Securitization and Special Purpose Vehicles in an International Setting: a Systemic View

The present work tries to display a comprehensive and comparative study of the different legal and regulatory problems involved in international securitization transactions. First, an introduction to securitization is provided, with the basic elements of the transaction, followed by the different varieties of it, including dynamic securitization and synthetic securitization structures. Together with this introduction to the intricacies of the structure, a insight into the influence of securitization in the financial and economic crisis of 2007-2009 is provided too; as well as an overview of the process of regulatory competition and cooperation that constitutes the framework for the international aspects of securitization. The next Chapter focuses on the aspects that constitute the foundations of structured finance: the inception of the vehicle, and the transfer of risks associated to the securitized assets, with particular emphasis on the validity of those elements, and how a securitization transaction could be threatened at its root. In this sense, special importance is given to the validity of the trust as an instrument of finance, to the assignment of future receivables or receivables in block, and to the importance of formalities for the validity of corporations, trusts, assignments, etc., and the interaction of such formalities contained in general corporate, trust and assignment law with those contemplated under specific securitization regulations. Then, the next Chapter (III) focuses on creditor protection aspects. As such, we provide some insights on the debate on the capital structure of the firm, and its inadequacy to assess the financial soundness problems inherent to securitization. Then, we proceed to analyze the importance of rules on creditor protection in the context of securitization. The corollary is in the rules in case of insolvency. In this sense, we divide the cases where a party involved in the transaction goes bankrupt, from those where the transaction itself collapses. Finally, we focus on the scenario where a substance over form analysis may compromise some of the elements of the structure (notably the limited liability of the sponsor, and/or the transfer of assets) by means of veil piercing, substantive consolidation, or recharacterization theories. Once these elements have been covered, the next Chapters focus on the regulatory aspects involved in the transaction. Chapter IV is more referred to “market” regulations, i.e. those concerned with information disclosure and other rules (appointment of the indenture trustee, and elaboration of a rating by a rating agency) concerning the offering of asset-backed securities to the public. Chapter V, on the other hand, focuses on “prudential” regulation of the entity entrusted with securitizing assets (the so-called Special Purpose vehicle), and other entities involved in the process. Regarding the SPV, a reference is made to licensing requirements, restriction of activities and governance structures to prevent abuses. Regarding the sponsor of the transaction, a focus is made on provisions on sound originating practices, and the servicing function. Finally, we study accounting and banking regulations, including the Basel I and Basel II Frameworks, which determine the consolidation of the SPV, and the de-recognition of the securitized asset from the originating company’s balance-sheet, as well as the posterior treatment of those assets, in particular by banks. Chapters VI-IX are concerned with liability matters. Chapter VI is an introduction to the different sources of liability. Chapter VII focuses on the liability by the SPV and its management for the information supplied to investors, the management of the asset pool, and the breach of loyalty (or fiduciary) duties. Chapter VIII rather refers to the liability of the originator as a result of such information and statements, but also as a result of inadequate and reckless originating or servicing practices. Chapter IX finally focuses on third parties entrusted with the soundness of the transaction towards the market, the so-called gatekeepers. In this respect, we make special emphasis on the liability of indenture trustees, underwriters and rating agencies. Chapters X and XI focus on the international aspects of securitization. Chapter X contains a conflicts of laws analysis of the different aspects of structured finance. In this respect, a study is made of the laws applicable to the vehicle, to the transfer of risks (either by assignment or by means of derivatives contracts), to liability issues; and a study is also made of the competent jurisdiction (and applicable law) in bankruptcy cases; as well as in cases where a substance-over-form is performed. Then, special attention is also devoted to the role of financial and securities regulations; as well as to their territorial limits, and extraterritoriality problems involved. Chapter XI supplements the prior Chapter, for it analyzes the limits to the States’ exercise of regulatory power by the personal and “market” freedoms included in the US Constitution or the EU Treaties. A reference is also made to the (still insufficient) rules from the WTO Framework, and their significance to the States’ recognition and regulation of securitization transactions.

The abuse of intellectual property rights and regulations in China: a law and economic analysis

From the institutional point of view, the legal system of IPR (intellectual property right, hereafter, IPR) is one of incentive institutions of innovation and it plays very important role in the development of economy. According to the law, the owner of the IPR enjoy a kind of exclusive right to use his IP(intellectual property, hereafter, IP), in other words, he enjoys a kind of legal monopoly position in the market. How to well protect the IPR and at the same time to regulate the abuse of IPR is very interested topic in this knowledge-orientated market and it is the basic research question in this dissertation. In this paper, by way of comparing study and by way of law and economic analyses, and based on the Austrian Economics School’s theories, the writer claims that there is no any contradiction between the IPR and competition law. However, in this new economy (high-technology industries), there is really probability of the owner of IPR to abuse his dominant position. And with the characteristics of the new economy, such as, the high rates of innovation, “instant scalability”, network externality and lock-in effects, the IPR “will vest the dominant undertakings with the power not just to monopolize the market but to shift such power from one market to another, to create strong barriers to enter and, in so doing, granting the perpetuation of such dominance for quite a long time.”1 Therefore, in order to keep the order of market, to vitalize the competition and innovation, and to benefit the customer, in EU and US, it is common ways to apply the competition law to regulate the IPR abuse. In Austrian Economic School perspective, especially the Schumpeterian theories, the innovation/competition/monopoly and entrepreneurship are inter-correlated, therefore, we should apply the dynamic antitrust model based on the AES theories to analysis the relationship between the IPR and competition law. China is still a developing country with relative not so high ability of innovation. Therefore, at present, to protect the IPR and to make good use of the incentive mechanism of IPR legal system is the first important task for Chinese government to do. However, according to the investigation reports,2 based on their IPR advantage and capital advantage, some multinational companies really obtained the dominant or monopoly market position in some aspects of some industries, and there are some IPR abuses conducted by such multinational companies. And then, the Chinese government should be paying close attention to regulate any IPR abuse. However, how to effectively regulate the IPR abuse by way of competition law in Chinese situation, from the law and economic theories’ perspective, from the legislation perspective, and from the judicial practice perspective, there is a long way for China to go!