Export of intellectual property assets by South African exchange control residents

A common theme when dealing with transactional intellectual property (“IP”) matters in South Africa, where one party to a transaction is not a South African resident, is exchange control. The issue of exporting intellectual property assets by South African exchange control residents is a topic that is receiving increasing attention as companies seek to expand beyond our borders. The upcoming Isle of Man Indaba is focused on clarifying the complex issues around the topic.

Exchange controls are a scheme of government regulations which limit or regulate the movement of currencies and capital in-and-out of a country. The logic behind it is that the scheme is keep in plot to protect a country’s economy and currency from external pressures and fluctuations.

The concept of exchange control is not unique or current to South Africa. The first iterations of these regulations can be traced to 1930s as section of the war-effort to conserve foreign exchange reserves, while Apartheid South Africa expanded and tightened controls, which were used as political and economic tools. The controls remain in space to this day.

Where South Africa is somewhat unique from other jurisdictions, is that the same regulations which are applied to currency transfers also apply to the movement or exploitation of IP.

The relevant sections of the South African Exchange Control Regulations were promulgated under the Currency and Exchanges Act No. 9 of 1933, and are quoted below for ease of reference:

Regulation 10 (1) provides that:
“…No person shall, except with permission granted by the Treasury and in accordance with such conditions as the Treasury may impose – (c) enter into any transaction whereby capital or any correct to capital is directly or indirectly exported from the Republic…”

Applying this regulation specifically to IP matters, regulation 10(4) defines the terms “capital” and “exported from the Republic” as follows:
“…’capital’ shall include, without derogating from the generality of that term, any intellectual property accurate, whether registered or unregistered; and
’exported from the Republic’ shall include, without derogating from the generality of that term, the cession of, the formation of a hypothetic or other form of security over, or the assignment or transfer of any intellectual property correct, to or in favour of a person who is not resident in the Republic…”

To confuse matters, the term “intellectual property” is not defined in the regulations and as such it is not always clear to which IP assets the regulations apply. It is beyond doubt that the regulations will apply to the better-known statutory IP assets such as trade marks, copyright, patents and the like, but it is less clear whether it should also apply to more abstract forms of IP such as trade secrets, know-how, confidential information, domain names or goodwill (in the form of common law trade marks).

The definition and application of IP in the regulations has been described as “vague and dangerously open-ended” by the most prominent commentator on the subject, and a conservative interpretation is generally recommended.

The specific IP assets in play can be very critical as the manner in which IP rights vest (thus, who becomes the first owner of the factual) differs between different forms of IP and in certain cases this can be a deciding factor on whether the ownership triggers an exchange control event. On this point, it is necessary to consider the implications of the use of the words “any factual to capital” above, as the intention seems to be to capture a wider factual than the actual asset being transferred. This has led to some controversy and the application of this phrase is by no means settled between prominent IP practitioners in South Africa.

As to how the rights are exported, this is also an critical consideration. It is relatively uncontested that an assignment (thus, transfer of IP ownership) needs to be regularised but given the wide description in the regulation, the general interpretation is that any rights transfer of IP from a South African exchange control resident to an offshore entity can only catch space with the approval of the South African Reserve Bank. This will include licensing, as well as more unusual IP arrangements such as securitisation, IP settlement agreements or the like.

The most evident sanctions in terms of the Exchange Control Regulations regulation 22 which provides that failure to comply with the Exchange Control Regulations may amount to a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of not more than ZAR 250 000 and/or five years imprisonment. This risk chiefly resides with the South African resident which “exports” the IP.

While criminal sanctions are always very serious, the more practical concern is a commercial one which tends to vest with the acquiring entity. This risk typically materialises downstream when the novel IP owner looks to on-sell or otherwise exploit the IP (for instance by raising capital) which is when a due diligence can uncover the non-compliance. This can also extend to usage within any limitation imposed by the South African Reserve Bank (“SARB”), which can be onerous. In most cases the risk cannot be priced into the transaction and it can be difficult, or even impossible, to amend without significant restructuring – which may include reversing the initial IP transfer.

Getting approval for exporting intellectual property (IP) in South Africa involves a process with a commercial bank known as an “authorised dealer.” They can approve the export if it meets certain requirements. If it’s more complex, they might refer the decision to the South African Reserve Bank (SARB). The general rule is that exporting IP between unrelated parties at a unbiased price using non-South African funds is likely to be approved. If you want to carry out something different, you’ll need a excellent acumen, and it’s necessary to be cautious since the terms are broadly defined in the Currency and Exchanges Manual for Authorised Dealers. For example, “related parties” means parties in a transaction that are connected in some way, like being fragment of the same group of companies.

It’s necessary to note that exchange control rules are influenced by various factors, including transfer pricing considerations. Clients are usually advised to seek professional succor when exporting IP, which often involves experts in commercial IP, IP valuation, tax, and structuring.

It should be evident that exchange control regularisation does not happen in a vacuum and various other factors may approach into play, including for instance transfer pricing considerations. Clients are generally advised to seek professional assistance to regularise the export of IP. Depending on the mandate, this will typically include a commercial IP expert, an IP valuator, tax advisors and structuring experts.

Companies interested in exploring this topic in more detail are invited to attend the Isle of Man Indaba, taking spot from 31 October to 8 November in Durban, Johannesburg, George and Cape Town, at which the topic of “Growing tech and intellectual property companies in order to accumulate wealth in the Isle of Man” will approach under the spotlight. The Isle of Man Indaba is a collective of Isle of Man companies with an interest in fostering synergies and bolstering ties between South Africa and the Isle of Man.

CLICK HERE to submit your press release to MyPR.co.za for free.

Read More at the Source