The Tribunal also approved the recent High Court decision in the BNP Paribas S A/Trattamento Rifiuti Metropolitani SpA (3) case (3) (for more details, see “The Importance of Industry Documents in Considering Competing Jurisdiction Clauses”). In that case, they were also swap contracts subject to the terms of an isda management contract, with an English jurisdiction clause, which was in competition with an Italian jurisdiction clause in a separate contract and focused exclusively on whether the English court had jurisdiction. In this regard, the Tribunal considered that the existence of a full contractual clause in the framework of the master contract was a “strong confirmation” that swap contracts were autonomous contracts and that related disputes would be covered by the jurisdiction clause, regardless of previous relationships. Summary: The global financial crisis of 2008-09 has provoked and continues to be the subject of significant litigation. The facts behind some of these disputes may be surprising – as in this recent case, which is explained by the sale of investment bonds and other securities by a German credit protection provider on investment degree bond portfolios and other securities. Trade lawyers will be interested in all of the contractual clauses on which UBS relies for an allegation of misrepresentation and in the Tribunal`s approach of designing the text of these clauses to see if it fully covers the facts. Finally, it was found that an applicant had the right to withdraw various transactions and recover various taxes: UBS AG (London Branch) against Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig GmbH  EWHC 3615 (Comm). By this decision, counterparties that enter into certain transactions through framework agreements (. B, for example, ISDA) will have much greater certainty that a specific transaction concluded on the basis of such an agreement will be subject to the jurisdiction defined in this agreement. However, as the Tribunal has pointed out, construction issues depend on the terms of individual contracts, so that different cases engage in their own facts. First, the Tribunal set out various policy statements on the approach to be taken in cases where there are two theoretically competing jurisdiction clauses. Such a case was Le Monde Petroleum SA/Westernzagros Ltd (2), which stated that such clauses were generally considered to be mutually exclusive and not overlapping (provided the language and environmental circumstances permit it). In their judgments, Longmore and Gross LJJ expressed serious concerns about the use of evidence from foreign law experts for applications for jurisdiction and reiterated that the only relevance of foreign law to matters relating to the construction of jurisdiction clauses was to inform the court of relevant differences in the construction principles applicable under foreign law.