← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case administrationset offtransactions at undervalue

Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc

[2012] EWCA Civ 419
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtCourt of Appeal (England and Wales)
Year2012
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Ipso facto clauses terminating derivatives contracts on insolvency are unenforceable against a company in administration, but flawed asset provisions remain valid.

Key Principle

The ipso facto prohibition (now reflected in the Companies Act 2006) prevents counterparties from terminating derivatives contracts solely because a company enters administration; but flawed asset provisions are enforceable.

Area of Law

banking

Related Cases

Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall (2019) 272 CLR 1

A bank owes a duty of care to guarantors to take reasonable steps to ensure they understand the nature and effect of the guarantee under the Code of Banking Practice.

AUSTRAC v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2018] FCA 930

CBA liable for systemic AML/CTF Act contraventions including failure to report suspicious matters and threshold transactions via intelligent deposit machines, resulting in $700 million civil penalty.

Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (Full Federal Court) (2015) 236 FCR 199

Full Federal Court held that bank late payment fees were not penalties or unconscionable under consumer protection law as they bore a genuine pre-estimate of loss or legitimate commercial interest.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc