|
is the name of a series of co-joined appeals heard by the English Court of Appeal in relation to the efficacy of certain provisions under the standard form ISDA Master Agreement (1992 form). Four appeals were consolidated into a single hearing, and in a comprehensive joint judgment delivered by Lord Justice Longmore the Court attempted to provide definitive resolutions to various issues of interpretation which had given rise to conflicting judgments at first instance. One academic commentator has referred to the case as a "comprehensive judgment () masterfully resolved a number of conflicting strands of jurisprudence". ==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'' () Lloyds Rep 631 where the court had taken a position contrary to the orthodox market view in relation to the close-out provisions.〔 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: 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|