FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1500663719> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1500663719 startingPage "465" @default.
• W1500663719 abstract "For the practitioner, a future flow securitization presents interesting questions surrounding the choice of governing law. The principal objective of the transaction will be to reduce the political risk of lending to the originator in U.S. dollars or other hard currencies. (1) Therefore, one would prefer to use New York or English law and jurisdiction, if practicable, to assure the international investor a predictable and orderly outcome if a dispute or default occurs. If the future flow asset consists of receivables arising from the export sales of the originator, the second option outlined in Marke Raines and Gabrielle Wong's article is the preferable one. (2) That is, New York law would govern the transaction with a submission to jurisdiction in New York and with an accompanying opinion that the choice of law and submission to jurisdiction is valid under both the law of New York and the law of the originator's jurisdiction. (3) As Raines and Wong point out however, the application of New York law to the of the receivables raises its own set of problems. While it is unlikely that the originator would become subject to a full-blown U.S. bankruptcy proceeding, it could not be ruled out as the jurisdictional provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code do not require much in the way of U.S. contacts to permit a U.S. bankruptcy filing. (4) However, selecting local law to govern the transaction in any significant respect is at cross-purposes with the primary objective of the transaction. I would argue that from an investor's perspective the true sale issue is largely irrelevant. Since the assets do not exist at the date of the financing, the continued operation of the originator will be required to generate the assets in the future. This suggests that the insolvency of the originator is likely to leave the investor as an unsecured creditor. If the originator continues to operate and generate the assets, the structure of the transaction will force repayment of the securitization (i.e., the transaction is self-liquidating) even if there is a change in the originator's willingness or ability to service the obligations. Such a change may be forced upon the originator, for example, by a change in local law or regulation that purports to restrict the originator from repaying hard currency external indebtedness. Under these circumstances, and assuming a transaction structured in the manner described in the Raines and Wong article, the originator will be forced to attack the transaction in a U.S. or European court. The issue will not be whether the transaction is a true sale, but rather, whether the court will enforce the terms of the basic contracts. This will raise the choice of law question as well as other related legal principles. Section 5-1401 of New York's General Obligations Law, (5) and its associated forum selection clause, (6) strongly suggest that a U.S. court would enforce the contracts notwithstanding a change in local law or regulations, at least as long as the transaction had some contact or relationship to New York. (7) Assuming such contacts, an originator would be forced to ask a U.S. court to abstain from enforcement based upon the so-called act of state doctrine. Under this doctrine, a U.S. court may consider as nonjusticiable, and confer presumptive validity on, the acts of a foreign state with respect to property located within its boundaries. (8) Since the source of repayment for the securitization is, by definition, outside of the boundaries of the foreign state, it is unlikely that a U.S. court would abstain from enforcing the contracts on this basis. (9) None of these issues depends on the outcome of the true sale question. It would not seem sensible as a general matter to trade the jurisdictional features of the transaction for a local law true sale opinion, nor would it seem sensible to trade the features described in the Raines and Wong article as being generally included in a future flow securitization that make the transaction seem more analogous to a secured loan, for a New York law true sale opinion. …" @default.
• W1500663719 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1500663719 creator A5040969717 @default.
• W1500663719 date "2002-03-22" @default.
• W1500663719 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1500663719 title "Securitization of Future Cash Flows under English and New York Law" @default.
• W1500663719 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W1500663719 type Work @default.
• W1500663719 sameAs 1500663719 @default.
• W1500663719 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1500663719 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1500663719 hasAuthorship W1500663719A5040969717 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C163428354 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C198004926 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C2776893234 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C2779967654 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C2780619108 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C504631918 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConcept C75949130 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C10138342 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C144133560 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C162324750 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C163428354 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C17744445 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C190253527 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C198004926 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C199360897 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C199539241 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C2776893234 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C2776949292 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C2779967654 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C2780619108 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C41008148 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C504631918 @default.
• W1500663719 hasConceptScore W1500663719C75949130 @default.
• W1500663719 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1500663719 hasLocation W15006637191 @default.
• W1500663719 hasOpenAccess W1500663719 @default.
• W1500663719 hasPrimaryLocation W15006637191 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W1482215906 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W1536475795 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W1579268705 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W1608843157 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W1967673330 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W2223153935 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W2264968418 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W2268689594 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W229811859 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W2560977108 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W281817186 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W293453096 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W2993049991 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W3123291515 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W3124279431 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W3195476801 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W346187467 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W44755126 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W180910155 @default.
• W1500663719 hasRelatedWork W1896708037 @default.
• W1500663719 hasVolume "12" @default.
• W1500663719 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1500663719 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1500663719 magId "1500663719" @default.
• W1500663719 workType "article" @default.