Author: Gárdos István
Practical Law Company Cross-Border Handbooks 2010, page 105-111
5. Is the SPV usually established in your jurisdiction or offshore? If established offshore, in what jurisdiction are SPVs usually established and why? Are there any particular circumstances when it is advantageous to establish the SPV in your jurisdiction?
There is currently no practice available to comment on.
Ensuring the SPV is insolvency remote
6. Is it possible to make the SPV insolvency remote in your jurisdiction? If so, how is this usually achieved?
One of the ways to achieve insolvency remoteness is to limit the scope of the SPV’s authorised activities. However, this is generally not possible, since although the constitutional document (articles of association or deed of foundation) of a company must designate the primary activity of the company, this restriction does not have any effect against third parties. The company can carry out any activities not prohibited or restricted by law, that is, ultra vires restrictions do not apply.
The Bill, to support the insolvency remoteness of SPVs, would introduce effective restrictions stating that an SPV can only participate in securitisation transactions (that is, other activities unrelated to securitisation are not permitted for an SPV). An SPV will state “participant in securitisation transactions” in the company name and corporate documents. Further, the Bill states that an SPV can only dispose of the securitised receivables in accordance with its operational manual or the documentation relating to the issue of securities, and that any amount repaid by the debtors of the receivables will be used solely to perform obligations arising from the securities issue.
Ensuring the SPV is treated separately from the originator
7. Is there a risk that the courts can treat the assets of the SPV as those of the originator if the originator becomes subject to insolvency proceedings? If so, can this be avoided/minimised?
In case of the insolvency of the originator, only the assets owned by the originator can be used to satisfy the creditors. Therefore, assets of the SPV do not belong to the insolvency assets of the originator, even if under the applicable accounting rules the two companies must prepare consolidated balance sheets. To remove any doubt, the Bill would expressly provide that the insolvency of the originator does not affect the assets of the SPV.
Honlapunk sütiket használ annak érdekében, hogy személyre szabott módon tudjuk megjeleníteni Önnek a tartalmakat. Kérjük, olvassa el Süti Kezelési Tájékoztatónkat, amelyben további információkat olvashat a sütikről és azok kezeléséről. Beállításait módosíthatja ezen a linken vagy saját böngészőjének beállításaiban.
Ezek a sütik szükségesek a weboldal futtatásához, és nem kapcsolhatók ki. Az ilyen sütik csak olyan műveletekre vonatkoznak, mint például a nyelv, az adatvédelmi preferenciák. Beállíthatja a böngészőjét, hogy blokkolja ezeket a sütiket, de webhelyünk esetleg nem megfelelően fog működik.
A Süti Adatkezelési Tájékoztatót megismertem és hozzájárulok ahhoz, hogy a Gárdos Mosonyi Tomori Ügyvédi Iroda, mint adatkezelő a Google Analytics sütikkel kapcsolatban az IP címemet statisztikai célból kezelje. Tudomásul veszem, hogy a hozzájárulásomat bármikor visszavonhatom.
