The legal status of letters of comfort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters of comfort (LOCs) have been in use for many decades, but their legal status remain unclear in South Africa and elsewhere. When a subsidiary needs a loan from a bank but does not have adequate collateral to back up the loan request, the parent company usually steps in to provide surety for its subsidiary, either by issuing a guarantee, surety, or pledge. But in some situations when the parent company does not want to be held accountable for the debts of its subsidiary, it issues a letter of comfort. This letter is issued under the express disclaimer that the holding company does not want to accept the legal liability of its subsidiary but would ensure that its subsidiary repays the loan amount as when it falls due. This creates some uncertainties around the legal capacity and effects of the LOCs in the legal system in South Africa and elsewhere, where these letters are in use. In South Africa, there is no provision in the statutes to regulate LOCs. The courts treat them on a case-by-case basis, subject to the content inscribed therein as well as the circumstantial evidence leading to their issuance. The seminal case in South Africa in which an LOC was at the centre of a dispute is the Bernert v ABSA case. In this case the High Court (HC) ruled in favour of the plaintiff. However, this ruling was abrogated by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). The decision of the SCA was later confirmed by the Constitutional Court (CC). The situation in South Africa is like other Anglo common law jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, with the exception of Australia. In Australia LOCs carry contractual effect, ab initio. This became clear in several Australian landmark cases, such as the Banque Brussels Lambert SA v Australian National Industries and the Gate Gourmet Australia (in Liquidation) v Gate Gourmet Holding. The legal nature of LOCs varies from one country to the other, and are informed by a particular country’s legal system, socio-economic landscape and the cultural identity of that jurisdiction. The research has interrogated the legal status and effect of LOCs in the Republic and elsewhere and highlights important lessons and conclusions that could be implemented in future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".