Wednesday, January 12, 2011



In the world of securitization or sukuk issuance, SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) is normally established based on the common law distinction between legal and equitable right/ownership where the trustee i.e. the SPV is considered to assume legal ownership (right as recognized by court of law) of the underlying asset used in sukuk or securitization for the benefit of the beneficiary (whose interest or right is recognized by the court of equity), and as such a split is thereby caused to the concept of ownership as a result of which the beneficiary is not empowered to take or assumed all rights as an established owner of the asset as is required by Shariah law if he is truly to be considered as a true owner as per the Shariah provisions that will give him several rights that include right of free disposal and possession without restriction.
It can be argued that having what is called beneficial interest in the underlying asset as described above is not enough to give the respective holders of the sukuk a full right of ownership as envisaged under the Shariah as all their rights are exercisable only through the trustee/SPV. The purpose to have this structure involving SPVs is to achieve what is said to be bankruptcy remoteness meaning that whatever happens to the originator will not make the asset in the custody (legal ownership) of the SPV vulnerable to any action by possible creditors of the originator thank to the fact that it is transferred to the legal ownership of the trustee; the fact that will insulate the same from any possible recovery action by other potential creditors of the originator.
This above effect will however only arise if the SPV is truly an independent entity that has no connection with the originator, and such an entity is known as orphan SPV rather than a subsidiary of the originator. What actually happens is that it is normally the potential originator (the party seeking the funding) that will make effort to establish the SPV, and this SPV is not supposed to hold any asset other than the underlying asset to be transferred to it upon the issuance of the sukuk. The SPV also will normally have a very minimum share capital and staff, and in fact it is a mere tool to facilitate the transfer and issuance of the sukuk/bond, and as such is not supposed to conduct any real business activities or trading for the benefit of the sukuk holder notwithstanding the fact that in the case of sukuk al-ijarah for example, the asset will be rented back to the originator and the resulting rental streams from the originator will be used to pay the sukuk holders on periodic basis as a form of profit or income.
Unless and until true/full ownership is duly transferred to the sukuk holders in its fullest sense, it is difficult to treat the structure using SPVs as truly truthful to the concept of ownership as envisaged under the Shariah. Additionally if at the end of the tenure, the originator is obliged to redeem (repurchase) the asset, then this is another indication that what is intended is no more than lending and borrowing arrangement between the originator and the sukuk holders where the SPV will in real sense effectively act as the trustee appointed to hold the underlying asset as collateral.
In contrast, under a traditional mudarabah structure, the mudarib/manager of the mudarabah investment fund is in fact a trading agent to the capital providers/investors and as such assumes the role of a “trustee” from Islamic law perspective. However this mudarib cum “trustee” is not supposed to be a non-active party as far as business or trading activities are concerned unlike the trustee in the context of the structure using the SPV. The mudarib is supposed to conduct trading for the benefit of the investor with a view to create profit that is to be shared based on an agreed ratio. At the end of the mudarabah tenure, all trading assets that are still under the custody of the mudarib, if any, need to sold in an open market to turn them into cash again to know whether there is any profit (or loss) out of the trading activities conducted during the duration. In the case of many sukuk however, the underlying asset is normally to be repurchased by the originator at the end of the tenure as part of an undertaking or binding promise to repurchase at nominal value. If the reason and motivation for the establishment of the SPV, as it seems from this interpretation, is just to create an element of collateral for the benefit of the sukuk/bond holder (especially in the case where there has been no true sale affected between the originator and the SPV or where there is an undertaking (or binding promise) to redeem or repurchase the sukuk/asset) i.e. when the underlying asset under the control of the trustee (SPV) is more in essence of a collateral rather than the one truly belongs to the sukuk holders in the true Shariah sense then the Shariah compliance aspect of the sukuk as investment certificates will be compromised. Therefore it is very important to ensure that true ownership with all its risk and return implications including all rights accorded to a true owner as granted by Shariah are assumed by the sukuk holders, otherwise their entitlement to the income streams will remain doubtful. In this connection sukuk investors need to be warned and be truthfully told about the basic different between investing in sukuk and purchasing conventional bonds where, in the case of bonds, without doubt the SPV is a party who holds the underlying asset as collateral for the borrowing.