- Calculating loss under a 1992 ISDA Master Agreement—an evolution not a revolution (Lehman Brothers Finance AG (in liquidation) v (1) Klaus Tschira Stiftung GmbH (2) Klaus Tschira Beteiligungs & Co KG)
- What are the practical implications going forward?
- What was the background to the case? Were there particular complications?
- What did the court decide?
- Has the case clarified how much latitude non-defaulting parties have when calculating loss?
- How does the decision fit in with prior judgments in both the English and US courts?
Banking & Finance analysis: The decision of the High Court in Lehman Brothers Finance AG (in liquidation) v (1) Klaus Tschira Stiftung GmbH (2) Klaus Tschira Beteiligungs & Co KG has helped clarify how much latitude a non-defaulting party has when calculating loss under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement. Helen Carty, partner, and Jonathan Caunt, senior associate, at Clifford Chance, who acted for the two defendants, say the judgment is ‘evolutionary, not revolutionary’.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial