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.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
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
A recent decision discusses whether or not certain derivatives should be categorised as wagering contracts.
 EWCA Civ 1142
The claimant, WW Property Investments, had contended that certain interest rate hedging contracts that it had entered into with National Westminster Bank constituted wagering contracts.
This relates to an application by WW Property Investments (WW) to appeal a decision by HH Judge Roger Kaye QC dated 1 March 2016 (the Original Decision) where he struck out in its entirety their claim against National Westminster Bank (NatWest) and refused WW permission to add a new claim.
Between 2004 and 2010, WW borrowed money from NatWest and also entered into four interest rate hedging contracts. Three of them were collars and the fourth was a swap entered into after the collars closed-out. The collars were entered into in order to hedge WW's interest obligations under the loan and it was a term of the loan that it should be hedged. The way the collars worked were that if interest rates rose above a certain level, NatWest would pay WW but if they fell below a certain level, WW would pay NatWest. Because interest rates dropped in 2008 and remained low, the collars were in NatWest's favour.
In 2013 NatWest carried out an interest rate hedging product review (IRHPR) which led to some redress being given to WW. In October 2014, NatWest made offers to WW in relation to the collars which were accepted by WW in January 2015. The offers meant that WW received over £424,152.06. In the offer letter that WW signed was wording that WW may also claim for additional losses. WW did make a claim for additional losses but this was ultimately rejected by NatWest.
Lord Justice Christopher Clarke in this
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