Repository logo
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Srpski (lat)
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Српски
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register. Have you forgotten your password?
Repository logo
  • Communities & Collections
  • Browse UWCScholar
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Srpski (lat)
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Српски
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register. Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Author

Browsing by Author "Etienne A, Olivier"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The impact of the capacity provisions in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 on the insolvency-remoteness of limited capacity special purpose vehicles used in securitisation schemes
    (Juta, 2020) Etienne A, Olivier
    The insolvency-remoteness of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) used in a securitisation scheme is of critical importance, because insolvency of the SPV can interrupt the payment streams due to the investors in such schemes. Several contractual methods are implemented to achieve insolvency-remoteness. In this article, it is argued that pacta de non petendo (non-petition clauses), limited recourse provisions, and subordination clauses, all common insolvency-remoteness provisions, do not violate public policy. It is also argued that the capacity provisions in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) do not reduce the insolvency risk of a limited capacity SPV used in a securitisation scheme. The fact that ultra vires contracts concluded by limited capacity companies will be provisionally valid under the Act means that provisions in a company’s MOI that limit a company’s capacity will have very little external significance. It is argued that the right to restrain ultra vires contracts in terms of s 20(5) of the Act, in conjunction with the right to ratify such actions in terms of s 20(2), do not provide reliable legal certainty or protection to the investors in assets securitised through a limited capacity SPV. ACCESS ARTICLE AT: https://doi.org/10.47348/JCCL/V6/i2a3

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2025 LYRASIS

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback