By: Olayemi Anyanechi, Managing Partner at Sefton Fross
The Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA 2020) is a game changer for derivative transactions in Nigeria. It introduces innovative provisions that will impact financial collateral arrangements typically used by parties involved in derivative trading. This article will examine the novel provisions introduced by CAMA 2020 as it relates to financial collateral arrangements.
An examination of financial collateral arrangements under the CAMA 2020
Until recently, the enforceability of derivative transactions in Nigeria had lingering questions. This was mainly due to the uncertainty over enforcement of the close out netting provisions. To mitigate this, counterparties were typically advised to pursue the Automatic Early Termination route.
Netting is a reconciliation and payment mechanism which involves the aggregation and conversion of mutual payment obligations into a single claim, so that the party owing the greater aggregate amount makes a net payment to the party owing the lesser aggregate amount. Forms of netting include contractual/settlement, insolvency and close-out netting.
Netting under extant Nigerian laws
Prior to CAMA 2020, Nigerian laws supported contractual netting and insolvency netting.
Insolvency netting is a mandatory right of set-off that arises when a company goes into liquidation. It is automatic and applies at the date on which the liquidation commences
Insolvency netting is recognised under the provisions on mutual credit and set-off in section 33 of the Bankruptcy Act 1 and implied by reference in the previous CAMA 2. Section 33 of the Bankruptcy Act provides that where there has been mutual credits, mutual debts or other mutual dealings between a debtor and any other person claiming to prove a debt in the debtor’s liquidation, an account of what is due from one party to the other in respect of such mutual dealing and the sum due shall be set off against any sum due from the other party and the balance of the account and no more shall be claimed or paid on either side respectively. Thus, it required the claim and cross claims to be between the same parties in the same right.
Contractual or settlement netting is the netting of reciprocal deliveries or payments which are due on the same date. It provides for mutual payment obligations of contracting parties to be discharged by a single net payment obligation from one party to the other. This form of netting addresses the risk presented when parties’ obligations are not performed simultaneously, particularly where payment obligations are in the same currency to be performed on the same date. It assesses the parties’ mutual payment obligations and requires physical payment only from one of the parties, usually the one with the larger debt.
Close-out netting on the other hand, is typically employed to minimise the risk of exposure to an insolvent counterparty. It applies to contracts having different settlement dates and results in dealings between the counterparties coming to a close.
Prior to CAMA 2020, insolvency netting was mandatory and it was not possible to enforce certain provisions under such agreements after the commencement of winding up without a court order. This was because under Nigerian law, any disposition of the property of the company made after the commencement of the winding up shall, unless the court otherwise orders, be void.
Furthermore, in line with the provisions of section 499 of the erstwhile CAMA, where the termination of obligations under netting agreements do not occur prior to commencement of winding up, the liquidator may have been able to “cherry-pick” and require the performance of contracts that he deemed beneficial while disclaiming the onerous contracts.
New close out netting provisions
CAMA 2020 now recognises and provides a legal framework for termination and close-out netting.
Close out netting is defined under CAMA 2020 to include the occurrence of “the termination, liquidation or acceleration of any payment or delivery obligation or entitlement under one or more qualified financial contracts entered into under a netting agreement”. Netting agreements are recognised to include a ‘master netting agreement’, a ‘master-master netting agreement’, and a ‘collateral arrangement’.
Section 721 of CAMA 2020 further provides that:
(1) “The provisions of a netting agreement is enforceable in accordance with their terms, including against an insolvent party, and, where applicable, against a guarantor or other person providing security for a party and shall not be stayed, avoided or otherwise limited by-(a) Any action of the liquidator;(b) Any other provision of law relating to bankruptcy, reorganisation, composition with creditors, receivership or any other insolvency proceeding an insolvent party may be subject to; or(c) Any other provision of law that may be applicable to an insolvent party, subject to the conditions contained in the applicable netting agreement.”
With this provision the perennial issue with derivative transactions in Nigeria, which was to the effect that only insolvency netting was possible, has been addressed.
In terms of obligations of the parties to a netting agreement surviving the commencement of insolvency proceedings, the only obligation/right, if any, of either party is to make/receive payment or delivery under a netting agreement which shall be equal to its net obligation/entitlement with respect to the other party as determined in the netting agreement.
Furthermore, the provisions under CAMA 2020 limit the liquidator’s powers to disclaim netting agreements as onerous contracts. It provides that:
“Any power of the liquidator to repudiate individual contracts or transactionswill not prevent the termination, liquidation or acceleration of all payment or delivery obligations or enforcements under one or more qualified financial contracts entered into under or in connection with a netting agreement, and applies, if at all, only to the net amount due in respect of all of such qualified financial contracts in accordance with the terms of such netting agreement”.
Section 721(6) of CAMA 2020 also provides protection for netting agreements in that a liquidator is prohibited from avoiding the terms of such agreement unless there is clear evidence that the enforcing party made such transfer or incurred such obligation with actual intent to “hinder, delay or defraud any entity to which the insolvent party was indebted or became indebted”. The relevant time period is the period on or after the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred.
These new provisions mitigate the risks hitherto inherent in “qualified financial contracts” which includes a whole range of derivatives and will go a long way to enhance financial stability and investor confidence in the Nigerian financial sector.
There is no doubt that with the improved regulatory landscape, the CAMA 2020 has commendably set the tone for the actualisation of key innovations in the market, providing enabling legal backing for netting, bankruptcy remoteness and attendant regulatory frameworks for the smooth functioning of financial markets in Nigeria which would ultimately impact positively on transactions between counterparties and other participants in the market.
The Companies and Allied Matters 2020 is currently awaiting gazetting as the last step to its effectiveness.
1. The Bankruptcy Act, CAP B2, LFN 2004, s 33.
2. The Companies and Allied Matters Act CAP C20 LFN 2004, s 493.
3. The Companies and Allied Matters Act CAP C20 LFN 2004, s 413.
4. The Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, s 718.
5. The Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, s 721(2),(3).
6. The Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, s 721(4).
Article by: Olayemi Anyanechi, Managing Partner at Sefton Fross
The Importance Of Good Legal Advice When Doing Business In Nigeria Today – Morenike George-Taylor
Morenike George-Taylor, Group Managing Director of the Flux Group (Image: Morenike George-Taylor)
Every business owner and consultant knows that taking into consideration, COVID -19 lockdowns, END SARS protest, the twitter ban and the rate of the dollar to the Naira, business in Nigeria has been a roller coaster between 2020 and 2021. Business owners had to learn a lot of things and I hope to share them in a series of articles. However, I want to emphasize the importance of good legal advice when doing business in Nigeria. Simply put… it is critical.
Once the COVID-19 lockdown happened, it was a shock to everyone that we could all put our businesses on hold and be forced to work remotely. Zoom became more popular and it became more difficult to physically sign documents. People started using electronic signatures to sign their documents. The question is whether under Nigerian law, an electronic signature is as good as a physical signature. If someone appends an electronic signature to a document, how can you be sure it is their signature? How can you be sure that they wouldn’t deny that signature later on?
More legal issues arose with END SARS, more people had to look into what their insurance contracts cover and do not cover. With the rate of the dollar, loan agreements where businesses collected international funding went awry. A $100,000 loan given in 2019 and repayable in 2021 was now significantly harder to repay and businesses explored whether the drastic rise in the exchange rate was enough to constitute force majeure.
In the midst of all this, those with good lawyers were able to navigate the troubled waters and find solutions even where they were in between a rock and hard place. Those without good lawyers made mistakes that cost them a lot of money. A lot of businesses folded up because they were unable to survive. This is why I have the following tips:
- Always read legal documents before you sign them.
- Pay attention to the exclusion clauses in your insurance contracts.
- Only accept electronic signatures from trusted clients whose signatures you can confirm.
- Pay attention to force majeure clauses in loan agreements you execute and be careful and consider all mitigating and hedging products that can help when receiving loans repayable in foreign currency.
- Put everything in writing, agreements, orders, receipts and so on.
- Get a good lawyer on retainer.
We are all trying to survive and build thriving businesses. I hope these tips save you a penny or two as you run your business.
Article by: Morenike George-Taylor
South Africa: Guidance issued on mandatory vaccination policies for the workplace
South Africa: After months of speculation, the Department of Employment and Labour in South Africa has provided guidance in relation to vaccination policies within the workplace. On 11 June 2021, the Minister published an amendment to the Consolidated Direction on Occupational Health and Safety Measures in Certain Workplaces (Directive), which makes provision for employers to implement a mandatory vaccination policy in its workplace.
Implementing the policy
Before an employer implements such a policy, it must undertake a risk assessment within 21 days of the Directive being published, i.e. by 2 July 2021. This risk assessment must:
• take into consideration the employer’s operational requirements;
• indicate whether it intends to implement a mandatory vaccination policy;
• identify which employees it will require to be vaccinated based on the risk of acquiring COVID-19 at work, or the risk of severe COVID-19 symptoms due to the employee’s age or co-morbidities; and
• be conducted in accordance with section 8 and 9 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which places a duty on the employer to maintain a working environment for its employees and other persons that is safe and, as far as reasonably practicable, free from health risks.
Developing a plan
The employer must then develop a plan which sets out the measures it will implement to ensure the workplace is safe for its employees. This plan should indicate whether the employer intends to make the vaccine mandatory for any employees, and must identity the employees who will be required to be vaccinated, the process which will be followed to ensure compliance with the Directive and whether the employer plans to make the vaccine mandatory as and when it becomes available to employees. Any employer who is of the opinion that the vaccination of its employees is necessary for their health and safety may implement a mandatory vaccination policy. The employer’s risk assessment should, however, support this requirement and indicate that there is a legitimate need for the workforce to be vaccinated.
Right to refuse
The Directive sets out guidelines to employers when drafting and implementing a mandatory vaccination policy. In terms of the guidelines, importance is placed on “public health, the constitutional rights of employees and the efficient operation of the employer’s business.” Where an employer makes vaccination mandatory, it must notify each employee identified in the plan that such employee must be vaccinated as and when the vaccination is available to them, and that the employee may consult with a health and safety worker or trade union representative, should the employee wish to do so. Further, the employer must inform the employee of their right to refuse the vaccine on medical or constitutional grounds. These grounds are specified in the guidelines and makes provision for an employee to refuse the vaccine on the medical basis of a “contra‑indication” of the vaccine (i.e. an allergic reaction to the first dose of the vaccine or to a component of the vaccine), or the constitutional basis of the employee’s right to bodily integrity and/or right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion, as set out in section 12 and 15 of the Constitution.
The Directive prescribes that where an employee does raise one of these objections, the employer is required to counsel the employee, refer such an employee for a medical evaluation for any allergic reaction to the vaccine and, where necessary, reasonably accommodate the employee in accordance with the Code of Good Practice: Employment of People with Disabilities, as published in terms of the Employment Equity Act. Such reasonable accommodation may include allowing the employee to work offsite, at home, in isolation at the workplace, or in limited circumstance, the employer may require the employee to work with a N95 mask.
Where an employer does implement a mandatory vaccination policy and an employee refuses to be vaccinated, the employer must ensure that the grounds for refusal are considered fully and that the employee is consulted in relation to the grounds raised. However, should the employer be unable to reasonably accommodate the employee and the employee continues to refuse to be vaccinated, an incapacity procedure must be followed before the employer may terminate the employee’s contract.
Paid time off
In terms of section 4(1)(k) of the Directive, employers must give employees paid time off at the date and time of their vaccination, regardless of whether such vaccination is in terms of a vaccination policy or not, and sick leave must be used should an employee experience any adverse side effects from the vaccine. An employer may request proof of the vaccination when returning to work, or proof that the vaccination will take place during working hours. Where an employee is vaccinated in terms of the mandatory vaccination plan, the employer must afford the employee paid time off for adverse side effects of the vaccine, even if the employee has exhausted their sick leave entitlement. Alternatively, the employer may lodge a claim with the Compensation Fund, in terms of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act. In addition, the employer should organize transport to and from the vaccination site, if possible, for employees identified in the mandatory vaccination policy.
In order to comply with the Directive, employers must update their risk assessment of the workplace, taking into consideration any employees who are required to be vaccinated. Employers must take notice of the timeframe afforded by the Directive and ensure that the plan is in place before the 21 day period has lapsed. It is important for employers to conduct the risk assessment objectively and determine the actual need for vaccinations in the workplace and amongst certain categories of employees. Further, any objection raised by an employee should be considered seriously and the employer should try to accommodate such employee where possible. However, the employer may dismiss the employee for incapacity as a last resort.
By Kirsty Gibson, Associate, and Johan Botes, Partner and Head of the Employment & Compensation Practice, Baker McKenzie Johannesburg
Developments in competition law in post-pandemic Africa
Image Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
With the growth of economies across Africa, competition law has remained one of the key drivers for effective market participation, consumer protection and fair business practices. However, the global pandemic introduced new challenges for competition authorities in Africa and abroad, with each enforcer pursuing the most beneficial enforcement method for its national or regional jurisdiction.
According to Lerisha Naidu, Partner in Baker McKenzie’s Competition & Antitrust Practice in Johannesburg, “These efforts were aimed at curbing the persistence of unjustified price hikes, anti-competitive cooperation between competitors and other harmful business practices that sought to undermine competition. In addition to the urgent responses to the unprecedented impacts of the global COVID-19 crisis, competition authorities in countries and regions across Africa continued to introduce new laws and amend existing legislation as a sign of the rapidly increasing prioritisation of competition law enforcement on the continent.”
Competition authorities across the continent had already established strategies for maintaining competition and limiting instances of customer exploitation in their respective countries by early March 2020.
“Competition authorities in Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria and South Africa reacted quickly to pandemic impacts by introducing new guidelines and regulations,” noted Angelo Tzarevski, a senior associate in Baker McKenzie’s Competition Practice in Johannesburg.
Amendments to existing laws
Various jurisdictions have recently strengthened their competition law regimes by way of amendments to the existing legislation or by introducing entirely new laws to facilitate their enforcement efforts.
“For example, Botswana’s Competition Act came into force at the end of 2018. Kenya recently introduced a host of new laws, guidelines and rules that relate to buyer power, the valuation of assets in merger transactions, block exemption of certain mergers from notification, merger thresholds and filing fees, market definition, and new guidelines for the determination of administrative penalties. Ghana’s Draft Competition Bill is currently before parliament awaiting passage into law, and Egypt and Mauritius amended their competition legislation by introducing or giving effect to new provisions and regulations. In South Africa, price discrimination and buyer power provisions that were previously introduced by the Competition Amendment Act have since come into effect. Regulations were also issued to facilitate the interpretation and application of these provisions,” said Tzarevski.
In addition to country-specific regulation, a number of regional competition regulators in Africa are impacting domestic markets. Such regulators include the West African Economic Monetary Union (WAEMU), the East African Community (EAC), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC). While not a regional regulator, the African Competition Forum, an association of African competition agencies, promotes competition policy awareness in Africa and the adoption of competition policies and laws. The Forum also facilitates regular contact between authorities, creating a platform for the sharing of best practice and domestic competition trends.
“African competition law continues to develop at a rapid pace, boosted by the implementation of protective strategies necessary during the peak of the pandemic. An increasing number of jurisdictions have adopted laws and regulations, established authorities, secured membership to regional antitrust regimes and ramped-up enforcement of suspected violations of prevailing competition laws at both domestic and regional levels.
As such, organisations transacting across borders in Africa must ensure they are compliant with a myriad of local and intersecting regional competition laws to avoid facing the wrath of the continent’s competition authorities. Access to standardised, cross-border information on the latest competition law developments in Africa has become essential for those transacting in the region,” added Naidu.
Baker McKenzie recently produced a comprehensive guide covering the latest developments in African competition law in 25 countries across the continent – An Overview of Competition & Antitrust Regulations and Developments in Africa: 2021
By Angela Matthewson for Baker McKenzie Johannesburg