Company: G
Filing Date: 2025-11-13
Form Type: 424B5
Source: 0001140361-25-041837
Chunk: 106

Company: Genpact LTD
Filing Date: 2025-11-13
Form: 424B5
Chunk 106
---
 on the nature of the document to be registered. These registration duties will equally be payable in the case of voluntary registration of an agreement. Subject to the foregoing, investors may be able to enforce in Luxembourg judgments in civil and commercial matters that have been obtained from U.S. Federal or state courts. However, we cannot assure you that those judgments will be recognized or enforceable in Luxembourg. In addition, it is questionable whether a Luxembourg court would accept jurisdiction and impose civil liability if the original action was commenced in Luxembourg instead of the United States, and predicated solely upon U.S. Federal securities laws.

S-67

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Insolvency Considerations The insolvency laws of Luxembourg may not be as favorable to holders of notes as insolvency laws of other jurisdictions with which investors may be familiar. The Subsidiary Guarantor is incorporated under the laws of Luxembourg. Accordingly, Luxembourg courts should have, in principle, jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings with respect to the Subsidiary Guarantor, as an entity having its registered office and central administration ( administration centrale) and center of main interest ( centre des intérêts principaux) (“COMI”), as used in the EU Insolvency Regulation, in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, such proceedings to be governed by Luxembourg insolvency laws. According to the EU Insolvency Regulation, there is a rebuttable presumption that a company has its COMI in the jurisdiction in which it has the place of its registered office. As a result, there is a rebuttable presumption that the COMI of the Subsidiary Guarantor is in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and consequently that any “main insolvency proceedings” (as defined in the EU Insolvency Regulation) would be opened by a Luxembourg court and be governed by Luxembourg law. However, the determination of where the Subsidiary Guarantor has its COMI is a question of fact, which may change from time to time. The EU Insolvency Regulation states that the COMI of a debtor should correspond to the place where the debtor conducts the administration of its interests on a regular basis and “is therefore ascertainable by third parties.” In the Eurofood IFSC Limited decision by the then European Court of Justice (“ECJ”), the ECJ restated the presumption in the EU Insolvency Regulation that the place of a company’s registered office is presumed to be the company’s COMI and stated that the presumption can only be rebutted if “factors which are both objective and ascertainable by third parties