securitisation 2020 · cory r iggins essica solis whether payment by an obligor to the applicable...

Securitisation 2020A practical cross-border insight to securitisation work

13th Edition

Featuring contributions from:

Allen & Overy LLP

Brodies LLP

Cuatrecasas

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP

GSK Stockmann

King & Wood Mallesons

Loyens & Loeff Luxembourg S.à r.l.

Macfarlanes LLP

Maples Group

Mayer Brown

McMillan LLP

Nishimura & Asahi

Oon & Bazul LLP

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Europe) LLP

Roschier Advokatbyrå AB

Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP

Shearman & Sterling LLP

Sidley Austin LLP

VdA

Walder Wyss Ltd.

Waselius & Wist

13th Edition

Contributing Editor:

©2020 Global Legal Group Limited. All rights reserved. Unauthorised reproduction by any means, digital or analogue, in whole or in part, is strictly forbidden.

DisclaimerThis publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehen-sive full legal or other advice. Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication. This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified professional when dealing with specific situations.

Rupert WallSidley Austin LLP

ISBN 978-1-83918-046-0ISSN 1745-7661

Published by

59 Tanner StreetLondon SE1 3PLUnited Kingdom+44 207 367 0720 [email protected] www.iclg.com

Securitisation 2020

Printed by Stephens & George Print Group

Cover image www.istockphoto.com

Group Publisher Rory Smith

Editor Jane Simmons

Senior Editor Sam Friend

Head of Production Suzie Levy

Chief Media Officer Fraser Allan

CEO Jason Byles

PEFC/16-33-254

PEFC Certified

This product is from sustainably managed forests and controlled sources

www.pefc.org

Strategic Partners

Securitisation 2020

Cross-Border Trade Receivables Securitisation – Opportunity Awaits

Mayer Brown

Merryn Craske, François-Régis Gonon, Carol Hitselberger, Andreas Lange, Ariel Ramos, Linda E. Boss, Jeffrey R. Favitta, Cory R. Miggins & Jessica Solis

■ whetherpaymentbyanObligortotheapplicableOriginator(ratherthantheSPV)willdischargesuchObligor’spaymentobligation;

■ whether the Financing Parties or the SPV can enforceagainstandsueanObligordirectlyforitsfailuretopaytheapplicableReceivable;and

■ whether a third-party creditor or insolvency trusteemayassertitsinterestinorrightsovertheapplicableReceivables.

Determiningtheanswerstothesequestionsandtheimpactthose answershaveon the structure and implementationof atrade receivables securitisation are critical both forprotectingtheFinancingParties’rightsintheReceivablesandforachievingtheOriginators’balancesheetandliquiditymanagementobjec-tives. Once all applicable local laws have been determined,furtheranalysisshouldbeperformedineachrelevantjurisdic-tion,withtheassistanceoflocalcounsel,toensurethatalljuris-diction-specificlegalformalitiesaresatisfied.

The Rome I Regulation

InsecuritisationtransactionswithOriginatorsand/orObligorslocated in European Union (“EU”) countries (other thanDenmark)and/ortheUnitedKingdom(the“UK”),theRomeIRegulation(Regulation(EC)No593/2008of17June2008onthe lawapplicable tocontractualobligations) (“Rome I”)willberelevant.RomeIprovidesthattherelationshipbetweentheassignor (i.e., the applicableOriginator) and the assignee (i.e.,theSPV)isgovernedbythelawofthecontractbetweenthem(i.e.,theSaleAgreement)(Article14(1)).FormattersconcerningtheassignabilityofanyReceivable,therelationshipbetweentheSPVandtheFinancingParties,asassignees,andtheObligor,enforceability against the Obligor and whether the Obligor’spaymentobligationshavebeendischarged,itisnecessarytolookatthegoverninglawoftheapplicableReceivable(i.e.,thelawoftheUnderlyingContract).Inaddition,there isadraftregulation(Proposalforaregu-

lationof theEuropeanParliament andof theCouncil on thelaw applicable to the third-party effects of assignments ofclaims)aimedataddressingtheeffectivenessofthetransferofReceivables as against third parties. This regulation is yet tobe finalisedbut the effect of it couldmake this legal analysismorecomplicated.Thisisbecause,whilethepartiesaregener-allyfreeunderRomeItochoosethelawofacontract,suchasaSaleAgreement,thenewregulationcouldmakeitnecessarytocomplywiththelawwheretheOriginatorhasitshabitualresi-denceinassessingwhetheravalidtransferhasbeenachievedasagainstthirdparties(includingaliquidatororotherinsolvencyofficial).

Tradereceivablessecuritisationisoneoftheprimarymeansthroughwhichmiddlemarket and investment grade companies alike areabletoobtainmoreefficientandcost-effectivefinancing,managetheirbalancesheetsanddiversifytheirfinancingsources.Whileitmaynotbeassimpleorstraightforwardasatradereceivablessecu-ritisationinasinglejurisdiction,theopportunityandpotentialforgrowthforacross-bordertradereceivablessecuritisationcanoftenoutweighthetimeandcostofstructuringit.Whiletheinclusionofeachjurisdictionwillmeanthatthepartieswillhavetotakeaddi-tionalconsiderationsintoaccount,bypartneringwithexperienceddealcounselandlocalcounsel,thepartiescanbeflexibleandcrea-tiveinordertoachievetheiroperationalandfinancialgoals.Thisarticlepresentsanoverviewofkeyconsiderationswhen

structuring a cross-border trade receivables securitisation,includinginsightfromsomeofourleadingpartnersinEngland,France,Germany,MexicoandtheUnitedStates.

Structural Considerations

Choice of law

A typical trade receivables securitisation involves the sale byan originator or originators (each, an “Originator”) of tradereceivables (the “Receivables”) owed by certain accountdebtors(each,an“Obligor”)toanewly-formed,insolvency-re-mote,specialpurposeentity(the“SPV”),withthepurchaseoftheReceivablesbytheSPVbeingfinancedbyoneormorebanksorconduits(the“Financing Parties”).A cross-border trade receivables transaction will require an

in-depth review of all relevant jurisdictions, including (a) thelocationof theSPV, (b) the locationof theOriginatorsand thegoverning law of the sale agreement between each OriginatorandtheSPV(each,a“Sale Agreement”),(c)thelocationoftheObligors,(d)thegoverninglawoftheReceivables,and(e)theloca-tionof anybankaccounts,particularlywherea security interestwillbegrantedinfavouroftheSPVortheFinancingPartiesinthosebankaccounts.Eachadditionaljurisdictionwillraiselocallawandchoiceoflawquestions,whichwillneedtobeanalysedandconsideredinlightoftheobjectiveswhichtheOriginatorsandtheFinancingPartieswishtoachieveinstructuringthesecuritisation.Keyquestionsinclude:

■ whichlawwillapplytodetermine:(a) whethertherehasbeena“truesale”oftheReceivables

betweeneachOriginatorandtheSPV;and(b) whether aReceivable is permitted to be assigned by

theapplicableOriginator to theSPV in theeventofa restrictionon,orprohibitionof, assignment in theunderlyingcontractbetweensuchOriginatorandtheObligor(the“Underlying Contract”);

Mayer Brown

Securitisation 2020

Diligence in relation to the Receivables and restrictions on assignment

It is common for the Financing Parties or theOriginator (inconsultation with the relevant legal counsel) to review andperform diligence with respect to the Underlying Contracts.One important purposeof suchdiligence is to determine theextent to which there are any restrictions or prohibitions onassignmentintheUnderlyingContracts.Inourexperience,mostjurisdictionsoutsidetheUSwillenforce

arestrictionorprohibitiononassignmentwhichisincludedintheUnderlyingContract. If there is such a restrictionwith respectto certainReceivables and theOriginator desires to sell thoseReceivablestotheSPV,inmostcasestheObligor’sconsentwillbe required. However, theOriginator typicallydoesnotwanttorequestthatObligorsconsenttothesaleoftheOriginator’sReceivables for fear of disruption of the business relationship(orprovidingleveragetoObligorsforotherconcessions). TheOriginators and the Financing Parties will need to determinewhethercertainObligorsshouldbeexcludedfromthesecuritisa-tionandconsiderwhethertheireconomicandcommercialgoalsinenteringintothetransactionwillstillbeachievedintheeventofsuchexclusions,takingintoaccounttheaggregateamountofObligorsandReceivablesthatwillbeexcluded.Insomecases,itmaybepossibletobenefitfromsomestruc-

turalalternatives(suchastrustsinEngland,dependingonthewordingoftheUnderlyingContractandwhetherthisisaccept-able to the parties) or exceptions such as in Germany under354a(1)oftheGermanCommercialCode(Handelsgesetzbuch)that,aslongastherequirementsaremetinorderforsuchexceptiontoapply,providesfortheassignabilityofcommercialreceivablesevenifthepartiestotheunderlyingcontracthaveagreedonabanonassignment,butstillleavingtheObligorcertaindefencesorthepossibilitytopaytheassignorwithdischargingeffect.InGermany,assignabilityasaneligibilitycriterionusuallyincludesassignabilitybywayof354a(1)oftheGermanCommercialCode(Handelsgesetzbuch).However,banksarecloselyconsideringthepotentially increased dilution risk because of the above-men-tioneddefencesandthepaymentchoiceoftheObligor.In transactions that are done in the US, the parties typi-

cally ignore any contractual restrictions on assignment in theUnderlyingContracts.ThatisbecausetheUniformCommercialCode(the“UCC”)renderssuchprovisionsunenforceablegener-ally.However,asperSection9-406(a)oftheUCC,obligorsmaycontinuetodischargetheirReceivablesbypaymenttotheassignoruntilnotifiedoftheassignment.ObligorsalsowillenjoygreateroffsetrightsastotheirassignedReceivablesuntilsuchnoticeofassignmentisreceived.Consequently,FinancingPartiesnormallywill requirenoticeofassignment followingcertainperformancetriggersinthetransaction.InFrance,theFrenchcommercialcodeclearlystatedthatany

outrightbanonassignmentwasconsideredtobeineffectiveunderFrench law. However, a recent reform in relation to commer-cialtransparency(enactedinApril2019)repealedthatprovision.At this stage, given theuncertainties raisedby this new legisla-tion,inthepresenceofanoutrightbanonassignmentclauseinanUnderlyingContract, the legalpositionof theOriginatorwouldthereforebelessrobustthanunderthepreviousregimeandconse-quentlytheFinancingPartieswouldbeexposedtoahigherriskofchallengetotheextenttherelevantpartiestotheUnderlyingContractdonotcomplywithsuchbanonassignmentprovisionsoftheUnderlyingContract.NotethatafurtherreformoftheFrenchcommercialcodeis intheprocessofbeingpreparedinordertoclarifytheposition,revertbacktothepreviouspositionandendtheuncertaintiesraisedbythisnewlegislation.

The Securitisation Regulation

IntransactionswheretherelevantentitiesarelocatedintheEUor theUK, it will also be important to consider the require-ments of Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 (the “Securitisation Regulation”)andtherelatedtechnicalstandardsandguidance.TheSecuritisationRegulationsetsoutcertainobligationswithrespect tooriginators, sponsors, securitisationspecialpurposeentitiesandinstitutionalinvestors(eachasdefinedtherein)withrespecttosecuritisations(asdefinedtherein)enteredintofrom1January2019orwhicharenolongergrandfathered.Theseobli-gationsincludethefollowing:■ due diligence and ongoing monitoring obligations for

institutionalinvestors;■ riskretentionrequirements;and■ transparency requirements including the requirement

toprovide certain informationusing specified reportingtemplates.

TheSecuritisationRegulationalsoincludesasetofrequire-mentswhichwill need tobemet inorder for a securitisationto be considered “simple, transparent and standardised” or“STS”,whichamongotherthings,andprovidedanyotherrele-vantregulatoryrequirementsaremet,willallowtheFinancingPartiestobenefitfromfavourableregulatorycapitaltreatment.During theBrexit“transitionperiod”(which isexpected to

endon31December2020,unless it isextended),UKentitieswillbetreatedasiftheyarelocatedinanEUMemberStateandwill thereforebe subject to the applicable requirementsundertheSecuritisationRegulation.Followingtheendofthatperiod,UKentitiesareexpectedtobesubjecttoaparallelregimeunderwhichamodifiedversionoftheSecuritisationRegulationwillapplyasadoptedintheUK.

SPV location

Inthecaseofmulti-jurisdictionalsecuritisationsthatincludeEUand/orUKOriginators,theSPVistypicallylocatedinaEuropeanjurisdiction,suchasIreland,LuxembourgortheNetherlands.ThechoiceofjurisdictionfortheSPVisoftendrivenbytheavailabilityofpreferentialtaxtreatment,suchasdoubletaxationtreatiesand/orbeneficialtaxregimes,aswellasotherfactorssuchastherele-vantlegalsystem,thecostofestablishingandmaintainingtheSPVandthelocationofthepartiesandtheReceivables.Forsecuritisa-tionswithEUand/orUKOriginatorsandnoUSOriginators,theSPVisusuallyanorphancompany,inordertoenhanceitsinsol-vencyremotenessandasamatterofmarketpractice.Fortransac-tionswithUSOriginatorsonly,itistypicaltoestablishtheSPVasaDelawarelimitedliabilitycompanythatisawholly-ownedsubsid-iaryofoneormoreof theOriginators. This enables theover-collateralisationinthetransactiontobeachievedthroughequitycapitalratherthanasubordinatedloan,whichispreferableforUSbankruptcyremotenessprinciples.Also,thetaxissuesthatapplytocross-borderdistributionsaregenerallynotanissuefordistri-butionsbyUSSPVstoUSparententities. RegardlessofwheretheSPVisorganised,itsliabilitiesaretypicallylimitedbywayofcertainprovisions in itsorganisationaldocumentsand/orunderthe securitisation documents, such as restrictions on its activi-tiestothoserequiredunderorancillarytothesecuritisationandrequirementstokeepseparatebooks,recordsandaccountsandtohavenoemployees,aswellastheinclusionoflimitedrecourseandnon-petitionclausesbywhichtheotherpartiesagreetobebound.Insomecases,suchasinLuxembourg,theSPVmaybedeemedtobeinsolvencyremotebyvirtueofcompliancewithaspecificstat-utorysecuritisationregime.


Securitisation 2020

mostlawfirmstooktheviewthatriskretentionlowerthan9%ofthepurchasepricewasaclearindicationofatruesalebecausein a secured lending transaction the insolvency administratorwouldalreadydeduct9%foritsfeesandsecuredlendingwithonly9%overcollateralisationwouldberatherunusual. Basedonthisview,the9%rulewasonlycriticalfordirectriskreten-tion such as, for example, deferred purchase price payments.Itwas generally not seen as an issue if theOriginator partic-ipated in the credit risk of the transaction through participa-tioninsubordinatedtranchesoftherefinancingsideoftheSPV.Morerecently,lawfirmshavetakentheviewintheirlegalopin-ionsthatbasedonacourtdecisionoftheFederalTaxCourtitcannotbeexcludedthat insolvencycourtswillfollowmoreofanaccounting-basedapproachwhichcouldtheneasilyconflictwithriskretentionrequirements.Inordertomitigateeventualclawbackrisks,thesaleofreceiv-

ablesisusuallystructuredasacashtransactioninGermany.Foracashtransactionanadequatepurchasepriceneedstobepaidimmediately to theOriginator. If the sale qualifies as a cashtransaction,clawbackriskisgenerallyveryremote.IntheUS,legaltruesaleisdeterminedprimarilybasedonthe

intentof theparties andwhether the economic consequencesofthetransactionareconsistentwiththeintentoftheparties.ThereisasignificantamountofcaselawintheUSthatinformsthisanalysisandlawyerswillgenerallystudythedetailsoftheeconomicrelationshipofthetransaction inordertoprovideastronglegaltruesaleopinion.Suchdetailswillnormallyincludeanevaluationoftheextenttowhichtherisks(inparticularcreditrisks)andrewards(inparticularexcessspread)associatedwiththesoldReceivableshavetrulybeenconveyedtothepurchaser.InordertoprovidetheFinancingPartieswiththelevelofcreditprotectiontheydesirewhilealsoprovidingtheOriginatorswitha fair purchase price for theirReceivables, a typicalUS tradereceivablessecuritisationisstructuredasatwo-steptransactioninwhich theOriginator transfers theReceivables to theSPV,whichisawholly-ownedsubsidiaryoftheOriginator,andtheSPV obtains financing for the purchase from the FinancingParties.Manysuchtransactionshavebeenstructuredtoachievederecognition under US Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples.InthecaseofFrenchsecuritisations,thereisalegal“truesale”

if (a) the sale to the SPV is unconditionally and immediatelyvalid, final and enforceable against local and/or foreign thirdparties (including,whereapplicable, theObligors),whetherornotsuchthirdpartiesortheOriginator’screditorsareformallynotifiedofthesale,and(b)thetransfercannotbechallengedbyacourtintheeventthattheOriginatorbecomesinsolvent(the“bankruptcyremoteness”test).WhereaFrenchOriginatorissubjecttoabankruptcyorinsol-

vency proceeding (such as safeguard (sauvegarde), judicial reor-ganisation(redressement judiciaire)orliquidationproceedings(liqui-dation judiciaire)),underFrenchlaw,assignmentsofassetsbytheOriginatorwhichoccurredbetween(a)the“paymentstopdate”(date de cessation des paiements),and(b)thejudgmentopeningtheinsolvency proceeding may be challenged by the appointedbankruptcyadministrator.Inmostcases,thepaymentstopdatecoincideswiththedateoftheopeningjudgment,buttheinsol-vency courtmaybackdate the payment stopdate by up to 18monthspriortothisdate.Theperiodbetweenthepaymentstopdateandthedateoftheopeningjudgmentiscalledthe“hard-eningperiod”( période suspecte).Article L. 632-1 of the French Commercial Code enumer-

atesthetransactionswhicharevoidper se(nullités de droit)iftheyoccurredduringthehardeningperiod.Theseinclude,notably,gratuitous transfers, transactions entered into unreasonablybelowmarket value, payments of debts not yet due, security/

True sale

OneofthekeyaspectsofstructuringasecuritisationtransactionisconsideringwhetherthetransferoftheReceivablesfromtheOriginatortotheSPVwillbeconstruedasa“truesale”,withtheReceivablesnolongerconsideredtobepartoftheassetsoftheOriginator,includingduringanyinsolvencyproceedingsoftheOriginator,orwhetheritcouldberecharacterisedasasecuredloan. Achievinga legal truesale isanessentialcomponentofthestructurefortheFinancingParties inacross-bordertradereceivablestransaction,andthiswillrequirecarefulreviewanddiscussionwiththerelevantlocalcounsel.Not all jurisdictions have years of case law or history

surroundingwhatconstitutesa“truesale”.Indeed,inmanyjuris-dictions,theconceptdoesnotevenexist.Therefore,itisimpor-tanttodiscussthetruesaleanalysisandobtainandreviewlegalopinionsandmemorandaearlyintheprocessofstructuringthetransaction, toobtaina fullunderstandingof the legal frame-workintheapplicablejurisdiction.Insomejurisdictions,thereissuchlimitedcaselawthatthelegalopinionmaysimplyassume“economicriskhasbeentransferred”(inotherwords,thelegalstandardforatruesale).Thisisnotparticularlyhelpfulfromalegalperspective,astheopinionhasbeenessentiallyassumed;however,thepartiesmaybecomfortablewithsuchcoveragetotheextenttheapplicablelocallawReceivablesdonotrepresentalargeportionoftheReceivablesportfolio,oriftherearecertaintrigger events incorporated into the securitisation documentsthatwouldresult intheremovalofsuchReceivablesfromthesecuritisation.Legalopinioncustominlocaljurisdictionsvariesgreatly,andwhat is typicalorcustomary inone jurisdiction isoften not the case in other jurisdictions. Workingwith localcounselanddealcounseltogethertoreachacommongroundisimperativeforboththeFinancingPartiesandtheOriginatorsinacross-bordertradereceivablessecuritisation.Itisalsoimportanttoconsiderwhetherthereareanygrounds

underwhichthesalecouldbe“clawedback”intheeventofaninsolvencyoftheOriginator,suchaswhetherthereisatransac-tionatanundervalue,apreferenceoratransactiondefraudingcreditors,dependingonthelocalinsolvencylaws.StepsshouldbetakentoconfirmthattheOriginator issolvent,whichmayinclude searches and a requirement for solvency certificatesfromtheOriginator.It is worth keeping in mind that no two jurisdictions are

exactly alike. Each jurisdiction’s legal system has its ownnuances and complexities that need to be considered closelywithtransactioncounselandlocalcounsel.Itmaynotbeprac-ticaltoincludesomejurisdictionsdependingontheOriginators’commercialoroperationalrequirements.Forexample,inordertoachieveatruesalecertainjurisdictionsrequire(a)noticetoObligorsoftheassignmentoftheirReceivables,(b)theexecu-tionofdailyassignmentortransferagreements,(c)thedepositbytheObligorofallcollectionsintoabankaccountownedbytheSPVor(d)theabilitytoreplacetheserviceroftheReceivableswithoutcause(includingpriortoaservicerdefault).Whiletheseformalities fallon thecumbersomeendof the true sale spec-trum,iftheyarerequiredunderlocallaw,theOriginatorgroupmaydetermine that it isnot in itsbest interest to include thatjurisdiction or those Receivables in the securitisation. Note,however,thatthesearenotcommonrequirements,andinourexperiencemost jurisdictionsareable tobe included incross-bordertradereceivablesecuritisationswithsomemodifications.InGermany,acrucialpointfortruesaleisriskretentionby

thesellerasinsolvencycourtsinGermanytendtodrawthelinebetweentruesaleandsecuredlending(i.e.separationandsegre-gation)ratherthanfromacommercialperspective.Inthepast,

Mayer Brown

Securitisation 2020

havingtheabilitytotakecontroloftheOriginator’srelationshipwithitsObligors,evenwhentheservicerhasnotdefaultedandnoeventsofdefaultorothertriggereventsunderthesecuritisa-tiondocumentshaveoccurred.Ofcourse,itisintheFinancingParties’ best interest if the Originator continues to maintainits own relationships with its Obligors, but the Originator’sconcern with such a replacement requirement nonetheless isunderstandable. If a jurisdictionwith this requirement repre-sentsasmallportionofthesecuritisationportfolioasawhole,or if such requirement is limitedonly to that jurisdiction, thepartieswillneedtodeterminewhethertherelevantReceivablesshouldbeincludedinthesecuritisation.

Obligor notice and consent

Obligornotice and consent is perhapsoneof themost sensi-tive and negotiated points in a trade receivables transac-tion.Understandably,theOriginatordoesnotwanttodisturbor change its sometimes long-standing relationship with itsObligors.SendingnoticesorobtainingconsentsfromObligorsregarding the transfer of their Receivables to the SPV couldconfuse the Obligors or tarnish the Originator’s relationshipwiththem.FromtheFinancingParties’perspective,providedthat the Originator has not defaulted and the Originatoris complying with the securitisation documents, it is in theFinancingParties’best interest for theOriginator tomaintainthese relationships. Inmany cases, theFinancingParties areonly able tonotifyObligorsof the assignmentofReceivablesaftercertaintriggerevents,usuallyeventsofdefaultorservicerdefaults.WhileObligornoticewouldcutofftheObligor’srighttodischargeitsdebttotheOriginatoraswellasotherdefencesandset-offrights, theFinancingPartiesaretypicallycomfort-able taking this risk until such trigger events occur, atwhichtimenoticesmaybesent.However,somejurisdictionsmayrequirenoticetoorconsent

fromObligorsnotonlyfortheSPVtoexerciserightsorreme-dies vis-à-vis the Obligor, but in order to achieve a true sale.Furthermore,noticemayberequiredonlyoncetotheObligor,but in some cases, it must be provided for the sale of eachReceivable,whichcouldeasilyannoytheObligorandstrainitsrelationshipwith theOriginator. If theOriginator isuncom-fortableprovidingnotice to itsObligors,which isparticularlyunderstandable if such notices are happening frequently, theapplicablejurisdictionmaynotbefeasibleforthecross-bordertransaction.Certain formalities may be required for the notice. For

example,inMexico,althoughnoticeisnotrequiredtoachieveatruesale,theeffectofthenoticeistocutofftheObligor’srighttodischargeitsdebttotheOriginatoraswellasotherdefencesandset-offrights.Dependingonthetypeoftransferagreement,noticemaybemadeinoneofthefollowingways:(a)noticetotheObligormadebyapublicbrokerornotarypublic (in thiscase, the written acknowledgment of receipt by the Obligoris not necessary); or (b) twowitnesses. Further, pursuant toMexicanlaw,factoringagreements(contrato de factoraje)allowfornoticetobemadeinthefollowingadditionalways:(a)deliveryoftheReceivablewithalegendofthesaleandanacknowledg-mentofreceiptbytheObligor;(b)communicationbycertifiedmail with an acknowledgment of receipt, including telegram,telexorfax,withapassword,alongwithevidenceofthereceiptby the Obligor; or (c) through “data message” sent pursuantto the Mexican Commercial Code (Código de Comercio), whichrequiresthepriordesignationbythereceiver(i.e.,theObligor)ofa“system”or“means”toreceivedatamessages(e.g.,thepriorwritten designationof a certain email address by theObligor

guaranteegrantedforpreviousdebts;ortransfersofassetsintoaFrench fiducie (trust). In addition, payments of debtswhicharedueortransactionsforconsiderationwhichoccurafterthepaymentstopdatemaypotentiallybevoided(nullités relatives)ifthecounterpartyoftheinsolventpartywasawareoftheinsol-vency at the time of the transaction (Article L. 632-2 of theFrenchCommercialCode).PleasenotethattomitigatesuchclawbackissuesforFrench

securitisation transactions, French securitisation law (as codi-fied inArticlesL.214-169 toL.214-190andArticlesD.214-216-1 to D. 214-240 of the French Monetary and FinancialCode)providesforspecificexemptionstoapplicablebankruptcylawsapplyingtosecuritisationsandthereforeoffersastrongandlegallyeffectiveprotectiontoFrenchsecuritisationvehiclesforassignmentsofReceivablescarriedoutinthecontextofasecu-ritisationinvolvingsuchFrenchsecuritisationvehicles.

Cash management and servicing

In many transactions, the Financing Parties will allow theOriginatorstocomminglecollectionsontheReceivablesforaspecificperiodoftime(typicallyintra-month),withsettlementoccurring on amonthly basis. While the purchase price forReceivablesisdueandpayableonadailybasis,andReceivablesareinfactsoldonadailybasis,itiscustomaryforsettlementofthepurchasepriceactuallytooccurperiodically(suchasonceamonth)foradministrativeease.Furthermore,theServicerwillcontinuetoservicetheReceivablesandmanagetherelationshipwithitsObligors,includingcollectionactivities.Inacross-bordertransaction,itmaynotbepossibletoachieve

atruesaleinacertainjurisdictionunlessthecollectionsontheReceivables are deposited into the SPV’s account. This addsa layer of complexity, as new accountswill need to be estab-lished,andtheObligorswillneedtobenotifiedofthechangein their payment instructions. This often can be included intheObligor’sinvoicebutthatisnotalwaysanoptionforeveryjurisdiction.TheFinancingPartiesmayalsowanttoconsiderwhetheraccountcontrolagreementsshouldbeinplaceovertheSPV’saccounts.Whileitmaybefeasibleforsettlementtooccuronamonthly

basis, in jurisdictions such as Germany, the payment of thepurchase price cannot be delayed and ideally should bemadeonadailybasisimmediatelyoratleastonthesamedayasthetransferoftheReceivables.ThesedailycashflowscouldcreateanadministrativeandoperationalburdenfortheOriginatoror,ataminimum,arestructureoftheOriginator’soperations,espe-ciallyifpurchasepricepaymentsarenettedagainstcollectionsoftheOriginator.AsamatterofGermantaxlawtheservicingshouldgenerallyremainwiththeOriginatorandthusnodirectpaymentstotheaccountoftheSPVwillbemade(exceptinthecaseofredirection).Whethersettlementoccursonadailyor lessfrequentbasis,

however,giventhecharacteristicallyshort-termnatureofmosttrade receivables, the Financing Parties normally will requiretransfersbytheOriginatorstotheSPVonadailybasisimmedi-atelyuponoriginationuntilallobligationsowingbytheSPVtotheFinancingPartieshavebeenpaidinfull.ThedailytransferoftheReceivablesbytheOriginatortotheSPVhelpstooffsettherisktotheFinancingPartiesoflosingalloftheircollateralastheReceivablesturnoverquickly.As mentioned above, the local law true sale analysis may

insomecasesrequire theability toreplace theservicerof theReceivables (typically the Originator or its parent company)withoutcause.FortherelevantOriginator,thismaybea“deal-breaker”as itwouldeffectivelyresult intheFinancingParties


Securitisation 2020

assignments,whichwillbecapableofbecomingalegalassignmentuponnoticebeinggiventotheObligoriftherelevanttriggereventoccurs.UntilnoticeisgiventotheObligor,(a)thelegaltitlewillremainwiththeOriginator,(b)theSPVortheFinancingPartiesmayneedtojointheOriginatorinlegalproceedingsagainsttheObligor,(c)theObligorcandischargeitspaymentobligationbypayingtheOriginator,(d)theObligorcanexerciseset-offrightsagainsttheOriginator,and(e)asubsequentassigneewhodoesnotknowofthepriorsaleandwhogivesnoticetotheObligormayobtainpriorityovertheSPVandtheFinancingParties.However,it is important to note that equitable assignments will still becapableofbeingatruesaleunderEnglishlaw.In some jurisdictions/transactions, including the US, it is

typical to sell all Receivables of the Originator automaticallyupon origination, other than specific Receivables designatedinthesecuritisationdocumentsasexcludedReceivables(whichusuallyrelatetocertainObligors).Thisisanimportantfeatureto ensure that the Financing Parties continue having replen-ishingcollateralascollectionsonpriorReceivablesareheldandcommingledbytheOriginatorpendingsettlement. However,inotherjurisdictions,automaticsalesareunusual,anditismorecommontosellReceivablesperiodically,withsuchReceivablesbeingspecifiedinalistinordertoidentifywhichReceivablesarebeingsold.Providingsuchalistcanmeananadditionaladmin-istrativeoroperationalburdenfortheOriginator.Forexample,eveninGermany,whenaglobalassignmentisused,theassign-mentneeds tomeet the criteria of determining exactlywhichclaimsarebeingassignedandshouldalsoensuretheimmediateand adequate payment of purchase price, which is why sometransactionsprovideforalistofObligors,tobeupdatedfromtimetotime(eachtimeanewObligorisaddedorremovedfromthe list), to ensure a certain process of determining assignedreceivablesandcorrespondingpurchaseprices.Ifthepurchasepriceisnotdeterminedonadailybasisbutnettedagainstcollec-tions, the transactionmustprovide foramechanismtodeter-mine which receivables are being assigned in which orderagainstavailablecollections(e.g.,bydate).Furthermore,certainjurisdictionsmay require specificdetails for the identificationoftheReceivables,suchasinvoicenumbers,descriptionsoftheUnderlyingContract,Obligoraddressesandotherinformation.Other jurisdictions (suchasMexico)may require the filingoffrequent registrationsor theexecutionanddeliveryof assign-mentagreementsforeachsaleofReceivables.TotheextentitisnotpossiblefortheOriginatortoperformthesedailyadmin-istrativetasks,thepartiesmaywanttoconsiderastructurethatinvolves less frequent transfersofReceivables (suchasweeklyor monthly) for the relevant jurisdiction. Alternatively, theFinancingPartiesmayrequiredailytransfersnonethelesswiththeadditional stepsnecessary toperfect such transfersoccur-ringonalessfrequentbasis.Insuchcase,theFinancingPartiesmaytakesomeadditionalriskthatthetransfersarenotperfectedprior to completion of all the requisite steps butmay be in abetterpositionbybeingabletocontrolthoseadditionalperfec-tionstepsintheeventofenforcementagainsttheOriginators.WhileasimpletransferofReceivablesbetweentheOriginator

andtheSPVisideal,insomejurisdictionsanewstructureneedstobesetupforthatjurisdictiontoensuretheReceivablescanbeincludedinthesecuritisation.Whenincludingthesejurisdic-tions,structuralchangesmayneedtobemadenotonlyintheSaleAgreement,butalsotothesecuritisationdocumentsgener-ally,whichmaynotcontemplateanintermediatesaleorasubro-gationstructure.IftheReceivablesinthatjurisdictionrepresentameaningfulportionof theReceivablesportfolio as awhole,suchstructuralchangesareusuallyworththetimeandexpenseandwillprovidethesecuritisationprogrammewithadditionalflexibilityfortheinclusionoffuturejurisdictions.

to receivenotificationsofassignmentviaemail,orpdfemail,encryptedemail,dataroomorelectronicmemberwebsite,etc.).Given the lack of precedent for electronic communications, themarketstandardhasbeenfornoticetobemadethroughapublicbrokerornotaryinordertolimitthepotentialforchallengesthatnoticehadnotbeenproperlyprovided. Nevertheless, electroniccommunications have started to become more popular whereReceivablesarepurchasedthroughtheuseoftechnology-managedplatforms.ItiscommonfortheObligortobelocatedoutsideofMexico,

inwhichcasethenotificationofassignmentmaybedonebyanyoftheaforementionedmeans,bycourier,withanacknowledg-mentofreceiptorbyusinganymethodsestablishedinaccord-ancewiththeprovisionsoftreatiesorinternationalagreementssignedbyMexicowhichrelatetotheObligor’sjurisdiction.However, where the parties to the Sale Agreement agree

that theOriginatorwill remain as servicer of theReceivablesvis-à-vis the Obligors, then the question arises whether thenoticeofassignmentdiscussedaboveisnecessary.Aconserv-ativeapproachsuggeststhattheObligorshouldbenotifiedoftheexistenceoftheSaleAgreementandprovidedwithpaymentinstructions(whichusuallystatethatpaymentsshallcontinuetobemadeasusualunlessotherwiseinstructed).Inthiscase,iden-tificationoftheSPVinthenotificationwouldnotbenecessary.WheretheOriginatorremainsasserviceroftheReceivables,itwillbedeemedtoholdthecollectionsfromtheReceivablesintrust(depositario)onbehalfoftheSPV.Tomitigatetheriskthatcollectionscouldbediverted,itishighlyadvisabletoimplementanaccountcontrolagreementovertheaccountintowhichsuchproceedsaredeposited.Thefirstoptionforanaccountcontrolagreement under Mexican law is to create a Mexican trust(contrato de fideicomiso).Asecondoptionistheuseofanirrevo-cablemandateagreementwherebytheOriginatoropensabankaccountandactsasprincipalprovidinginstructionstothebankwhoactsasattorney-in-fact,andtheSPVactsasbeneficiary.Inaddition, it is common toobtain andperfect a pledge ( prenda sin transmisión de posesión) in favour of the SPV or FinancingPartiesoveralloftheOriginator’srightsrelatedtothecollec-tionaccount, inorderfortheSPVortheFinancingPartiestohavearegisteredsecurityinterestintheeventofabankruptcyscenario(whichwouldbeenforceablevis-à-visothercreditorsoftheOriginator).SuchpledgewouldneedtobeformalisedbyapublicbrokerornotaryandfiledwiththeRUG.Asdiscussedabove,inmanyjurisdictionstheconsentofthe

Obligormayalsoberequiredtotheextentthattherearerestric-tionsorprohibitionsonassignmentintheUnderlyingContracts.

Operation of transfers

Forcross-bordertradereceivablessecuritisationswithmultiplejurisdictions,EnglishlawisoftenusedasthegoverninglawfortheSaleAgreements(including,insomecases,withrespecttoReceivablesgovernedbyadifferentgoverninglaworsoldbyanOriginatorlocatedinadifferentjurisdiction).However,insomecasesitwillbepreferabletousethelawoftheOriginator’sjuris-dictionasthegoverninglawoftheSaleAgreementwithrespecttothetransferofthatOriginator’sReceivables.Under English law, there is a distinction between a legal

assignmentandanequitableassignment.Inordertobealegalassignment,theassignmentmustbeinwritingandsignedbytheassignor,absoluteandunconditional(andnotbywayofchargeonly), of thewhole of the debt andnotified inwriting to thedebtor.Giventhat,inthemajorityofcases,theObligorsarenotnotifiedofthesaleoftheReceivablesattheoutsetofthesecuri-tisation,mostEnglishlawsalesofReceivableswillbeequitable

Mayer Brown

Securitisation 2020

purchasersfromtheOriginator,and(b)priorcreditorsthathavenotfiledtheirsecurityinterestorassignmentofrightswiththeRUG.RUGfilingsshouldbemadeforeachsaleoneachsaledate inorder toprotect the SPV from theOriginator’s credi-torswhocouldchallengeaspecificunregisteredassignmentofReceivables. WhilethefilingprotectsFinancingPartiesfromfraudormistakerisksimilar to theUCC, it isnot required inorder toachievea truesaleof theReceivablesunderMexicanlaw. Thus, the partiesmaywish to structure the transactionsuchthatRUGfilingsaremadeonalessfrequentbasis,ratherthan daily, in order to balance the Financing Parties’ risk ofthird-party claims against the administrative burden on andexpensefortheOriginator.Furthermore,whenfilingwiththeRUG,itishighlyadvisableto(a)performaprevioussearchfortheReceivables that are intended tobepurchased to confirmthat they are free and clear of any security interests and thattheyhavenotbeentransferredinfavourofathirdparty,and(b)requestthepublicbrokerornotarytodescribe,inasmuchdetailaspossible,thepurchasedReceivables,including,forexample,therelevantinvoicenumbers.

Legal opinions

A discussion of cross-border trade receivables securitisationswould be incompletewithoutmentioning legal opinions,whichprovideboththeFinancingPartiesandtheOriginatorwithlegalcomfortregardingenforceability,truesale,choiceoflawandtaxmatters(amongotherthings).ForthelawgoverningtheapplicableSaleAgreement,itiscustomarytoreceiveatruesaleandenforce-abilityopinionfromcounselinthatjurisdiction,particularlyiftheOriginatorwishestoreceiveoff-balancesheettreatment.ForeachOriginator jurisdiction, customary corporate opinions are typi-callyprovided,aswellasnoconflictopinionsandtaxopinions.An opinion from the SPV’s jurisdiction is likewise customary.Opinionswillalsoberequiredinrelationtosecurity.Whiletheseopinionpracticesaretypical,eachtransactionshouldbediscussedandreviewedcarefullyamongthepartiestodeterminetheappro-priateopinioncoveragefortherelevanttransaction.When lookingat issuessuchasenforcementagainstObligors

andset-offrightsanddefences,aminorityapproachistoobtainopinionsfromeachObligorjurisdiction,aswellasthejurisdictionthat governs the lawof the applicableReceivable. This requestmaybelimitedtoallsuchjurisdictions,oronlythosethatmakeupasizeableportionofthepoolofReceivables.Amorecommonapproach is to obtain a legal memorandum from local counseldetailingthepracticalstepsthatneedtobetakeninsuchjurisdic-tiontoremovesuchdefencesandrights(suchasprovidingnoticetotheObligors). Alegalmemorandummayalsobrieflydiscusstax questions and enforcement mechanics for bringing foreignjudgmentsintoalocalcourtintherelevantjurisdiction.Benefitsoflegalmemoranda,particularlyinObligorjurisdictions,includethefollowing:(a)memorandaareusuallylessexpensivethanlegalopinions;and(b)memorandawilladdressfactualmattersthatmaynotbeincludedinalegalopinion,suchasthedetailedprocessofenforcementandbringingjudgmentsintolocallegalsystems.

ConclusionAmulti-jurisdictionaltradereceivablestransactionwillinvolveadetailedconsiderationoflegalandtaxissuesinarangeofcoun-tries.Selectingalawfirmthatisveryfamiliarwithanalysingsuchissuesandhashelpedimplementandstructuretransactionsthatincludejurisdictionsacrosstheglobeisavaluableinitialstepfornavigating through complexmulti-jurisdictional legal questionsandfindingthebestsolutionsfortheparticulartransaction.

For example, in France, there are bankingmonopoly ruleswhich,inprinciple,disallowtheperformanceofcredittransac-tions(i.e., lendingorongoingpurchasesofFrenchunmaturedReceivables)inFrancebyanyoneotherthanaFrench-licensedor EU-passported financial institution, or any French invest-mentfundspecificallyauthorisedtolend.Forcross-bordersecuritisationtransactionsinvolvingFrench

Originators,thisimpliesthattheSPVwillnotbeauthorisedtopurchase Receivables directly from such French Originators.Dependingonthetermsandconditionsoftheenvisagedsecu-ritisation,theFrenchOriginatorswillonlybeabletoselltheirReceivableseither:(a)toaFrenchsecuritisationvehicle(suchasafonds commun de titrisationor“FCT”),whichwillthenissueunitsor notes to be subscribed by the SPV; (b) to an intermediatebanking purchaser located outside of France and benefittingfromaEUpassporttotradeinFrance,whichinturnwillon-sellthemtotheSPV;or(c)onthebasisofanexemptionundertheFrench banking monopoly rules, to a foreign group affiliatethereof (which affiliate will then on-sell those Receivables tothe SPV). Note that, for eachof the sale optionsmentionedabove, there are sale mechanics available under French lawwhichprovideforstrongprotectionsintermsoflegaltruesaleandenforceability.

Filings and registrations

In some jurisdictions itmay be necessary tomake a filing orregistrationwith respect to the sale. For example, in theUS,theUCCrequiresthefilingofafinancingstatementtoprovidenoticeofasaleofaccountsreceivable.ThatisbecauseSection1-201(b)(35) of theUCC defines the term security interest toexpresslyincludetheinterestsofabuyerofaccountsinadditiontotheinterestsofalendersecuredbyaccounts.Section9-109(a)(3)oftheUCCalsoexpresslystatesthatArticle9oftheUCC(Secured Transactions)appliestothesaleofaccounts.WhilesomemayviewtheneedtofileaUCC-1asunnecessarilyconservativefor a legal true sale, it actuallyprovidesUSFinancingPartieswithprotectionagainstOriginatorfraudandmistakeriskthatisnototherwisemitigatedwithoutsuchanobjectivenoticefilingsystem.Furthermore,intheUnitedStates,theSaleAgreementwill typically contain a back-up grant of a security interest intheReceivablestomitigatethepotentialriskofthetransferoftheReceivables not being treated as an absolute sale, transferandassignmentoftheReceivablesnotwithstandingtheexpressintentof theparties. This is importantandbeneficial for theFinancingPartiesbecause,withoutaperfectedsecurityinterestundertheUCC,theFinancingPartieswouldbeunsecuredcred-itorsintheeventthesaleofReceivableswasnotdeemedatruesale.Whiletheinclusionofaback-upgrantofasecurityinterestintheReceivablesunderaSaleAgreementmayseemcontraryto theexpress intentof theparties, itdoesnot typicallycausestressonthetruesaleanalysisforsecuritisationtransactionsintheUnitedStatesbecauseUScaselawregardingtruesaletendstohingeoncommercialsubstanceoverform.In Mexico, the granting of a back-up security interest is

generallyviewedasinconsistentandpotentiallyharmfultotheexpresslystatedintentionofasale.However,inordertoensurethat the sale will be effective against third parties, particu-larlyagainstcreditorsoftheOriginatorifitbecomessubjecttoan insolvency proceeding, a filing under the Sole Registry ofSecurityInterestsinMovableAssets(Registro Único de Garantías Mobiliariasor“RUG”)isrequired.RecordingintheRUGservesasanoticetothirdpartiesthatthesaletookplaceand,accord-ingly,givestheSPVpriorityover(a)anyfuturecreditorsofor

Merryn Craske is a partner in Mayer Brown’s London office, focusing on securitisation and structured finance transactions. She has extensive expe-rience of advising banks, originators and others on securitisation and structured finance transactions in a range of asset classes including trade receivables, dealer floorplan, auto loans and leases, residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, consumer loans and insurance premium loans. She regularly assists clients with structuring and documenting multi-jurisdictional securitisations, working closely with local counsel to provide solution-focused advice with respect to transactions in the United Kingdom and across Europe, the United States, Canada, Asia and elsewhere. She frequently advises on the Securitisation Regulation.

Mayer Brown International LLP201 Bishopsgate London EC2M 3AFUnited Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 3130 3029Email: [email protected]: www.mayerbrown.com

Securitisation 2020


François-Régis Gonon is admitted to the Paris Bar and is a partner in the Banking & Finance practice of the Paris office. His experience includes structured finance, securitisation, acquisition finance, general banking transactions and banking & finance regulatory matters. François-Régis has recently been involved in the structuring or restructuring of several pan-European or French securitisation or factoring programmes, asset-based lending transactions, either representing sponsors, arrangers or originators. He has also advised financial institutions and sponsors on several other structured or leveraged finance or fund finance matters involving a wide variety of assets and industries.

Mayer Brown10 avenue HocheParis 75008France

Tel: +33 1 53 53 43 43Email: [email protected]: www.mayerbrown.com

Carol Hitselberger is co-leader of Mayer Brown’s Banking & Finance practice, and focuses her practice in the structured finance area. She spends significant time on accounting and regulatory developments that impact the structured finance industry. Carol is a member of the Structured Finance Association, the structured finance industry’s leading trade organisation, and in 2019 was appointed to the Structured Finance Association’s Executive Committee. In addition, she is a Committee Chair of the Association’s Significant Risk Transfer committee. Carol often works with investors and issuers in structured finance products of most types, including trade receivables, credit card receivables, consumer loans, auto loans, aircraft, leases, franchise portfolios, government contracts, trademark licences, and various other financial assets.

Mayer Brown LLP214 North Tryon Street, Suite 3800Charlotte, NC 28202USA


Andreas Lange is a partner in the Frankfurt office of Mayer Brown’s Banking & Finance practice. He focuses on securitisation, regulatory banking law, derivatives and debt financing. Andreas has done securitisations (with a focus on consumer securitisation) since 2004. Since 2007 he has been involved in a number of regulatory projects in connection with bad banks, derivative regulation and funds law. He also gained substantial experience on CRR questions and restructuring. In 2006, he was seconded to the Chicago office and worked on structured products.

Mayer Brown LLPFriedrich-Ebert-Anlage 35-3760327 Frankfurt am Main Germany


Ariel Ramos is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Oil & Gas and Infrastructure Investment groups and Banking & Finance practice and is based in the firm’s Mexico City office. Ariel primarily focuses on transactions related to power, oil and gas, finance, energy-related infrastructure, EPC, and Mexican energy reform, including Round One and procurement matters.

Mayer Brown Mexico, S.C.Goldsmith 53, Piso 3Pollanco III SecciónMiguel HidalgoMexico City 11560Mexico


Securitisation 2020

Mayer Brown

Linda E. Boss is a Banking & Finance associate in Mayer Brown’s Charlotte office, representing banks, issuers, borrowers and other entities in struc-tured finance transactions, warehouse securitisation facilities, purchases and sales of financial assets, asset-backed commercial paper conduit programs and related matters. Linda regularly represents clients in connection with securitisations and other structured financings involving trade receivables, commercial loans, student loans and a variety of other financial assets, including those with cross-border and cross-currency features, credit insurance support and off-balance sheet structures. Linda is a magna cum laude graduate from Wake Forest University School of Law, where she earned membership in Order of the Coif and was Symposium Editor of the Wake Forest Law Review.



Jeffrey R. Favitta is a Banking & Finance associate in Mayer Brown’s Charlotte office representing banks, funds, issuers, borrowers and other entities in structured finance and asset-backed transactions and related matters. Jeff regularly represents clients in connection with securitisa-tions and asset-backed lending transactions using securitisation-style structures of trade receivables (including cross-border trade receivables), peer-to-peer marketplace loans and other unsecured consumer credit and a variety of other financial assets.Jeff joined the firm in 2015 and serves on Mayer Brown’s Recruiting Committee.



Mayer Brown is a distinctively global law firm, uniquely positioned to advise the world’s leading companies and financial institutions on their most complex deals and disputes. With extensive reach across four continents, we are the only integrated law firm in the world with approximately 200 lawyers in each of the world’s three largest financial centres – New York, London and Hong Kong – the backbone of the global economy. We have a premier trade receivables securitisation practice with extensive experience around the world in both well-established and emerging markets. Our diverse teams of lawyers are recognised by our clients as strategic partners with deep commercial instincts and a commitment to creatively anticipating their needs and delivering excellence in everything we do. Our “one-firm” culture – seamless and integrated across all practices and regions – ensures that our clients receive the best of our knowledge and experience.

www.mayerbrown.com

Cory R. Miggins is a Banking & Finance associate in Mayer Brown’s Chicago office. He joined the firm in 2012.

Mayer Brown LLP71 South Wacker DriveChicago, IL 60606USA


Jessica Solis is an associate in Mayer Brown’s Mexico City office and a member of the global Energy group and the Banking & Finance practice. Jessica concentrates her practice on various financing matters in Mexico, including corporate financing, project financing and restructuring transactions, representing lenders and issuers. She is a Mexican-licensed lawyer and has advised international companies in relation to ener-gy-related transactions, securities offerings, the regulation of upstream and midstream oil activities, and general corporate matters in Mexico. Her experience includes representing financial institutions and borrowers in connection with a wider variety of secured and unsecured financing. In addition, her transaction work includes domestic and cross-border joint ventures, stock acquisition, mergers and similar transactions. She is fluent in English and Spanish (native).

Mayer Brown Mexico, S.C.Goldsmith 53, Piso 3Pollanco III SecciónMiguel HidalgoMexico City 11560Mexico


Current titles in the ICLG series

Alternative Investment Funds

Anti-Money Laundering

Aviation Finance & Leasing

Aviation Law

Business Crime

Cartels & Leniency

Class & Group Actions

Competition Litigation

Construction & Engineering Law

Consumer Protection

Copyright

Corporate Governance

Corporate Immigration

Corporate Investigations

Corporate Tax

Cybersecurity

Data Protection

Derivatives

Designs

Digital Business

Digital Health

Drug & Medical Device Litigation

Employment & Labour Law

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Environment & Climate Change Law

Family Law

Financial Services Disputes

Fintech

Foreign Direct Investment Regimes

Franchise

Gambling

Insurance & Reinsurance

International Arbitration

Investor-State Arbitration

Lending & Secured Finance

Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Merger Control

Mergers & Acquisitions

Mining Law

Oil & Gas Regulation

Outsourcing

Patents

Pharmaceutical Advertising

Private Client

Private Equity

Product Liability

Project Finance

Public Investment Funds

Public Procurement

Real Estate

Renewable Energy

Restructuring & Insolvency

Sanctions

Securitisation

Shipping Law

Telecoms, Media & Internet

Trade Marks

Vertical Agreements and Dominant Firms

Workplace Pensions

The International Comparative Legal Guides are published by:@ICLG_GLG

securitisation 2020 · cory r iggins essica solis whether payment by an obligor to the applicable...

Documents