Powered by Lexis+®
CASE STUDY

“It really is saving us a huge number of hours over the days, weeks and months. Having more relevant support at hand, not having to draft or review documents them from scratch - it all adds up.”

Southampton FC

Access all documents on Definitisation

Definitisation meaning

What does Definitisation mean?
Definitisation is the exchange of a single global note or bond (often a temporary or permanent global note) held by a depositary or common safekeeper for Euroclear/Clearstream into individual definitive notes/bonds issued to the holders or beneficial owners. In practice, it is governed by the exchange provisions in the terms and conditions, trust deed or agency/registrar agreement for debt securities (including Eurobonds), and can relate to bearer or registered instruments. This is a market term rather than one defined by statute or case law. Typical triggers include an event of default, the closure or malfunction of the relevant clearing system, the ICSDs ceasing to hold the global, or (if provided) a holder option. On definitisation, the issuer (through the fiscal/paying agent or registrar) executes and delivers authenticated definitive certificates, observing denomination, legend and delivery requirements. Definitisation permits settlement and transfer outside clearing systems and can affect notice, payment mechanics and documentation logistics. Usage and legal effect are broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, particularly for English-law or Irish-law governed programmes listed in London or Dublin. Related terms: global note, global bond, permanent global note, temporary global note, common depositary, Euroclear, Clearstream.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related Practice Notes about Definitisation

PRACTICE NOTES
Comprehensive glossary of UK restructuring and insolvency terms, covering Companies Act schemes, Part 26A plans, IA 1986 processes, and cross‑border concepts including COMI, UNCITRAL and assimilated EU rules.

This glossary sets out numerous expressions regularly encountered in the restructuring & insolvency sphere. Words shown in bold within definitions are themselves explained in other entries in this glossary as well. A Article X The MLIJ contains a single provision named Article X, aimed at jurisdictions that have already implemented the MLCBI, like England, or are weighing its adoption. Article X states: ‘Not withstanding any prior interpretation to the contrary, the relief available under [insert a cross-reference to the legislation of this State enacting Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency] includes recognition and enforcement of a judgment’ (see Practice Note: UNCITRAL model law on recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments (MLIJ): Article X). Asset-backed security (ABS) A form of security anchored by asset pools, for example loans, leases, and credit card receivables. Assimilated law From 1 January 2024, ‘retained law’ has been retitled ‘assimilated law’. The body of domestic law originally arising from EU obligations, created by the European...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
Part 26 schemes of arrangement (UK): voting thresholds, class composition/manipulation, HMRC and moratorium vetoes, online meetings/accessibility, global note definitisation, and economic cram-down

The voting requirement As set out in Practice Note: Schemes of arrangement—process and statutory framework, section 899(1) of the Companies Act 2006 provides that the court may sanction a scheme only where, at each scheme meeting, approval is obtained by: a majority in number (the numerosity test); and creditors representing 75% in value voting in person or by proxy. From 26 June 2020, if a scheme is proposed within 12 weeks of a moratorium under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, those owed moratorium debts and any pre‑moratorium debts for which the company did not benefit from a payment holiday during the moratorium effectively possess a veto, as the court may not sanction a scheme that makes provision in respect of such creditors without their consent (see Practice Note: Moratorium). For guidance on the methodology used to determine the correct composition of creditor classes, see Practice Note: Schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans—class issues...

Read More Right Arrow