Academic literature on the topic 'Pacte commissoire'

Massima La nullità del trasferimento di quote societarie a scopo di garanzia, intercorso tra i due soci della s.r.l. cui le quote si riferiscono, per violazione del divieto del patto commissorio travolge sia l’acquisto dell’erede del creditore garantito che il conferimento da parte dell’erede stesso di una parte di tali quote in un trust il cui trustee deve ritenersi in mala fede, in quanto, quale amministratore della s.r.l., era necessariamente a conoscenza della controversia giudiziaria inerente detto trasferimento e pendente all’epoca del conferimento in trust.

Massima Il trust nel quale il disponente, successivamente fallito, conferisce il 60% del capitale di una S.r.l. al fine di metterlo a garanzia della posizione creditoria di una terza società – titolare del 20% del capitale della predetta S.r.l. e la quale aveva concesso finanziamenti al disponente –, prevedendo che il trustee possa soddisfare la posizione di detta società attraverso la gestione del fondo in trust e attribuirle il fondo stesso in tutto o in parte qualora il disponente sia inadempiente, non viola il divieto di patto commissorio, in quanto il trustee non può attribuire alla società beneficiaria beni in trust di valore superiore all’importo dovutole. Siffatto trust è nullo per violazione dell’art. 15 lett. e) della Convenzione de L’Aja in quanto è stato istituito quando il disponente versava in stato di insolvenza, prefigura pagamenti preferenziali in danno dei creditori e sottrae i beni in trust alla gestione degli organi della procedura fallimentare.

A number of recent cases in various divisions of the High Court and in the Supreme Court of Appeal have concerned clauses, in notarial bonds and in agreements for cession of rights in securitatem debiti, which permit the creditor, upon default of the debtor, without recourse to a court, either to take possession of, to retain, to acquire or to sell the property provided as security for the performance of the debt. The decisions reflect a measure of controversy surrounding the validity of such clauses in light of the rule against self-help and section 34 of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) which provides that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court. Other considerations which have been taken into account have been freedom of contract, the principle of pacta sunt servanda and whether such terms are contra bonos mores. The validity of such clauses has significance, particularly, for grantors of credit, who frequently rely upon them to provide security for their debtors‟ obligations, and, consequently, for commerce generally.In the most recent case, Bock v Dubororo Investments (Pty) Ltd (2004 2 SA 242 (SCA)), notably, the Supreme Court of Appeal overruled the decision in Findevco (Pty) Ltd v Faceformat SA (Pty) Ltd (2001 1 SA 251 (E)), in which it was held that summary execution was unconstitutional, and, consequently, we have greater clarity in relation to this issue. It is useful, I submit, to analyse the decision in Bock v Dubororo Investments (Pty) Ltd (supra) in the context of the applicable general legal principles and relevant precedent, to gain perspective on the current legal position.

The right of a creditor to realise the property of its debtor without first obtaining the permission of the court is clouded in controversy. This type of extra-judicial execution is known in Roman-Dutch law as parate executie (literally: “immediate execution”). The essence of parate executie is that it allows the creditor to self-help in the event of default by the debtor. The tenability of parate executie has come under judicial scrutiny in the recent past, not least because of its potential infringement of the provisions contained in section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Section 34 provides that “[e]veryone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum” (see in this regard, First National Bank of South Africa Ltd v Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa; Sheard v Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa 2000 3 SA 626 (CC); (2000 8 BCLR 876); Chief Lesapo v North West Agricultural Bank 2001 1 SA 409 (CC); Findevco (Pty) Ltd v Faceformat SA (Pty) Ltd 2001 1 SA 251 (E); De Beer v Keyser 2002 1 SA 827 (SCA); Senwes Ltd v Muller 2002 4 SA 134 (T); Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd t/a OK Franchise Division v Juglal NO (unreported case no 6049/01, 13 Sep 2002 (D)) (which was endorsed on appeal in Juglal NO and another v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd t/a OK Franchise Division 2004 5 SA 248 (SCA)); Graf v Buechel 2003 4 SA 378 (SCA) (which dealt with a forfeiture clause (ie, pactum commissorium) and therefore falls outside the direct scope of the present note); and Bock v Dubororo Investments (Pty) Ltd 2004 2 SA 242 (SCA)).These cases have further been discussed in a number of case notes (see Scott “Summary Execution Clauses in Pledge and Perfecting Clauses in Notarial Bonds” 2002 65 THRHR 656 et seq; Steyn “Perfection Clauses, Summary Execution (Parate Executie) Clauses, Forfeiture Clauses (Pacta Commissoria) and Conditional Sales in Pledge Agreements and Notarial Bonds – The Position Clarified” 2004 Obiter 443 et seq; and Schulze “Parate Executie, Pacta Commissoria, Banks and Mortgage Bonds” 2004 37 De Jure 256 et seq).Although parate executie is employed by many creditors to realise the security that they hold, commercial banks, being the prime example of money lenders in modern times, have a particular vested interest in retaining parate executie as a valid instrument to realise movables that were given to the bank as security.In the recently reported decision in SA Bank of Athens Ltd v Van Zyl (2005 5 SA 93 (SCA)) the court was asked to pronounce on the validity of a clause that provides for parate executie on the movable property (in the present case: four investment policies) of a defaulting debtor which were held by a bank. The court was further asked to determine whether a parate executie clause is in conflict with public policy.

Cette recherche comparative entre le droit français et le droit chinois est particulièrement consacrée au dixième anniversaire de l’ordonnance française du 23 mars 2006 et de la LDR (Loi chinoise sur les droits réels) du 16 mars 2007 qui représente la première réforme chinoise complète du droit des sûretés réelles. A partir des principes directeurs des sûretés réelles, tant préférentielles qu’exclusives, une analyse approfondie de l’influence de la simplification sur le droit des sûretés réelles, en France comme en Chine, s’est poursuivie tout en prenant compte la renaissance des propriétés-sûretés et la prospective du droit de la rétention. D’ailleurs, certaines institutions ou techniques d’autres pays occidentaux ont été inclues dans l’analyse comparative pour montrer les divers aspects et aussi l’attractivité du droit français.En se basant sur une même théorie juridique, les législateurs français et chinois ont, certes, choisi des techniques différentes pour contourner des difficultés identiques. Mais la tendance de simplification du droit des sûretés réelles mobilières, qui favorise la sécurité de la « contractualisation » des sûretés réelles mobilières, dans les deux pays, restera une convergence indéniable. Ainsi, il y aurait lieu de croire que le législateur chinois va prendre en compte les techniques françaises dans les futures réformes portant sur les sûretés réelles mobilières qui doivent toujours caractérisées par la sécurité, la simplicité et la rapidité
This comparative research between French law and Chinese law is particularly devoted to the tenth anniversary of the French ordinance of 23 March 2006 and the LDR (Chinese property law) of 16 March 2007 which is the first complete Chinese law which reforms the Chinese Security Interest. Departure from guiding principles of different security interest, both preferential than exclusive, an in-depth analysis of the impact of simplification on the security laws, in France as in China, continued while taking account of the rebirth of the properties-securities and the prospective of liens. Moreover, some institutions or techniques of other Western countries have been included in the comparative analysis to show the different aspects and also the attractiveness of the French law.Based on the same legal theory, French and Chinese legislators have certainly chosen different techniques to overcome the same difficulties. But the simplification of guarantee laws, which promotes the safety of "contractualization" of security interest in both countries will remain an undeniable convergence. Thus, there is reason to believe that the Chinese legislator will take into account the French techniques in future reforms in the security rights that are always characterized by safety, simplicity and speed

Jusqu’à l’ordonnance du 23 mars 2006 relative aux sûretés, le créancier désireux de réaliser sa sûreté était tenu d’emprunter les procédures octroyées à tout créancier pour mettre en œuvre son droit de gage général. Les effets de la sûreté réelle ne se manifestaient qu’après la vente forcée du bien grevé, par le désintéressement préférentiel du créancier au cours de la procédure de distribution du prix. La réforme du droit des sûretés opérée en 2006 a modifié cette situation en généralisant l’attribution judiciaire et en légalisant l’attribution conventionnelle du bien grevé. Ces modes de réalisation sont réputés plus simples et rapides que les voies d’exécution traditionnelles, mais également plus efficaces pour écarter les créanciers concurrents. Le créancier titulaire d’une sûreté réelle est désormais avantagé dès l’exercice de ses prérogatives à l’encontre du débiteur défaillant. Pour exercer son pouvoir de contrainte, il bénéficie de voies d’exécution qui lui sont spécifiques. Le législateur a pris soin d’encadrer ces techniques d’attribution afin de protéger les intérêts du débiteur. Toutefois, le régime de ces modes de réalisation mérite d’être aménagé afin d’en améliorer la sécurité juridique, l’efficacité, et par conséquent, l’attractivité. Les effets des ces modes de réalisation à l’égard des créanciers concurrents de l’attributaire sont moins clairs. L’attribution est régulièrement présentée comme une technique garantissant au poursuivant un désintéressement exclusif, les prétentions des autres créanciers inscrits étant reléguées sur l’éventuel reliquat consigné. Quoique les autres créanciers ne puissent prendre part à la procédure, rien ne justifie qu’il soit porté atteinte à leurs droits. Il importe donc de déterminer comment concilier la faculté d’attribution du bien grevé avec les droits des créanciers concurrents
Up until the order of 23 March 2006 on security rights, a creditor aiming at realizing his surety had to resort to the procedures of execution available to any creditor in order to implement his general right of pledge. The effects of the real surety would manifest only after the execution sale of the encumbered property, through the preferential satisfaction of the creditor during the proceedings of the price distribution. The 2006 reform of the law of security rights has altered this situation by generalizing the judicial attribution and by legalizing the conventional attribution of the encumbered property. These modes of realization are deemed to be simpler and faster than the traditional enforcement proceedings, but also more efficient to shut out the other competing secured creditors. From now on, the creditor benefiting from a real surety is favoured as soon as he exercises his rights against the defaulting debtor. In order to exercise his power of constraint, he may rely on all the enforcement proceedings that are specific to the real surety. The legislator has carefully provided guidelines to use these attribution techniques to protect the interests of the debtor. However, the legal framework applicable to these modes of realization deserves to be adjusted in order to improve their legal certainty, their efficiency, and therefore their attractiveness. The effects of these modes of realization against the competing secured creditors of the recipient are not completely clear. Attribution is often presented as a technique that ensures the plaintiff an exclusive satisfaction, while the competing creditors’ claims are redirected on a hypothetical consigned remainder. Although the other creditors cannot take part in the procedure, nothing justifies that their rights be undermined. It is therefore important to determine how to reconcile the optional attribution of the encumbered property and the rights of the competing secured creditors

Jusqu’à l’ordonnance du 23 mars 2006 relative aux sûretés, le créancier désireux de réaliser sa sûreté était tenu d’emprunter les procédures octroyées à tout créancier pour mettre en œuvre son droit de gage général. Les effets de la sûreté réelle ne se manifestaient qu’après la vente forcée du bien grevé, par le désintéressement préférentiel du créancier au cours de la procédure de distribution du prix. La réforme du droit des sûretés opérée en 2006 a modifié cette situation en généralisant l’attribution judiciaire et en légalisant l’attribution conventionnelle du bien grevé. Ces modes de réalisation sont réputés plus simples et rapides que les voies d’exécution traditionnelles, mais également plus efficaces pour écarter les créanciers concurrents. Le créancier titulaire d’une sûreté réelle est désormais avantagé dès l’exercice de ses prérogatives à l’encontre du débiteur défaillant. Pour exercer son pouvoir de contrainte, il bénéficie de voies d’exécution qui lui sont spécifiques. Le législateur a pris soin d’encadrer ces techniques d’attribution afin de protéger les intérêts du débiteur. Toutefois, le régime de ces modes de réalisation mérite d’être aménagé afin d’en améliorer la sécurité juridique, l’efficacité, et par conséquent, l’attractivité. Les effets des ces modes de réalisation à l’égard des créanciers concurrents de l’attributaire sont moins clairs. L’attribution est régulièrement présentée comme une technique garantissant au poursuivant un désintéressement exclusif, les prétentions des autres créanciers inscrits étant reléguées sur l’éventuel reliquat consigné. Quoique les autres créanciers ne puissent prendre part à la procédure, rien ne justifie qu’il soit porté atteinte à leurs droits. Il importe donc de déterminer comment concilier la faculté d’attribution du bien grevé avec les droits des créanciers concurrents
Up until the order of 23 March 2006 on security rights, a creditor aiming at realizing his surety had to resort to the procedures of execution available to any creditor in order to implement his general right of pledge. The effects of the real surety would manifest only after the execution sale of the encumbered property, through the preferential satisfaction of the creditor during the proceedings of the price distribution. The 2006 reform of the law of security rights has altered this situation by generalizing the judicial attribution and by legalizing the conventional attribution of the encumbered property. These modes of realization are deemed to be simpler and faster than the traditional enforcement proceedings, but also more efficient to shut out the other competing secured creditors. From now on, the creditor benefiting from a real surety is favoured as soon as he exercises his rights against the defaulting debtor. In order to exercise his power of constraint, he may rely on all the enforcement proceedings that are specific to the real surety. The legislator has carefully provided guidelines to use these attribution techniques to protect the interests of the debtor. However, the legal framework applicable to these modes of realization deserves to be adjusted in order to improve their legal certainty, their efficiency, and therefore their attractiveness. The effects of these modes of realization against the competing secured creditors of the recipient are not completely clear. Attribution is often presented as a technique that ensures the plaintiff an exclusive satisfaction, while the competing creditors’ claims are redirected on a hypothetical consigned remainder. Although the other creditors cannot take part in the procedure, nothing justifies that their rights be undermined. It is therefore important to determine how to reconcile the optional attribution of the encumbered property and the rights of the competing secured creditors