Early termination of derivatives

This Overview is a guide to the Banking & Finance content within the Early termination of derivatives subtopic, with links to appropriate materials.

Terminating derivatives early

Section 6 (Early Termination) of the ISDA Master Agreement sets out the consequences of an occurrence of an Event of Default or Termination Event as described in Section 5 (Events of Default and Termination Events) of the ISDA Master Agreement. In short, the difference between an Event of Default and a Termination Event is that in an Event of Default, there is a party that can be blamed, whereas generally in a Termination Event, the event just happened or was outside a party's control.

Section 6 also sets out how the close out netting mechanism operates following the occurrence of an Event of Default or Termination Event.

For more information on Section 6 generally, see Practice Note: Scope of the ISDA Master Agreement—Section 6 (Early Termination).

There are differences between the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement and the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement as to how payments are made on an early termination of derivatives. These differences are set out in more detail

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Banking & Finance News

Commission publishes proposed reforms to EU securitisation framework in impact assessment

The European Commission has published an impact assessment on proposed amendments to EU securitisation regulations. The assessment focuses on modifications to Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 and Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, addressing overcorrection in the post-Global Financial Crisis framework. While the current stringent rules have enhanced market security, the evaluation concludes that they have also stifled market development and rendered securitisation expensive and unappealing due to the high prudential requirements.

Whose money is it? Bondholders allowed to join claim relating to bond proceeds (Eraaya Lifespaces v Elara Capital et al [2025])

Banking & Finance analysis: This case involved, among other things, (a) an application by an issuer of bonds for an interim injunction to require a financial adviser to issue a confirmation email to the settlement agent to compel the settlement agent to transfer bond proceeds it held to the issuer, and (b) an application by the bondholders to join the proceedings to oppose the injunction application. The court denied the injunction application on the basis that, among other things, the issuer’s case against the financial adviser was arguably ‘far from strong’ and that, given the issuer’s precarious financial condition and other relevant factors, damages would not appear to be an adequate remedy for the bondholders if it was later determined that the injunction should not have been granted. The court granted the bondholders’ joinder application in part on the basis that the bondholders had arguably demonstrated that the bond proceeds were held in trust on their behalf by the settlement agent. Written by Robert Aulsebrook, senior counsel at Akin Gump LLP.

Why UK sanctions review recommendations lack substance

Law360, London: On 15 May 2025, the UK government published the conclusions of its cross-government review of UK sanctions implementation and enforcement.

The Supreme Court tweaks Etridge (Waller Edwards v One Savings Bank plc)

Property Disputes analysis: English property law periodically produces epoch-making decisions of the highest court. In years to come, Waller Edwards v One Savings Bank plc may well become such a decision. It enjoys the respectable jurisprudential lineage of three famous House of Lords’ decisions: Barclays Bank v O’Brien, CIBC Mortgages v Pitt, and Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge, but it also applies established principles in a novel way. Written by Marc Beaumont, Windsor Chambers.

View Banking & Finance by content type :

News