Client Alert

NY LIBOR Transition Legislation: Can We Now Stop Talking About LIBOR Fallbacks and Amendments?

29 Mar 2021

On March 24, 2021, New York State’s Senate and Assembly approved LIBOR transition legislation. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s consent awaits and is expected as the governor indicated his support earlier this year.

The law will have limited impact on syndicated loan markets; the long-running discussion of LIBOR fallbacks and LIBOR transition amendments will continue. This is a positive step, however, for other debt markets where inclusion of LIBOR fallback language is not common.

The law closely tracks the text of legislation proposed by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC), the committee established by the Federal Reserve Board and the New York Federal Reserve Bank to manage the transition from LIBOR. The law includes the following key provisions:

  • It covers only contracts governed by New York State law. There are efforts to pass similar legislation at a federal level and in other states.
  • It covers only LIBOR contracts that either (i) contain no methodology or procedure for determining the interest rate once LIBOR is not available (a fallback provision) or (ii) have a fallback provision using a different LIBOR-based rate as the fallback.

    Most sophisticated syndicated and bilateral loan agreements contain a fallback provision, even those agreements entered into prior to regular market use of the model ARRC fallback language. The ARRC “hardwired” or “amendment” fallback language provides for SOFR or a negotiated rate, respectively, to be used in the case of LIBOR termination. Pre-ARRC fallback language typically falls back to a prime interest rate.

    A significant number of other types of debt contracts, however, have no fallback language. This new law aims to provide a procedure for determining a fallback for this group of contracts. A recent Federal Reserve Board “Progress Report” on the state of LIBOR transition estimates that $2 trillion of “tough legacy” LIBOR contracts exist without any fallback provisions. Many of these contracts exist in debt markets where amendments to debt contracts are difficult to obtain. These include certain types of securitizations, floating rate notes, mortgages, municipal bonds, and derivatives.

  • It provides that the fallback for applicable contracts will be a SOFR-based interest rate similar to the approach of the ARRC hardwired fallback model language, and declares SOFR as a “commercially reasonable substitute for and a commercially substantial equivalent to LIBOR.”
  • It prohibits parties to applicable contracts from refusing to perform their obligations under the contracts as a result of application of the law, and provides a litigation safe harbor as a result of application of the law.
  • It nullifies contractual fallback methodology relying on polls, surveys, and inquiries of dealers and lenders, more often found in certain derivatives and loan agreements. 

The law is not without potential controversy. Some commentators, including the New York City Bar Association (which supports the law), have noted that, in the case of contracts subject to the Federal Trust Indenture Act, application of the law may violate the Act. Other concerns with the law include possible federal and New York State constitutional claims to its legality.

We will continue to monitor developments relating to the LIBOR transition and provide updates. Please do not hesitate to contact the Morrison & Foerster team if you have any questions.

UPDATE (April 6, 2021): New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has now signed this LIBOR transition legislation into law.



Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.