Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Preparing for the LIBOR Phase Out: Contract Remediation Starts with Contract Intelligence
The New York Times called it the "most important number in finance." The London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) has long been the global basis for agreements that include a variable interest rate component. In 2018, in eventual response to scandals during the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve and regulators in the U.S. and UK confirmed that LIBOR would be replaced by other benchmarks by the end of 2021.
Now, with less than two years until the phase out, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) are advising public companies and regulated entities to assess their risk exposure, quantify the financial impact, develop remediation plans and communicate material information to stakeholders. Doing so will require significant efforts across numerous business units within impacted corporations. Key among them will be the identification, analysis and remediation of LIBOR-based contracts.
Representative of an estimated $400 trillion in financial contracts, LIBOR will not be easy to phase out. By the time it is retired, any contracts that either lack a fallback provision or have not been renegotiated, will be left without a rate benchmark. As a result, legal, compliance and treasury teams at financial institutions are now under pressure to make substantial progress in identifying contracts subject to transition, determining how they are impacted and remediating agreements according to new and evolving standards or face potential litigation exposure post-transition.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.