High Court awards Aamanya AG over USD 3 million after Ballinger wrongly cancelled FX forward contracts without paying fair market value
In a judgment handed down on 11 November 2026, Mr Justice Stanley in the Commercial Court, part of the Business and Property Courts found in favour of Aamanya AG against Ballinger & Co Ltd in a dispute over the termination of 25 foreign exchange (FX) forward contracts. The court held that Ballinger was entitled to cancel the trades in March 2022, having determined they had become derivative products outside the category it was authorised to offer under the parties' umbrella FX Agreement. However, the court also found that when Ballinger exercised that termination right, it was obliged to pay Aamanya the fair current market value of those contracts at the point of termination, rather than simply cancelling them for nothing. That payment obligation amounts to just over USD 3 million. On Ballinger's counterclaim, the court found that Aamanya had not deceived Ballinger about the nature of the trades, and that Ballinger had in any event failed to establish any recoverable loss. The case, cited as [2026] EWHC 2905 (Comm), turned on how to construe the termination provision in the FX Agreement and whether, once invoked, it carried an obligation to compensate at market value. O'Melveny and Myers acted for Aamanya, led by Oliver Assersohn KC and Rachel Carver. Brown Rudnick acted for Ballinger, led by Emmanuel Sheppard.
Why this matters
The ruling clarifies the interplay between a contractual termination right in an FX agreement and the obligation to account for the economic value of outstanding trades at the moment of exit. For derivatives desks and their counterparties, this matters because the right to cancel a trade and the right to cancel without paying fair value are treated as legally distinct. Ballinger prevailed on the first question and lost on the second, meaning the category-based termination clause provided no windfall. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a termination provision is silent on compensation, courts will ordinarily require the terminating party to settle open positions at market value rather than walk away costlessly. That is a significant data point for anyone drafting or litigating FX master agreements.
On the Ground
This matter activates financial derivatives litigation, complex commercial contract construction, and commercial arbitration practice. Banks and non-bank FX providers will want to audit their umbrella agreements to confirm that any termination provision either explicitly addresses or excludes a compensation obligation on exit. Litigators advising FX counterparties on disputed terminations will need to run a two-stage analysis matching this judgment: first, was the trigger for termination validly invoked; second, what does the agreement say about settlement at the point of cancellation. O'Melveny and Myers acted for the claimant and Brown Rudnick for the defendant. A trainee on this type of matter would prepare the chronology of contract events, categorise and index disclosure documents relating to each of the 25 trades, and assist with drafting witness statement bundles.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“How does this Commercial Court ruling affect the way banks and FX providers should draft termination clauses in umbrella FX agreements going forward?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved