In accordance with clause (i) above or the relevant market data referred to in clause (ii), the determining party shall review quotations in accordance with clause (ii) above, unless the determining party is satisfied in good faith that such relevant quotations or market data are not readily available or do not lead to a result: that would not meet these standards. When considering the information described in points (i), (ii) or (iii), the determining party may include financing costs, to the extent that the financing costs are not and are not part of the other information used. Third parties providing offers under clause (i) above or the market data referred to in clause (ii) above may include without restriction traders in the relevant markets, end-users of the product concerned, information providers, brokers and other sources of market information. Without duplication of amounts calculated on the basis of the information referred to in clause (i), (ii) or (iii) above or other relevant information, and if economically reasonable, the determining party may, in calculating a final amount, take into account, in addition, all losses or costs related to the cessation, liquidation or restoration of coverage related to a completed transaction or transaction. A group of closed transactions (or a profit from one of them) is generated. The economically reasonable procedures used to determine a close-out amount may include: – Overall, the advance payment of termination under the 1992 ISDA Framework Contract corresponds to the “loss” suffered by the determining party if the loss is defined as “an amount that the party reasonably determines in good faith as its total losses and costs”. This formulation requires rationality. The position was summarised in the case of Fondazione Enasarco against Lehman Brothers Finance SA. and Anthracite Rated Investments (Cayman) Limited  EWHC 1307 (Ch). In this case, the High Court decided that a party wishing to challenge the calculation of losses had to show that the finding of the non-defaulting party was irrational within the meaning of Wednesbury (i.e. it was so inappropriate that no reasonable person who acted reasonably could have done so). The amendments made by the Protocol to the framework agreements covered could be made through individually negotiated agreements. The Parties could sign a 2002 Framework Agreement and revise all their existing trades to this 2002 Agreement, which would mean that all changes made by the 2002 Framework Agreement of the 1992 Framework Agreement (including the replacement of markets/losses by a closed amount) would be made to the trade relationship.
If there is an error of finding, it is for the court chosen by the parties to explain it and indicate the amount of the close-out without this error. A recent case before the Commercial Court showed that the change in wording between isda framework contracts from 1992 to 2002 with regard to the calculation of the amount to be paid in the event of early termination is important. . . .