83,040
edits
Luxembourg law pledge: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Not having a developed law of {{tag|equity}}<ref>The [[fiduciary]] concept notwithstanding, which sounds EXACTLY like a product of the law of equity.</ref>, Luxembourg law doesn’t faff around with concepts like [[fixed charge|fixed]] or [[floating charge|floating]] [[charges]], making its security analysis a lot less tedious: there is none of this doleful “is it a fixed charge or a floating charge, oh woe is me! What would {{casenote1|Re Spectrum Plus}} or the ''[[extended liens]]'' decision have to say about that?” | Not having a developed law of {{tag|equity}}<ref>The [[fiduciary]] concept notwithstanding, which sounds EXACTLY like a product of the law of equity.</ref>, Luxembourg law doesn’t faff around with concepts like [[fixed charge|fixed]] or [[floating charge|floating]] [[charges]], making its security analysis a lot less tedious: there is none of this doleful “is it a fixed charge or a floating charge, oh woe is me! What would {{casenote1|Re Spectrum Plus}} or the ''[[extended liens]]'' decision have to say about that?” | ||
===When do you need a [[Lux pledge]]?=== | |||
When the assets you are taking security over are situated in Luxembourg. See: ''[[lex situs]]''. | |||
===What’s in it=== | |||
[[Luxembourg law pledge]]s are boring documents. I mean no slight on Luxembourg, or Luxembourg law, when I say that. Luxembourg is a nice place and it has excellent laws. [[Lux pledge]]s ''should'' be boring. They fulfill an important, but nonetheless mechanical role: they make sure your [[Security interest|security arrangement]] works as a matter of Luxembourg law, since that’s where the assets are, and you’ll be at the mercy of the Luxembourgoisie should you want to enforce it. | |||
It’s a simple process and there's little magic in it, but this won’t stop custodians developing 17-page templates. Just to be sure, you understand. | |||
====[[Definitions]]==== | |||
Of ''course'' there will be definitions. what self-respecting legal document will be without them? Expect to see, in particular, reference to: | |||
:'''The 2001 Law''', being the law dated 1 August 2001 regarding the transfer of securities and other fungible instruments, [[As amended from time to time|as amended]]. | |||
:''' The Financial Collateral Law''', being the Luxembourg law of 5 August 2005 on financial collateral arrangements, [[As amended from time to time|as amended]]. | |||
:'''Financial Instruments''', being financial instruments (''instruments financiers<ref>It is a common feature of foreign law pledges to sprinkle elaborate foreign lingo around the document in italics as if they are some kinds of {{t|magic words}}.</ref>'') in the widest sense of the word admitted under Luxembourg law, though you can expect the defintion to rabbit on a bit: you know, [[whether or not]] in dematerialised form, printed on urine-soaked vellum, gossamer, kleenex etc. | |||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||