< Example 9 >
Case where despite a clause prohibiting assignment of receivables subject company obtained consent of the client to nullifying the clause for utilizing this system. |
|
| (1) Borrower company |
| (1) |
Company name: I company |
| (2) |
Capitalization: 10 million yen |
| (3) |
Employees: 36 |
| (4) |
Line of business: manufacture of equipment for computers |
| (5) |
Annual sales: 500 million yen |
| (6) |
BBorrowed amount: Maximal collateral for 10 million yen |
|
| |
| (2) Third party debtor(debtor client) |
| Manufacturer of electronic components |
|
| |
| (3) Perfection |
|
| |
| (4) Outline of business |
 I company is an electronic component manufacturer founded in 1975. Because of the IT slump Company's receipt of orders from a subsidiary of a major computer maker, which account for two-thirds of sales, sharply declined causing sales to drop to 50% of the sales of the previous year. A source of headache for Company had been that being an R & D-based business, Company's employees were principally made up of engineers, which led to higher fixed cost, and that the collection period of receivables was as long as 5 months. Therefore, Company was studying a means to make use of the receivables. |
|
| |
| (5) How this system was utilized |
| Master agreement on commodity transactions signed with the above said client contains a non-assignment clause on receivables, and therefore, at first utilization of this system seemed difficult. However, Company explained to the client that "the receivables will be assigned to a financial institution and Credit Guarantee Corporation, and therefore no worry would be necessary as to double assignment or re-assignment to any untrustworthy party", and that "the system being used is a measure implemented by the government in favor of small and medium enterprises". The client agreed to nullifying the non-assignment provision as well as to the perfection matter. Thus, Company could use this system. |
|
