The fragmented approach toward close-out netting provisions in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore compared

  • Robert WaltersEmail author
  • Leon Trakman
Original Article


Close-out netting provisions are a relatively new addition to the financial legal framework. Their primary objective is to strengthen the regulation and manage the risk associated with over-the-counter derivatives. They have been adopted by the financial industry and used in financial transactions to assist in controlling and allocating financial risks. They are becoming an effective tool that provides an efficient process in calculating and settling on a net balance. However, they have been criticized for being unable to save some of the larger financial institution throughout the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. This paper examines how close-out netting provisions are applied under the UNIDROIT Principles which serves as the benchmark on how jurisdictions have incorporated them into national law. It examines the current approach taken by Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, stressing their importance in the increasing interconnected financial markets across Southeast Asia and Oceania. While this paper is limited in its scope only referring to the international framework and four national countries, the analysis undertaken can arguably be applied to other national and supranational legal systems. The paper challenges the fragmented approach to regulation of close-out netting provisions in a global setting. It highlights the divergent approaches currently adopted in defining, negotiating, drafting, interpreting and enforcing close-out netting provisions. It argues that nation states should adapt the UNIDROIT Principles in light of their national law and policy. It also presents a way forward in enforcing close-out netting provisions within contracts.


close-out netting provisions Australia Inodnesia Malaysia Singapore 



  1. 1.
    Benjamine, J. 2007. Financial law, 263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bliss, R., Kaufman, G. 2006. Derivatives and Systemic Risk: Netting, Collateral, and Closeout, 2 J. FIN. Stability: 55-56. Frank Partnoy, F Skeel, Jr., d The Promise and Perils of Credit Derivatives, 75 U. CIN. L. REV. 1019, 1049 (2007).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gillespie, J. 2008. Towards a discursive analysis of legal transfers into developing East Asia. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 40(657): 655–675.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giovanoli, M. 1996. Virtual money and the global financial market: Challenges for lawyers. Yearbook of International Financial and Economic Law 3: 16.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goode, R. 2011. Principles of corporate insolvency law, 48. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hupke, E. 2000. The legal aspects of bank insolvency: A comparative analysis of Western Europe, The United States and Canada, 152. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson, V. 2015. International financial law: The case against close-out netting. Boston University International Law Journal 33: 101–125.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loon, L, Lan, E, Adoption of Singapore law as the governing law for OTC derivatives transactions. National University Singapore, Accessed 5 May 2019.
  9. 9.
    Pak, I. 2004. International finance and state sovereignty: Global governance in the international tax regime. Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law 10(1): Article 7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simkovic, M. 2006. Secret liens and the financial crisis of 2008. American Bankruptcy Law Journal 83: 253–289.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Šimunović, L. 2017. Legal issues regarding netting in the Croatian legal system—De Lege Lata and perspectives. Zbornik PFZ 67(5): 867–894.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soemartono, G. 2017. Interpretation and application of the New York convention in Indonesia. In Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, ed. Bermann, G., vol 23. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Watson, A. 1996. Aspects of reception of law, Georgia law, University of Georgia school of law. The American Journal of Comparative Law 44: 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Victoria Law SchoolVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.European Faculty of LawThe New UniversityLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Faculty of LawUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations