Incorporated cell company: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "A form of espievie — seen in the wild in the Cayman Islands, jersey and places like that — where limited recourse is achieved by operation of the com..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Contrast with [[segregated portfolio company]], where the cells ''don’t'' have separate [[legal personality]] and the interior monologue is blissful, and with normal old {{tag|SPV}}s, where you can achieve more or less the same thing contractually with a combination of [[limited recourse]] and [[security]]. | Contrast with [[segregated portfolio company]], where the cells ''don’t'' have separate [[legal personality]] and the interior monologue is blissful, and with normal old {{tag|SPV}}s, where you can achieve more or less the same thing contractually with a combination of [[limited recourse]] and [[security]]. | ||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Limited recourse]] | *[[Limited recourse]] | ||
*[[Bankruptcy remoteness]] | *[[Bankruptcy remoteness]] | ||
*[[Segregated portfolio company]] | *[[Segregated portfolio company]] | ||
Revision as of 11:36, 18 January 2020
A form of espievie — seen in the wild in the Cayman Islands, jersey and places like that — where limited recourse is achieved by operation of the company’s constitutive documents, which segregates the company’s innards into separately incorporated cells, assets in each of which are fully protected from claimants pertaining to other cells. Each cell has its legal personality though — which if you were literary minded, might make you picture a multiple personality SPV with a really confusing interior monologue.
Contrast with segregated portfolio company, where the cells don’t have separate legal personality and the interior monologue is blissful, and with normal old SPVs, where you can achieve more or less the same thing contractually with a combination of limited recourse and security.