Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(52 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
as case opining on the meaning of the apparently harmless {{isdaprov|Notices}} Section (Section {{isdaprov|12}}) of the {{1992ma}}, and in particular what is an [[electronic messaging system]] and more to the point what it is not - in the opinion of learned Justice Andrews, and includes [[email]].
{{essay|casenote|Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc|}}
 
Mister Leach, of Greenclose, was one of those fabled little old ladies of the law. He was also, so the court found, a sophisticated and successful owner of family business running small luxury hotels in Wales. But he was the wrong end of lending tactic that NatWest and other lenders imposed on midsized corporates in the mid 2000s, which was to lend them some money and then compel them to inter a derivative to hedge interest-rate risk. In Greenclose's case, he was obliged to buy a rate collar for five years, and to grant the bank an option to extend it for seven years.
 
The notional point of the hedge was to protect Greenclose against interest rate spikes over the ten year term of the loan: interest rates being an uncommonly low 4.5% in 2006, and generally expected, in those good old days, to shortly rise. To make the cost of the option more attractive to Greenclose, NatWest suggested they limit the downside risk also, and make it a collar - thus limiting Greenclose's exposure to interest rates between  5.07% and 6%.
 
Greenclose therefore borrowed at that handsome rate but also entered an extendable collar transaction under a 1992 {{isdama}} - the edition is important - which would expire on 30 December 2012 unless NatWest gave proper notice of its extension before that time.
 
If interest rates were low in 2006, they were even lower in 2012, such that the collar trade was massively out of the money. RBS of course wanted to exercise the option, notwithstanding that there was no real risk
 
Schoolboy error no.1 by NatWest was to provide for a notice deadline to expires when the recipient is highly likelihood to be out of the office. But that's as may be.
 
Error no. 2 - less of a schoolboy one, in this reviewer's opinion, was to assume that an email - being, after all, an '''electronic''' mail sent over a computer '''system''' (so sayeth [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email Wikipedia]) fell within the meaning of an "electronic messaging system".

Latest revision as of 16:43, 12 June 2023

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports™

The Jolly Contrarian holds forth™

Resources and Navigation

Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman

Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort |

Click ᐅ to expand:
Case notes
Index: Click ᐅ to expand:
Essays
edit

A fine example of that old legal maxim anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt: Little old ladies (and, in this case, aggrieved Welsh hotel owners) make bad law, Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc (judgment) opines on the apparently harmless Notices Section (12) of the 1992 ISDA. It considers the meaning of “electronic messaging system” and, saucily, finds that it does not include email.

Let me say that again, in case you missed it: in the eyes of the current common law email does not count as an “electronic messaging system”.

Premium content

Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics 👇
edit
  • The loan and the interest rate hedge: the strange history of banks ripping off small businesses by selling them unnecessarily complicated loan and swap packages
  • Schoolboy errors, and pricing options to roll off during the grundle
  • Is email an “electronic messaging system”? It is, right? Right? GUYS?

See also

edit

References

[[category:Template:Casenote Essay]]

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Greenclose_v_National_Westminster_Bank_plc&oldid=75618"