A Guide to the Law of Securitisation in Australia - Clayton Utz

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• ADIs that have securitised assets but retain a role thatexposes them to operational risk will have to hold capitalagainst such operational risk, despite the securitised assetshaving been taken off the balance sheet;• in many cases the regulatory capital incentive forsecuritisation will be decreased as the risk weightings ofassets held on the balance sheet are adjusted to more closelyreflect the risks inherent in those assets.Although the changes will remove some of the opportunities forregulatory capital arbitrage which have encouraged securitisationby ADIs, Basel II is expected to have, overall, a positive impact onthe securitisation industry.7.5 ConclusionIn Australia, most of the nation’s securitisable assets are held byADIs or their finance company subsidiaries. Accordingly, theapproach of APRA to the securitisation of these has been, andwill continue to be, critical to the development of securitisationin Australia. The current rules, as embodied in APS 120, aresympathetic to the process and have formed the basis of therecent expansion of the market into the securitisation of ADIownedor controlled assets.The next section of this publication examines another aspectwhich has been highlighted with the recent ADI securitisations,the role of set-off.47
8 Set-off and securitisation8.1 IntroductionA common type of securitisation in Australia involves an ADIselling (by way of an equitable assignment) a pool of its loans orother receivables to a special purpose vehicle (usually a trustee).Typically, the ADI remains as servicer of the loans and the ADI’scustomers are unaware of the assignment. Customers will onlybe given notice of the assignment if the special purpose vehicleperfects its title to the loans (ie. it takes a legal assignment ofthe loans).Set-off is an important issue where ADIs securitise their assets.In particular, the issue is whether a customer, on its ADIbecoming insolvent, can set off the amount standing to the creditof its deposit account(s) with the ADI against the customer’s loanassigned by the ADI to the special purpose vehicle.The rating agencies and investors are principally concerned withthis issue. It is important that the special purpose vehicle’s assets(ie. the assigned loans) are not detrimentally affected by (and areinsulated from) the ADI’s insolvency.The following sections deal with the four types of set-off(statutory set-off, equitable set-off, contractual set-off andinsolvency set-off), mutuality in set-off, contracting out of set-offand, in conclusion, the application of these principles to theresolution of this issue.8.2 Statutory set-offThe statutory right of set-off is based upon the English Statutesof Set-Off of 1729 and 1735. These were incorporated into thelaw of the Australian States when they were established asBritish colonies. They have since been repealed in New SouthWales and Queensland (although it is arguable that inQueensland the principles of statutory set-off still apply). In allother States, the Statutes of Set-Off remain in operation.The statutory right of set-off is a defence to an action forpayment of a debt owing by the defendant to the plaintiff. Itenables the defendant to set off against the plaintiff’s claim theindebtedness of the plaintiff to the defendant.Statutory set-off only applies where both demands are liquidatedand are due and payable before the date of the relevant action.The claims that we are considering here (ie. the customer’sindebtedness to an ADI under its loan and the ADI’s liability forthe amount of the customer’s deposit accounts in credit) wouldnormally satisfy both of these requirements. The claims must alsobe mutual. Mutuality is discussed in section 8.6.8.3 Equitable set-offEquitable set-off was developed by the Courts of Equity toprotect a party denied statutory set-off where this would resultin an injustice or an inequitable result. The classes of equitableset-off are not closed and there are some differences betweenthe approach adopted by the courts in England and Australia.However a prerequisite for the application of equitable set-off isnormally that either:• the claim and the cross-claim arise out of the sametransaction; or• the claim and cross-claim arise out of transactions that areinseparably connected.It appears (although the authorities diverge on this point) thatthe courts may also require that the cross-claim must impeachthe claim. That is, it may not be sufficient that the claim and thecross-claim arise out of the same or inseparably connectedtransactions, but rather the cross-claim must in some wayundermine the very basis of the claim.In addition, an equitable set-off may be denied by the courts evenwhere these tests have been satisfied, if in the circumstances, itwould be unjust or inequitable to allow a set-off to occur.There have been mixed results in cases where equitable set-offhas been claimed in defence to the enforcement of a mortgageloan.In some cases the courts have protected the mortgagee’s right torepayment of the mortgage debt free of set-off. In other casesthe courts have permitted a customer to set off its mortgage debtagainst damages for breach of contract where (in one case) thebreach rendered the customer unable to repay the mortgage debtand (in another case) the claim for damages far exceeded themortgage debt. It is conceivable that a default by an ADI on adeposit account could produce a similar result to either of thesefact situations. An equitable set-off of a deposit account againsta mortgage loan might be available, for instance, in the followingcircumstances:• an ADI may offer to customers the ability to offset theinterest liability on their mortgage loan against the interestearned on a nominated deposit account. Such an accountcould be construed as inseparably connected with thecorresponding mortgage loan from the ADI; or48
Page 6: 12.7.3 Euroentitlements............
Page 9 and 10: 1 General overview of the nature of
Page 12: An interest in a managed investment
Page 15 and 16: 142.3.4 Provision of a financial se
Page 17 and 18: 3 The disclosure and civil liabilit
Page 19 and 20: 18The statutory source for this ste
Page 21 and 22: The implication of this approach in
Page 23 and 24: Interestingly, the majority then we
Page 25 and 26: 4 Stamp duty and securitisation244.
Page 27 and 28: 264.8 Relief for mortgage-backed se
Page 29 and 30: 4.10 ConclusionStamp duty is a very
Page 31 and 32: Despite the absence of an express a
Page 33 and 34: 32share of the profits of the compa
Page 35 and 36: (d) before the issue:(i) the compan
Page 37 and 38: 365.4 Debt/equity rulesDivision 974
Page 39 and 40: Entities that make GST-free supplie
Page 41 and 42: • “ enterprise” is defined in
Page 43 and 44: 6 The Consumer Credit Code andsecur
Page 45 and 46: 7 The regulation of the participati
Page 47: inclusion within the ELE depends on
Page 51 and 52: 50However, this result and the prin
Page 53 and 54: 9 Insolvency and securitisation529.
Page 55 and 56: 54• if the trustee has not limite
Page 57 and 58: Section 588FG provides a measure of
Page 59 and 60: 10 Issues relating to debt securiti
Page 61 and 62: 60indemnity existed) and had no han
Page 63 and 64: The effect of the decision has been
Page 65 and 66: the ASX has discretion to ask the e
Page 67 and 68: • Public Trustee Members - for pr
Page 69 and 70: When Austraclear receives notificat
Page 71 and 72: have been completed in relation to
Page 73 and 74: Some CMBS transactions allow the is
Page 75 and 76: 14.3 GamingIn the past, another con
Page 77 and 78: 16 Clayton UtzOur securitisation te

A Guide to the Law of Securitisation in Australia - Clayton Utz

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?