In 1790, the states of Maryland and Virginia surrendered land to create the District of Columbia, as stipulated in last year`s U.S. Constitution. The Virginia part was returned in 1847, a process known as „retrocession.“ This clause gives practitioners broad powers and, in most cases, would allow the practitioner to suspend a company`s payment obligations as part of an facilitation agreement. It should be noted that the practitioner can only suspend obligations and not the entire contract. It is taken into account that contracts are generally a set of rights and obligations. What the law does not say is that the practitioner has the power to suspend the rights of third parties. The transfer of accounting debts confers on the bank (more generally at the transfer) rights without corresponding obligation of the Cedents. As noted above, the SCA has established that a transfer is a bilateral legal act by which the Cedent transfers its rights to the members of the assignment. No formality is required for the agreement of commitment or the deed of surrender itself, although the parties may agree on formalities to which the assignment must be completed.

The assignment may be express or implied or may be deducted from the conduct of the parties. While the assignment does not need to be reduced to the letter, the parties may agree that it must be written, but it is only valid if it is reduced to the letter. The SCA reviewed the deed of assignment to determine the intentions of the parties. It is a principle of treaty interpretation whereby words must assign their meaning within the framework of the agreement and apply to the purpose to which they relate. The parties to the SCA intended that the bank, by signing the transfer decision, would transfer the right to misconduct to LA DG Brews. The SCA criticized the court`s approach, which treated DG Brews as a surety, and criticized the fact that it did not distinguish between the transfer agreement and the assignment itself. In practice, the transfer process can be summed up as follows: even if a debt were property within the meaning of paragraph 134, the non-cedendo pactum would prevent the company doctor from getting rid of the accounting debt without the bank`s consent. Section 134 (3) does not apply to a standard transfer of accounting debts, since the definition of „guarantee“ in Section 1 of the Insolvency Act is „the property of an estate over which the creditor has a prerogative because of a particular mortgage, the lender`s legal assumption, the deposit or the right of withholding. In both cases, the beneficiary of the transfer has the right, without prior decision, to settle the debt guaranteed at the maturity agreed by the assignor and the ceding, he is entitled to repay without prior decision the debt owed to him.

As a general rule, the surplus recovered is returned to the ceding company. We now turn to the question of the applicability of Section 134 of Act 71 of Companies 2008 Accounting Debt Disposals. In other words, the operating director must not transfer or incriminate assets without the agreement of the secured creditor, unless the revenues are sufficient to appease the secured creditor`s debt and are effectively paid to him immediately. We believe that Section 134 does not apply to the transfer of debtors. A debt to the company in the rescue is not „property“ within the meaning of Section 134, because: the assignment is a bilateral legal law by which the Cedent transfers its rights to the purchaser of the assignment.