UK: Calculations On ISDA Close-Out

Last Updated: 20 August 2014
Article by Richard Caird, Sam Coulthard and Alexandra Doucas

This case provides further guidance in relation to how payment on early termination of a 1992 ISDA Master Agreement should be calculated where Automatic Early Termination applies, in particular as to the meaning of the provisions dealing with market quotations and whether they require parties to obtain live quotations or historic valuations.

Background to the disputed calculation

The claimant (Lehman) and the defendant (Sal Oppenheim) entered into four option agreements under the umbrella of a 1992 ISDA Master Agreement, pursuant to which the sums payable between the parties were calculated by reference to the Nikkei 225 Stock Average Index. The parties elected for the Automatic Early Termination provisions of the ISDA Master Agreement to apply, and consequently the ISDA Master Agreement terminated at 01:54 New York time on Monday, 15 September 2008, when Lehman's credit support provider (Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.) filed for bankruptcy.

That was mid-afternoon in Japan, but, by coincidence, the Japanese exchanges were closed for a public holiday until 16 September 2008. Once they reopened, it was clear that there had been a substantial fall in the Nikkei from its closing position on the previous business day, Friday, 12 September 2008. The effect of the fall on these specific transactions was that the value of the options in the hands of Sal Oppenheim had risen.

In this context, Sal Oppenheim had to calculate the Payment on Early Termination as contemplated by ISDA. 

Relevant provisions of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement

The parties had elected to use Market Quotation (as opposed to Loss) as the means of quantifying that payment. The provisions of the Master Agreement (contained at clause 6 and in the definitions at clause 14) in relation to Market Quotation are extensive and are not replicated here. The judgment referred extensively to the obligation on the party making the determination (here Sal Oppenheim) to request that quotations be provided by four reference market makers "to the extent reasonably practicable as of the same day and time ... on or as soon as reasonably practicable after the Early Termination Date. The day and time as of which those quotations are to be obtained will be selected in good faith by the party obliged to make a determination". 

The Master Agreement specifies that the purpose of Market Quotation is to calculate the cost to the party making the determination of entering into a Replacement Transaction (as the ISDA Master Agreement defines it), in other words a transaction which "would have the effect of preserving for such party the economic equivalent" of any payment or delivery which would have been required after the early termination date, but for that termination occurring.

Sal Oppenheim's actions

On 18 June 2009, Sal Oppenheim emailed Lehman a calculation of the Payment on Early Termination it proposed to make (and which it went on to make approximately one month later). Appended to the email was a schedule which purported to contain three quotes. Sal Oppenheim apparently provided very limited disclosure in relation to these quotes, but it was apparent that the spot rate they used was the closing level of the Nikkei on 12 September 2008, the business day prior to Early Termination.

On being challenged with this (in February 2011), Sal Oppenheim initially denied that it had used quotes from 12 September, but was forced to resile from this. No witness was able to explain how the valuations were obtained. There was, however, some evidence that Sal Oppenheim had taken steps to hedge its risk on 15 September 2008 and shortly thereafter.

The judge's findings of fact were that Sal Oppenheim had not approached four dealers in the market. It had approached three banks and obtained retrospective valuations for the relevant transactions as at close of business on 12 September 2008, before those transactions terminated. It had not obtained quotations for a Replacement Transaction, and there was no evidence that it had attempted (or been unable) to do so. 

The parties' experts agreed that it was more likely than not that quotations for a Replacement Transaction could have been obtained on 16 September 2008, the business day after Early Termination, and the judge reached that conclusion as a finding of fact. 

Sal Oppenheim defended its calculation on arguments which raise fundamental questions as to the construction of clause 6 of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement.

"Live" quotation or retrospective valuation?

The judge held that the provisions of the ISDA Master Agreement did not permit Sal Oppenheim to choose a date and time as of which valuations were to be given which predated termination of the transactions. This conclusion is unsurprising given the Agreement's specific reference to a date "on or as soon as reasonably practicable after" termination. The reasons for which Sal Oppenheim argued a contrary position are considered below.

However, while the judgment does not elaborate on the context, Sal Oppenheim also suggested that it was open to it to calculate the amount of the payment it needed to make "as of the date and time of Automatic Early Termination, even although (ex hypothesi) this calculation would only in fact be made at a later time and therefore retrospectively". While the judgment focuses on the narrower question of whether the date in respect of which quotes are sought can predate termination, it answers the more general question of whether that date can predate the request actually being made to reference market-makers at all. If a party does not learn of an Automatic Early Termination until the following day, can it approach market-makers for their valuations of the terminated transaction as they would have been given on the day and at the time of termination, and still comply with the Market Quotation method?

The implication of the judgment is that it cannot. The judge found that: "It seems to me entirely plain that this is intended to be what was described in the course of argument as a 'live quotation', i.e. one capable of being taken up there and then. It is not a question of a historic valuation".

The judge's view, supported by the ISDA User's Guide and (more explicitly) by Firth's Derivatives Law and Practice, appears to have been based predominantly on the stated purpose of the Market Quotation method. If the objective is to get a price for a Replacement Transaction, then (in crude terms) it is irrelevant what you could have paid (or been paid) for it a day or more ago. 

This confirms what Henderson on Derivatives describes as the prevailing market view. Henderson sets out a detailed discussion of the rights and wrongs of that view, and the history of the debate, at 19.22, although this does not feature among the various commentaries referred to in the judgment. If Henderson's summary of past market practice is correct, then this decision confirms a departure from the views which prevailed 15 or 20 years ago.

The commentary on this judgment by Simon Firth also raises interesting questions. He refers to the judge's statement that a "live quotation" for these purposes is one "capable of being taken up there and then" and draws from it the conclusion (implicit in the following paragraph of the judgment) that this means that only "firm" quotations are valid for the purposes of the Market Quotation method. The significance of this is, he says, that the market-maker providing the quotation must be providing a firm price at which it would be willing to deal and that any requests for quotations or responses which are expressed to be "for valuation purposes only" would not be valid for Market Quotation purposes. The judgment does not expressly consider this point, and deals only with the timing rather than the content of quotations. If Firth's analysis of the judgment is correct, it will (as he says) give rise to further issues. 

Extent of the "value clean" principle

Sal Oppenheim's submission that it could, consistently with the Market Quotation method, use the price which it would have obtained had it gone to the market at close of business on 12 September 2008, was connected with its position on the "value clean" principle, which applies to close-outs under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement. The value clean principle required that Sal Oppenheim's loss of bargain had to be calculated on the basis that the transactions would have proceeded to a conclusion, and that all conditions precedent (including the absence of any Event of Default) were satisfied. 

Sal Oppenheim argued that this meant that the transaction must be valued assuming not only that the default had not occurred, but also that any consequences of the default had not taken place. In this case, the circumstances were unusual: the event giving rise to the default had simultaneously caused substantial market disruption. In Sal Oppenheim's view, Lehman would (in the context of this transaction) be profiting from its own default and Sal Oppenheim could therefore legitimately value the transactions at the last "clean" point in the market, i.e. close of business on 12 September 2008.

The judge did not consider this proposition to be arguable on a construction of the Master Agreement or bearing in mind the normative intentions of ISDA documentation, nor did he consider that it was possible to quantify precisely the effect of Lehman Brothers' collapse on market prices.

When is Loss available instead?

Where Market Quotation has been selected, there are nonetheless two circumstances in which the party calculating the payment can instead use the Loss method: (a) where a Market Quotation cannot be determined (referred to by the judge as the "First Gateway"); and (b) where Market Quotation would not, in the reasonable belief of the party making the determination, produce a commercially reasonable result (referred to by the judge as the "Second Gateway"). 

As stated above, the judge found that Sal Oppenheim could (and should) have obtained quotations as of 16 September 2008. This meant that the First Gateway was closed to it. 

In order for the Second Gateway to have been available, the judge applied existing case law stating that the party making the determination needed to turn its mind to the question of whether Market Quotation would produce a commercially reasonable result. In this case, there was no evidence that Sal Oppenheim had done so, let alone that it held a reasonable belief that Market Quotation would produce an unreasonable result, and the Second Gateway was therefore also unavailable.

Conclusions: what could Sal Oppenheim have done differently?

The judgment is primarily interesting for its consideration of the requirement that parties use live quotations in order to comply with the Market Quotation method.

The question of what Sal Oppenheim could legitimately have done in order to avoid the eventual outcome (which included a 12 per cent rate of interest on the shortfall in its payment) has a number of answers, and those answers are of general application.

  1. The most obvious point is that, where parties have agreed to Market Quotation, they are obliged actually to follow that route unless it would be unreasonable to do so.
  2. Sal Oppenheim suffered for its lack of evidence as to the process it followed, including as to when and how it sought valuations. It would be prudent for parties in that position to document the requests for quotations that they make, and the responses they receive.
  3. In the event of serious market disruption, it would be advisable for parties in the position of Sal Oppenheim to consider specifically whether Market Quotation would produce an unreasonable result and to document those considerations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
28 Sep 2017, Seminar, London, UK

On 26 July the FCA published its long-expected consultation paper on the extension of the SMCR to all FCA-authorised firms. The so-called "core regime" introduces the key concepts of regulator-approved senior managers, firm-approved certification staff and conduct rules applicable to virtually all staff.

3 Oct 2017, Conference, Zurich, Switzerland

As the founding Partner of the Europe-Iran Forum, Dentons Europe will once again support this year’s event. This compelling event which explores all Iran-related topics will take place in Zürich on 3rd and 4th October.

4 Oct 2017, Workshop, London, UK

We are hosting an interactive workshop where we will run a mock High Court trial of an employee competition case – where the members of the audience are the judges. The session, aimed at in-house counsel and HR professionals, will offer an insight as to how disputes involving employees moving to a competitor play out in practice.

 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.