance of an underlying entity. This underlying entity can be an asset, index, or interest rate, and is often simply called the underlying. Derivatives can be used for a number of purposes, including insuring against price movements (hedging), increasing exposure to price movements for speculation, or getting access to otherwise hard-to-trade assets or markets.
Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. Breach occurs when a party to a contract fails to fulfill its obligation(s), whether partially or wholly, as described in the contract, or communicates an intent to fail the obligation or otherwise appears not to be able to perform its obligation under the contract. Where there is breach of contract, the resulting damages have to be paid to the aggrieved party by the party breaching the contract.
In finance, a credit derivative refers to any one of "various instruments and techniques designed to separate and then transfer the credit risk" or the risk of an event of default of a corporate or sovereign borrower, transferring it to an entity other than the lender or debtholder.
A credit default swap (CDS) is a financial swap agreement that the seller of the CDS will compensate the buyer in the event of a debt default or other credit event. That is, the seller of the CDS insures the buyer against some reference asset defaulting. The buyer of the CDS makes a series of payments to the seller and, in exchange, may expect to receive a payoff if the asset defaults.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association is a trade organization of participants in the market for over-the-counter derivatives.
In finance, a security interest is a legal right granted by a debtor to a creditor over the debtor's property which enables the creditor to have recourse to the property if the debtor defaults in making payment or otherwise performing the secured obligations. One of the most common examples of a security interest is a mortgage: a person borrows money from the bank to buy a house, and they grant a mortgage over the house so that if they default in repaying the loan, the bank can sell the house and apply the proceeds to the outstanding loan.
In law, set-off or netting is a legal technique applied between persons or businesses with mutual rights and liabilities, replacing gross positions with net positions. It permits the rights to be used to discharge the liabilities where cross claims exist between a plaintiff and a respondent, the result being that the gross claims of mutual debt produce a single net claim. The net claim is known as a net position. In other words, a set-off is the right of a debtor to balance mutual debts with a creditor.
Surrogatum is a thing put in the place of another or a substitute. The Surrogatum Principle pertains to a Canadian income tax principle involving a person who suffers harm caused by another and may seek compensation for (a) loss of income, (b) expenses incurred, (c) property destroyed, or (d) personal injury, as well as punitive damages, under the surrogatum principle, the tax consequences of a damage or settlement payment depend on the tax treatment of the item for which the payment is intended to substitute.
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 [1961] EWCA Civ 7 is a landmark English contract law case. It introduced the concept of innominate terms, a category between "warranties" and "conditions".
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers.
The ISDA Master Agreement, published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, is the most commonly used master service agreement for OTC derivatives transactions internationally. It is part of a framework of documents, designed to enable OTC derivatives to be documented fully and flexibly. The framework consists of a master agreement, a schedule, confirmations, definition booklets, and credit support documentation.
Securitization is the financial practice of pooling various types of contractual debt such as residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, auto loans or credit card debt obligations and selling their related cash flows to third party investors as securities, which may be described as bonds, pass-through securities, or collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Investors are repaid from the principal and interest cash flows collected from the underlying debt and redistributed through the capital structure of the new financing. Securities backed by mortgage receivables are called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), while those backed by other types of receivables are asset-backed securities (ABS).
Financial law is the law and regulation of the commercial banking, capital markets, insurance, derivatives and investment management sectors. Understanding financial law is crucial to appreciating the creation and formation of banking and financial regulation, as well as the legal framework for finance generally. Financial law forms a substantial portion of commercial law, and notably a substantial proportion of the global economy, and legal billables are dependent on sound and clear legal policy pertaining to financial transactions. Therefore financial law as the law for financial industries involves public and private law matters. Understanding the legal implications of transactions and structures such as an indemnity, or overdraft is crucial to appreciating their effect in financial transactions. This is the core of financial law. Thus, financial law draws a narrower distinction than commercial or corporate law by focusing primarily on financial transactions, the financial market, and its participants; for example, the sale of goods may be part of commercial law but is not financial law. Financial law may be understood as being formed of three overarching methods, or pillars of law formation and categorised into five transaction silos which form the various financial positions prevalent in finance.
Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd[2011] UKSC 38, [2012] 1 All ER 505, [2012] 1 AC 383 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the general principle that parties cannot contract out of the insolvency legislation. The principle has two key aspects, of which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that only the first was relevant on the facts of the case:
- The anti-deprivation rule, which is aimed at attempts to withdraw an asset on bankruptcy or liquidation or administration, thereby reducing the value of the insolvent estate to the detriment of creditors.
- The pari passu rule, which reflects the principle that statutory provisions for pro rata distribution may not be excluded by a contract which gives one creditor more than its proper share.
The anti-deprivation rule is a principle applied by the courts in common law jurisdictions in which, according to Mellish LJ in Re Jeavons, ex parte Mackay, "a person cannot make it a part of his contract that, in the event of bankruptcy, he is then to get some additional advantage which prevents the property being distributed under the bankruptcy laws." Wood VC had earlier observed that "the law is too clearly settled to admit of a shadow of doubt that no person possessed of property can reserve that property to himself until he shall become bankrupt, and then provide that, in the event of his becoming bankrupt, it shall pass to another and not to his creditors."
Penalties in English law are contractual terms which are not enforceable in the courts because of their penal character. Since at least 1720 it has been accepted as a matter of English contract law that if a provision in a contract constitutes a penalty, then that provision is unenforceable by the parties. However, the test for what constitutes a penalty has evolved over time. The Supreme Court most recently restated the law in relation to contractual penalties in the co-joined appeals of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi[2015] UKSC 67, together with its companion case ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, are English contract law cases concerning the validity of penalty clauses and the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive. The UK Supreme Court ruled on both cases together on 4 November 2015, updating the established legal rule on penalty clauses and replacing the test of whether or not a disputed clause is "a genuine pre-estimate of loss" with a test asking whether it imposed a proportionate detriment in relation to any "legitimate interest" of the innocent party.
Credit Suisse International v Stichting Vestia Groep[2014] EWHC 3103 (Comm) was a decision of the High Court of Justice relating to the doctrine of ultra vires and the effect of contractual representations made under an ISDA Master Agreement on the doctrine.
In Bulgaria, the law of obligations is set out by the Obligations and Contracts Act (OCA). According to article 20a, OCA contracts shall have the force of law for the parties that conclude them.
BNY Corporate Trustees Services Ltd v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL plc[2013] UKSC 28 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to the proper interpretation of section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 as it had been applied in commercial bond documentation. The analysis and reasoning in the case are now commonly referred to as the Eurosail test.
