header-logo header-logo

08 August 2014
Issue: 7618 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Contract

Lehman Brothers Finance S.A. (in Liquidation) v Sal Oppenhim jr. & cir. KGaA [2014] EWHC 2627 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 309 (Jul)

It was settled law that the identification of the non-defaulting party’s loss of bargain, arising from the termination of a derivative transaction, required a “clean” rather than a “dirty” market valuation of the lost transaction. That meant that the loss of bargain had to be valued on an assumption that, but for termination, the transaction would have proceeded to a conclusion, and that all conditions to its full performance by both sides would have been satisfied, however improbable that assumption might be in the real world. Thus, for the “value clean principle”, the conditions precedent as to payment, among other things, had to be deemed to have been satisfied. Otherwise no replacement transaction could be entered into, as there would be nothing to transfer to the new party, or only a transaction capable of being immediately terminated. The quotation was to be given for the replacement transaction on that basis. Quotations for replacement transactions were required

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll