| Put your ad here - check out our very attractive terms |
The web's most comprehensive resource on securitization |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Search this
site
If you are looking for something and you do not find it; do let me know Visit our websites Credit
Derivatives site |
Bankruptcy Law Reform on Asset-backed Securitization To give safe harbour to asset backed securitization transactions, the US congress has passed an amendment to Title 11 of the US Code which is contained in section 912 of the Bankrupcy Reform Act of 2001. It reads as under:
As is evident from the definition of "transferred" in the proposed amendment, if the seller has represented and warranted that the eligible assets are being transferred, the transfer will be automatically a true sale and the sale thereof cannot be questioned. Such true sale will take place even if the sale in question is a fractional transfer, or the seller has a buyback obligation, or the characterisation of the sale for accounting or tax purposes. Clearly this is a significant safe harbour provision. The legal academia are perturbed about the potential misuse of this section by potentially bankrupt companies to hive off their assets - see the controversy in this regard covered on our news page here. In legal interpretation, whether a document, manifestly reading like a transfer agreement, has the true effect of transferring an asset or merely leading to a disguised funding transaction, is always a matter of dispute before Courts. A number of so-called sales are really garbed funding transactions, in which case a Court may recharacterise such transactions are funding transactions. If recharacterised, a securitization, which seeks to attribute identified assets solely for the benefit of securitization investors, will rank at par with unsecured lenders. In a number of cases, securitization transactions have been recharacterised, or attempted to be recharacterised, by Courts. LTV Steel was one such case. The bankruptcy reforms amendment above seeks to give a safe harbour to securitization transactions, so that what is promised as a sale of assets today is not questioned as a funding transaction in bankruptcy. True sale, a critical question from bankruptcy viewpoint, would become largely irrelevant if this amendment is carried. |
|
Before
you leave ...
|