UK: Construction And Rectification: The Consequences Of Rescission And Making Good The Defects In Drafting Of Back-To-Back Confirmations Under The ISDA Master Agreement

Last Updated: 20 November 2014
Article by Richard Caird, Thomas Leyland and Alexandra Doucas

Litigation between UBS, KWL, Depfa and LBBW - [2014] EWHC 3615 (Comm) (Part 2)

Our recent update " Fraudulent misrepresentation by a bank and the ISDA Master Agreement" dealt with the consequences of certain fraudulent misrepresentations impliedly made by UBS to Depfa in the litigation between them and the German water company Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH (KWL).

In this further article, we consider the decision of the Judge (Mr Justice Males), in relation to a further dispute between UBS and Depfa, as to the construction of a Single Tranche Collateralised Debt Obligation (STCDO). We also refer to the Judge's treatment of a difficult issue as to the practical consequences of rescission as a remedy.

Factual background

The full background is set out in " Fraudulent misrepresentation by a bank and the ISDA Master Agreement". In summary, UBS and KWL had already entered into a STCDO transaction directly when, in late 2006, UBS approached Depfa to ask it to intermediate in a further, similar, transaction.

UBS was unable to obtain internal approval to enter into this trade itself. The explanation given to Depfa for this was that UBS had no further credit lines available to KWL. Depfa agreed to intermediate between UBS and KWL, with the result that in March 2007, Depfa and KWL entered into two STCDO transactions with a total notional amount of approximately US$116 million (referred to at trial as the "front swaps"). Depfa and UBS also entered into so-called "back swaps" on the same terms. The effect was that the net payment flows under the STCDOs were to be between UBS and KWL, with Depfa taking a one-off fee of €1.3 million for its role.

The portfolio underlying the STCDO was hit badly by the financial crisis, leading to a complete loss for KWL of the notional amount at stake. While Depfa, UBS and LBBW (which had taken a similar role to Depfa) sought to recover the sums they alleged to be due from KWL contractually, KWL defended those claims and sought rescission of the various agreements into which it had entered, on the basis (among other arguments) of its directors' lack of authority, and of the bribery of one of them.

Status of the front swaps

For the reasons explained in our earlier article, the Judge determined that Depfa was entitled to rescind the back swaps on the grounds of UBS's fraudulent misrepresentation. He did not, however, find that KWL was entitled to rescind the front swaps with Depfa.

This left the possibility that Depfa would suddenly find itself in the windfall position of being entitled to recover the amount it was owed by KWL, without then needing to pass that money on to UBS. This was agreed not to be a scenario which was within the intention of the parties when they entered into the STCDOs.

Depfa did not, therefore, claim to be entitled to retain the money. The Judge agreed, however, that "it is not obvious what the correct legal analysis in relation to the Front Swaps would be in this situation". It was submitted on behalf of KWL that, as the front swaps and back swaps were part of a single package, the mere fact that Depfa had rescinded the back swaps meant that KWL was entitled to rescind the front swaps. The Judge agreed with Depfa that there was no clear legal basis for such an argument.

He took the view that because rescission is an equitable remedy, "the court has a degree of flexibility in order to ensure that practical justice is achieved". The Judge went on to find that the effective way of doing this was to require Depfa, as a condition of its right to rescind the back swaps, to undertake not to enforce the front swaps against KWL.

This is not the only occasion in this judgment where the Judge demonstrated the court's willingness to use the flexibility of rescission as a remedy in order to ensure a practical solution. He referred repeatedly in the judgment to the need to ensure that rescission provided "practical justice".

Clause 6 of the back swaps

This resolution meant that the outcome of the litigation did not depend on a further dispute between UBS and Depfa as to the construction of the back swaps. That dispute was interesting however, and as it was fully argued, the Judge set out the findings he would have made had he needed to do so.

The issue was as follows. Depfa terminated both the front swaps and the back swaps early, because of KWL's failure to pay the first amount which became due once entities within the reference portfolio began to default. The payments due on early termination of the back swaps were determined pursuant to clause 6 of the confirmations by which the back swaps were documented (the Confirmation).

Clause 6 provided that: "The occurrence of an early termination in respect of [the front swap] shall constitute an Additional Termination Event ...; and (iv) for the purposes of Section 6(e) of the [ISDA Master] Agreement ... (B) where an amount is paid to [Depfa] under the [front swap], an amount shall be payable by [Depfa] to UBS under this Transaction, equal to that amount." (emphasis added)

The confirmation between LBBW and UBS, which was materially identical to the Confirmation, contained the same wording.

The parties' competing constructions of clause 6 and principles of construction

Each of Depfa, LBBW and UBS offered different interpretations of what clause 6 meant.

  1. LBBW argued that it meant precisely what it said: that if Depfa/LBBW were actually paid by KWL, they were liable to UBS for that amount. If KWL did not in fact pay, then UBS was not entitled to anything.
  2. Depfa argued that if KWL was obliged to make payment to Depfa/LBBW, whether or not it actually did so, Depfa/LBBW were liable to UBS for that amount. In other words, Depfa submitted that the underlined word "paid" in clause 6 should in fact be read as "payable".
  3. UBS argued that Depfa and LBBW were obliged to pay whether or not KWL paid or had any liability to do so. It argued that the only purpose of the wording was to make sure that where amounts were payable under both the front swaps and the back swaps, such amounts were identical.

All parties accepted that the usual principles of construction applied, including (as turned out to be particularly relevant in the circumstances) that: (a) the disputed clause has to be viewed in the context of the contract as a whole; and (b) where a clause is capable of bearing more than one meaning, it is appropriate to have regard to commercial common sense in order to determine the correct one, even if that correct meaning is not the one most consistent with a literal reading of the agreement.

The Judge's conclusions on construction

The Judge first made two key findings of fact. One was that the purpose of Depfa's and LBBW's involvement in the STCDOs was to take the credit risk of KWL. The second was what "credit risk" actually meant in the circumstances. This is, in itself, an interesting point for future cases, although it is one that is likely to be fact-sensitive. In this case, the Judge held that credit risk meant only the risk that KWL would not pay (e.g. because of insolvency), not that it had no obligation to do so (e.g. because it had successfully avoided the STCDOs for bribery or lack of capacity).

In order to determine the proper construction of clause 6, the Judge considered the payment obligations pre-termination as set out in the remainder of the Confirmation. He determined that, as they submitted, Depfa and LBBW were only under an obligation to pay UBS under the back swap as and when the same amount was due and payable from KWL, and that the Confirmation would be unworkable on any other interpretation.

UBS's essential argument against this conclusion, put on a number of bases, was that Depfa and LBBW had taken not only the credit risk of KWL, but the risk that the front swaps would be held to be unenforceable. The Judge rejected this argument. He held that as UBS had arranged and presented the transactions to Depfa and LBBW, it was more likely that UBS was responsible for any flaw in them. It was at any rate not self-evident (such that it would override the express wording of the Confirmations) that Depfa and LBBW were to take that responsibility. He was also not willing to find that the fact that Depfa and LBBW obtained capacity opinions in relation to KWL meant that they assumed a risk other than credit risk. The Judge took the practical view that a bank can sensibly take steps to reassure itself as to the validity of a transaction, without accepting the risk that it is invalid.

LBBW submitted that the regime on early termination was different, such that it only had to pay UBS when actually paid itself by KWL, not when the amount was due and payable by KWL. The Judge rejected this approach on the basis that it was at odds with the commercial purpose of the transaction and therefore was not the correct construction of the clause.

He accepted Depfa's construction instead, agreeing that the word "paid" should, in the circumstances, be read as "payable".

UBS's arguments on rectification and estoppel

UBS's alternative case was that even if the Confirmation could not be construed in the manner for which it contended, the Confirmation should be rectified so that Depfa and LBBW took both credit risk and validity risk in relation to KWL. Alternatively it argued that they should be estopped from arguing the contrary.

In order to give effect to this claim, UBS argued that the underlined word "paid" in clause 6 should be replaced by the words "can be calculated as being due to [Depfa] under the terms of" the front swap. It further argued that this wording would also have to replace any references in the Confirmation to sums being payable to or by Depfa prior to termination.

Faced with this extensive rewrite of the Confirmation as it had been agreed by the parties, the Judge unsurprisingly declined to accept UBS's case in this respect. He also declined to accept UBS's interpretation of the exchanges between the parties as evidencing an agreement that Depfa would take the risk that the front swaps with KWL were invalid.

Conclusions

As with any case concerning construction of a contractual clause, this aspect of the judgment is fact-specific and arises out of an intermediation trade. While the judgment does not purport to expand the already familiar principles of contractual construction, it provides a useful illustration of the operation of those principles in practice.

First, in giving detailed consideration to the payment obligations pre-termination as well as post-termination, the judgment highlights the importance of considering the meaning of a disputed clause in its context.

Second, the judgment provides a good example of a case where the most literal meaning of the disputed clause does not give effect to commercial common sense, and is therefore rejected.

Third, it shows how careful banks have to be when drafting confirmations in intermediation trades to make sure they fully understand and agree on what risks are being assumed by all participating banks.

In addition, the judgment is a useful source of reference for any litigant or lawyer interested in the flexibility of rescission as a remedy, and the way in which it can be applied.

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
6 Sep 2018, Business Breakfast, Glasgow, UK

Decarbonising our heat is a key component of The Scottish Energy Strategy and an essential piece of the complex matrix we must tackle if we are to meet our climate change obligations.

11 Sep 2018, Business Breakfast, Milton Keynes, UK

Join us for our next development breakfast round table event reflecting on the on-going planning discussion regarding the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and helping you consider how best to cash in on the exciting opportunities by considering the benefits of promotion and option agreements.

20 Sep 2018, Seminar, London, UK

Environmental regulation and liability have risen up the boardroom agenda over the past decade. Recent changes to environmental sentencing have brought this area of risk even more into focus.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions