Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
What does the recent case of Credit Suisse International v Stichting Vestia Groep tell us about how the court determines capacity and authority to enter into derivative contracts?
Credit Suisse International v Stichting Vestia Groep  EWHC 3103 (Comm),  All ER (D) 58 (Oct)
The claimant (Credit Suisse) brought proceedings against the defendant company (Vestia) claiming €83,196,829 as money allegedly due under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) 2002 agreement (the master agreement) in respect of 11 transactions it had allegedly entered with Vestia between November 2010 and September 2011. Credit Suisse contended that it had duly terminated the master agreement after the defendant had failed to provide security due under a credit support annex. The Commercial Court held that, notwithstanding that three of the contracts, comprising six of the disputed transactions, had been outside Vestia's capacity—and therefore invalid because of warranties in additional representations in the master agreement—that did not affect Credit Suisse's rights or Vestia's obligations under the master agreement. Alternatively, Credit Suisse was entitled in damages for breach of the warranties to the amount that they could have recovered under the master agreement if all the agreements were valid and binding on Vestia.
Credit Suisse contended that it had duly terminated the ISDA master agreement on 19 June 2012 after Vestia had failed to provide security under a related credit support annex.
Vestia contended that:
The issues for consideration were, among other
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
1.Banking and finance lawyer with experience in derivatives, debt capital markets, securitisation and structured finance in London and Paris
2.Likes ballet, playing the harp and holidays
3.Thinks the law is always changing!
Emma trained and qualified at Allen & Overy LLP and worked in their derivatives and structured finance teams in London and Paris. She then joined the foreign exchange prime brokerage legal team at Deutsche Bank before spending 4 ½ years with Crédit Agricole CIB advising the fixed income and derivatives desk.
0330 161 1234