Broadly, global funds (that is, investment funds and their intermediaries) (global funds) in Mauritius are regulated by the Financial Services Commission (Commission). The Commission has, since 2001, developed a very flexible set of guidelines as well as a consolidated regulatory and supervisory framework for the regulation of such global funds, namely the Securities Act 2005 (Securities Act), the Securities (Licensing) Rules 2007, the Securities (Preferential Offer) Rules 2017, the Financial Services Act 2007 (FSA 2007), the Securities (Collective Investment Schemes and Closed-end Funds) Regulations 2008 (Securities Regulations 2008), and the Financial Services (Peer to Peer Lending) Rules 2020 . As a result, the number of authorised funds being regulated by the Commission stood at 1,024 a s at 30 June 2018, while the number of fund intermediaries increased by 3% to reach 445 entities as at 30 June 2018.1 Each month, from December 2019 to July 2020, an average of five global funds have been licensed as is reported by the Commission. 2
Further growth is expected to be seen following recent amendments to legislation in Mauritius. These changes correspond with the approachability of regulators in Mauritius, and their willingness to listen and accordingly respond to industry needs and demands in a commercial manner, while at the same time protecting the Mauritius ‘brand’ . These changes also seek to address the uncertainties investors may be having, to realign the present regulatory framework with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) requirements, and to see Mauritius as a ‘one-stop shop’ for financial products and services.
Fund formation and finance
Global funds – overview
The present regulatory framework contemplates two main categories of global funds, namely: an open-ended fund, also known as a collective investment scheme (CIS); and a closed-end fund, commonly known as a private equity fund. Global funds can be structured as companies incorporated under the Companies Act 2001 (Companies Act) or as limited partners hips (LPs) , which came into force pursuant to the Limited Partnerships Act 2011 (Limited Partnerships Act), or licensed as companies or partnership s holding a Global Business Licence (GBL) under the FSA 2007.
Any CIS or closed-end fund (individually a scheme or, collectively, schemes) wishing to be approved, registered with, recognised and/or licensed by the Commission under the Securities Act must first apply to the Commission for authorisation as a CJS or closed-end fund in the manner set out in the Securities Regulations 2008 , and obtain a GBL under the FSA. Funds usually take the form of companies, LPs, protected cell companies (PCCs) or trusts. The typical vehicle used to structure a closed-end fund is a private company limit ed by shares or an LP, while a CIS is commonly structured as a public or private company, unit trust or PCC.
The Mauritian LP combines features of both a company and a partnership, and acts as another preferred vehicle for foreign investors that may provide flexibility in structuring a CIS. It can have separate legal personality just like a company, while at the same time enabling some partners, known as limited partners, to contribute and participate in the returns of the LP without being engaged in its day-to-day management. The general partner (GP) is responsible for managing the business and affairs of the LP, and is personally liable for the debts of the partnership.
The Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2016 was introduced to further equip the economy’s financial sector with innovative tools, as well as alternative and attractive vehicles to investors – the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). Similar to the LP, the LLP combines features of both a company (holder of a GBL) and a partnership, where the LLP is incorporated as a body corporate having separate legal personality from its partners, thus providing the flexibility of a partnership. Under an LLP, the partner is accountable and liable to the LLP only to the extent of its contributions (except in the event of insolvency). The LLP is required to have at least two partners and one manager. The relationship between the partners and the LLP is governed under a partnership agreement.
On I January 2000, the Protected Cell Companies Act 1999 (PCC Act) came into force, which created an incorporation and registration regime whereby a Mauritian company carrying out global business would be able to register as a PCC. A protected cell (known in some jurisdictions as a ‘segregated account’ or ‘segregated portfolio’) is an account containing assets and liabilities (known as ‘cellular assets’) that are legally separated from the assets of the company’s ordinary account, called its ‘non- cellular assets’, and also separate from assets and liabilities allocated to the company’s other protected cells (if any).
A trust, established under the Trusts Act 2001, is a legal relationship created by the beneficial owner creating the trust (the settlor) and the persons willing to undertake the office of trustee (the trustees). As part of this relationship, property (the trust fund) is declared to be held by the trustees for the benefit of certain parties (the beneficiaries) or for certain purposes, creating a binding obligation on the part of the trustees to act in accordance with the terms of the trust. Trusts are normally liable to income tax on its chargeable income. Chargeable income is calculated as the difference between the net income derived by the trust and the aggregate income distributed to the beneficiaries under the terms of the trust.
The regulatory and supervisory framework for global funds is in line with international principles and practices as laid down by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions. Intermediaries ensure the proper functioning of investment funds and hence protect the best interests of investors. All global funds are therefore subject to ongoing reporting obligations, as imposed by the Commission under the Securities Act and the FSA 2007. Reporting obligations include submission of Audited Financial Statements and Quarterly Statutory Returns (Interim Financial Statements), in accordance with the FSA 2007. A fund is required to be managed by an investment manager licensed in Mauritius. A foreign regulated investment manager may alternatively be appointed, subject to the prior approval of the Commission.
As the private funds sector grows and matures in Mauritius, financing solutions are increasingly required by funds and fund managers. The need for finance can vary, from equity bridge or capital call facilities used to assist liquidity and speed of execution for private equity funds, to more esoteric products used by hedge funds in addition to their prime brokerage agreements, such as net asset value (NAV)-based margin loans to provide liquidity or leverage, and equity or fund-linked derivative solutions.
In fact, we still have not been consulted on a single facility payment event of default in the first half of 2020. Also, as more investors look to limit their investments to a smaller group of preferred sponsors, sponsors are also diversifying their product offerings. We have, for instance, noticed a trend involving a number of sponsors leveraging their existing investor relationships by creating funds focused on sectors in which they have not traditionally participated (i.e., buyout shops creating direct-lending funds).
General security structure for Mauritius transactions
Historically, funds have predominantly been incorporated as corporate structures. Some companies may have more than one class of shares, which denote various fee structures and/or limitations on the types of investments some shareholders can make. There may also exist multiple series within each class of shares. To widen its array of financial products, Mauritius introduced its Limited Partnerships Act, adding a new dimension to the international investment community. This investment vehicle enables global funds to be structured as partnerships in Mauritius, reducing the need for complex master-feeder structures and ensuring tax-efficient structures.
Mauritius has become a central hub for foreign direct investment into India and Africa due to its network of double taxation avoidance agreements and investment protection and promotion agreements with various African countries. However, while investors have been able to form global business companies for foreign direct investment, the more rigid structure of companies means they are not always perfectly suited for these investment projects. For example, for funds structured as a Mauritius corporation, a shareholders’ agreement governs the relationship with the shareholders rather than a partnership agreement. The obligation of shareholders to pay in capital contributions is contingent upon the issuance of further shares, and a corporation’s ability to issue shares is generally not delegable under Mauritius law, thus limiting the ability to make capital calls on investors in an event of default under the fund financing facility.
Security for the fund finance consists of: (a) a security assignment by the fund of the capital commitments, right to make capital calls, right to receive and enforce the foregoing, and the account into which the capital commitments are to be funded; and (b) a charge on the bulk of its other assets including its accounts, investments compensation from various of its assets including bonds, guarantees, negotiable instruments and the like. The security package relating to the capital calls is tailored in order to account for specifics of Mauritius law and the structure of the fund as a corporation (rather than an LP, as most funds in Mauritius are structured as corporations). In particular, various rights in respect of the fund are vested in the board of directors and cannot be easily delegated. Mauritius law requires that shares be issued in exchange for capital calls.
One would expect security to be taken over bank accounts of the fund and assignment of rights to make capital calls, accompanied by a power of attorney in favour of the lender to exercise such rights on behalf of the fund/GP and/or manager (as the case may be) in a typical fund financing security transaction.
So, while one would have a pledge over the security provided above, the ability for a lender to make a capital call on its own would be complicated by the foregoing. In a worst-case scenario, the preferred enforcement mechanism would have the lender appoint a receiver (and if necessary, a liquidator), as each have statutory authority to make capital calls and issue shares in order to satisfy creditors to whom such security is pledged. Indeed, after an event of default, a lender is entitled to appoint a receiver under the Insolvency Act of 2009. Security documents, such as fixed and floating charge documents, would need to provide that if a receiver were appointed, it would have full management powers to the exclusion of the board of directors. Under the Insolvency Act of 2009, the receiver would have the power to make calls of unfunded capital to the extent such assets are included in the charge granted to a lender and issue shares.
It is also recommended that a liquidator be appointed in order to avoid certain issues relating to the set-off of claims by shareholders against the called capital (described further below). The liquidator would also be permitted to call capital. For example, various contract law defences may be waived in Mauritius by contract in the situation where the fund is not in insolvency (including non-performance by the fund). Generally, such language is sought for three reasons: (a) to waive contract law defences such as lack of consideration, mutual mistake, impracticability, etc.; (b) to prevent LPs from claiming that they may set off amounts owed to them by the fund against what is due to the lender; and (c) claims that an issuance of shares or some other action by the fund is required as a condition for payment of capital contributions.
We recommend that such language be included in this transaction, since in the event of insolvency of the fund, the language may prove helpful and could avoid other defences raised by shareholders that their commitment to contribute capital is a ‘financial accommodation’ or otherwise avoidable under insolvency laws. Such ability to waive in advance the right to raise the defence above and other defences by contract could be inserted in the contract (presumably by amendment to the shareholders’ agreement or by an investor letter); however, general waivers are not effective, so specific waivers would be required as to each of the possible defences.
Moreover, such contractual waivers would not be effective in a number of circumstances, including rights to set-off pursuant to the Insolvency Act of 2009. By statute, under the Insolvency Act of 2009, while a receiver is in place, principles of contractual, legal and equitable set-off apply that would permit set-off by shareholders, and such set-off is available to the extent that claims have been incurred prior to the commencement of the liquidation (subject to other limitations). To avoid such risk, we normally recommended the initiation of winding-up by a lender by appointment of a liquidator, as such appointment would crystallise the liability of shareholders as a statutory liability that cannot be set off against amounts owing to the shareholder.
COViD-19 and fund formation and finance
The year of 2020 has been marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has affected both the economy and the regulatory framework of the world, including Mauritius. The COVID-19 period, which has been defined as starting on 23 March 2020 and ending on 1 June 2020 in Mauritius, has slowed the economic growth of the country. The pandemic has created uncertainties in the fund financing sector due to the global economy legislature adopting measures such as the COVID-19 (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 to provide comfort to the whole population, including investors. In order to ensure continuity of business, both temporary and permanent measures were adopted. For instance, the time period for a company served with a statutory demand to pay its debt under the Insolvency Act of 2009 was temporarily extended from one month to two months. The minimum amount of statutory demand in respect of a debt that is due was permanently increased from MUR 100 ,000 to MUR 250 ,000.
Since COVID-19 has dominated news papers and the world’s consciousness, GPs have sought to increase existing facilities and extend the tenor of facilities, and many lenders have focused on supporting their existing clients, with both GPs and lenders being keen to maintain an open and regular dialogue. There has also been increased activity in adding new borrowers to existing facilities, utilising accordion features and converting uncommitted lines into committed facilities. There were some initial concerns in the market that GPs may draw down heavily on capital call facilities, but the general market experience has been that this has not happened and, if anything, GPs have called down more capital from investors with capital call utilisations then being reduced. This has been in marked contrast to the corporate market where working capital facilities have, in many cases, been drawn down in full by borrowers. Despite the obvious challenges presented by COVID-19, the Fund Finance Association has reported that there have been no defaults on investor calls by institutional investors in any fund with a capital call facility – and that echoes our experience in Mauritius as well (with no defaults in relation to any category of investors).
Challenges posed by COVID-19 are of both a direct and indirect nature to the market. The impact of the pandemic directly disrupts certain classes of assets, resulting in uncertainty in relation to the valuation of certain assets. This is particularly relevant to NAV facilities. Increased activity and drawdowns (with pockets of bank balance sheets being set aside for government funding schemes or otherwise) as well as cash hoarding in the corporate loans market may also mean that some lenders will be cautious for now when it comes to deploying capital into the fund finance market.
Looking forward, whilst we do not see any fundamental changes to the operation of the fund finance market, we envisage that there may be some more subtle shifts, as lenders in the market respond to the varying pressures and dynamics that apply to them, whether that is political pressure on some banks to focus on their domestic markets (or certain types of clients), regulatory constraints (for some European and US lenders in particular), increased funding costs, or the pressures that inevitably come from an uncertain macroeconomic environment (whether that is to be cautious on any new lending or to be ambitious and take advantage of the opportunities created by market uncertainty). Many of these pressures may only be temporary, but they will exert themselves on market participants in different ways and at different times, and increased focus on liquidity may mean that there is less appetite for uncommitted facilities than before COVID-19. Notwithstanding the current challenges, the fund finance market remains robust and will continue to develop in Mauritius. It is a market that was extremely resilient during and following the Global Financial Crisis (outperforming many other forms of finance) and has benefited from strong growth since and – whilst all market participants have shown good sense and restraint at the outset of COVID-19 – it is poised with a diversifying range of market participants and products to react to circumstances and opportunities as they develop.
Some of the key amendments made to the present regulatory framework are as follows:
Amendments to the Companies Act
The maximum number of shareholders that a private company can have has been increased from 25 to 50. The extension of the maximum number of shareholders offers more flexibility to companies having up to 50 shareholders.
In order to further comply with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations, the Companies Act was amended to provide detailed provisions on ‘beneficial owner and/or ultimate beneficial owner’. An application for incorporation of a company must now be accompanied with a declaration regarding beneficial ownership, which shall state the full name and the usual residential address of the beneficial owner. This information shall be lodged with the Registrar of Companies through the Companies and Businesses Registration Integrated System or such other electronic system with 14 days from the date on which the share register of the company has been altered.
Amendments have also been made regarding public companies. As from 1 January 2021, the board of directors of a public company shall include at least two independent directors. The Companies Act has also adopted the requirement of the latest Code of Corporate Governance dated November 2016 to maintain board diversity, as all public companies shall now have at least one woman on the board of directors.
Amendments to the FSA 2007
The functions of the Commission have been extended to include the following:
- ability to request competent authorities or any other entity (which includes ultimate and intermediate financial holding Mauritian companies that have, within the group, at least one subsidiary or joint venture or such owner ship structure that holds a licence by the Commission) to furnish to the Commission with the necessary statistical information within such time frame as may be determined by the Commission; and
- in the event the requested information is not provided to the Commission within the specified time frame, it shall consult and, with the approval of the competent authorities, collect the required information from the relevant entities.
In its quest to facilitate investment in Mauritius and to provide a comprehensive regulatory framework, the FSA 2007 has been amended to add definitions for ‘Peer-to-Peer Lending’ and ‘moneylenders’.
‘Peer-to-Peer Lending’ means a financial business activity that enables a person to lend funds through an online portal or electronic platform that matches lenders and borrowers. The Commission shall issue a Peer-to-Peer Lending licence to any person wishing to operate a Peer-to-Peer Lending platform. On 14 August 2020, the Commission issued the Financial Services (Peer to Peer Lending) Rules 2020 to enable the operation of Peer-to-Peer Lending platforms in Mauritius by Peer-to-Peer Operators (P2POperators). These regulations have provided specific limits that apply to lenders and borrowers whenever they transact through P2P Operators. However, these lending limits will not apply to sophisticated investors who lend through P2P Operators to borrowers who are not resident in Mauritius and when the lending occurs in any other currency. Furthermore, the reimbursement period for lending through Peer-to-Peer Lending platforms must not exceed 84 months.
A ‘moneylender’ means a person, other than a bank or a non- bank deposit-taking institution, whose business is that of money lending or who provides, advertises or holds himself out in any way as providing that business, whether or not he possesses or owns property or money derived from sources other than the lending of money, and whether or not he carries on the business as a principal or as an agent. Only a company is eligible to be licensed as a moneylender by the Commission. However, the bodies listed in the Fifth Schedule of the FSA 2007 are exempted from such licence.
The FSA 2007 has been amended to provide more flexibility to companies to file their annual financial statements during an emergency period. ‘Emergency period’ is defined as:
- a period of public emergency (as referred to in Chapter II of the Constitution);
- a period during which a curfew order or similar restriction is placed on the movement of persons; or
- a period where Mauritius has been affected by a natural disaster.
Furthermore, any person or any class of persons required to file its annual financial statements may be exempted if the Commission is of the opinion that it would not be practicable for that person or class of persons to comply with this obligation.
Amendments to the Limited Partnerships Act
The existing provisions on beneficial owners under the Limited Partnerships Act have been supplemented so as to promote transparency in relation to the ownership in a company. Practice direction (GN No. 544 of 2020) on disclosure of beneficial owner or ultimate beneficial owner to the Registrar of Limited Partnerships (Registrar) has been also been enacted to assist stakeholder s to have a better understanding. The practice direction emphasises the need for LPs to disclose the beneficial ownership, such that:
- every LP must keep the name of the beneficial owner or ultimate beneficial owner in its register;
- the Corporate and Business Registration Department (CBRD) should be informed of any change in the beneficial owner, which is required to be filed at the counter of the CBRD, within 14 days of any entry or alteration made to the register;
- the LP shall keep such record for seven years from any entry or amendment made to the register;
- record of the existing beneficial owner(s) prior to coming into operation of section 39 of the Limited Partnerships Act must be communicated to the CBRD as soon as possible; and record of the existing beneficial owner(s) must be communicated to the CBRD at any time prior to or upon filing of the next annual return.
For the sake of completeness, ‘beneficial or ultimate beneficial owner’, for the purposes of the above practice direction, means a natural person who holds by himself or his nominee a contribution or interest in a contribution that entitles him to exercise not less than 20% of the aggregate voting power in a meeting of partners or who exercises overall control over the LP. Failure to comply with the provisions in the practice direction is an offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine of up to MUR 200,000.
Amendments to the Limited Liability Partnerships Act
The amendments to the present regulatory framework seek to standardise the concept of ‘beneficial owner or ultimate beneficial owner’. Practice direction (GN No. 543 of 2020) on disclosure of beneficial owner or ultimate beneficial owner to the Registrar imposes the following obligations on LLPs:
- every LLP must keep record of the names of the beneficial owner or ultimate beneficial owner in its register;
- the CBRD should be informed of any change in the beneficial owner. This information is required to be filed at the counter of the CBRD within 14 days of any entry or alteration made to the register;
- the LLP shall keep such record for seven years from any entry or amendment made to the register;
- record of the existing beneficial owner prior to coming into operation of section 41A of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act must be communicated to the CBRD as soon as possible; and
- for the above purpose, beneficial or ultimate beneficial owner means a natural person who holds by himself or his nominee a contribution or interest in a contribution that entitles him to exercise not less than 20% of the aggregate voting power in a meeting of the partners or who exercises overall control over the LLP.
Failure to comply with the above provisions amounts to an offence and the LLP would be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding MUR 200,000.
Other related developments
Anti-money laundering: The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was enacted on 9 July 2020 to supplement existing laws such as the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Regulations 2018 and the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act (FlAMLA).
The FIAMLA has been amended to impose an obligation on the reporting person or an auditor, where he becomes aware or ought reasonably to have become aware of a suspicious transaction, to make a report to the Financial Intelligence Unit within five working days after the suspicion arose.
Fintech: The Commission has issued guidance notes on Security Token Offerings (STOs) and Security Token Trading Systems (STTS) to provide for the implementation of a common set of standards for STOs and the licensing of STTS. Security Tokens are defined as securities as defined under the Securities Act (that is, shares or stocks, debentures or debenture stocks, rights warrants in respect of shares or debentures) in digital format. Security Tokens are defined as constituting:
- a share, where it confers or represents ownership or economic rights of the holder of the Security Token in a corporation;
- a debenture, where it constitutes or evidences the indebtedness of the issuer of the Security Token in respect of any money lent to the issuer by a holder of the Security Token;
- a derivative, whether on securities or commodities; or
- a unit in a CIS, where it represents a right or interest in a CIS including an option to acquire a right or interest in a ClS.
The STO, which is the issue of Security Tokens, is an effective method of raising funds from investors, in exchange for the ownership or economic rights in relation to assets.
The following entities may issue Security Tokens:
- Entities registered as Reporting Issuers, defined under section 86(1) of the Securities Act as an issuer:
- who, by way of a prospectus, has made an offer of securities either before or after the commencement of the Securities Act;
- who has made a takeover offer by way of an exchange of securities or similar procedure;
- whose securities are listed on a securities exchange in Mauritius; or who has not less than 100 shareholders.
2. CIS authorised as Expert Funds or Professional Collective Investment Schemes.
3. Any other such issuer as may be deemed appropriate by the Commission.
It should be noted that issuers of Security Tokens that are registered as Reporting Issuers will be required to comply with the disclosure requirements that are provided under the Securities Act and the Securities (Disclosure Obligations of Reporting Issuers) Rules 2007. Additionally, offers of Security Tokens will be subject to the same regulatory regime of offers of securities as provided under the Securities Act.
The STTS are trading systems that are designed to allow for the trading of Security Tokens. They differ from traditional securities exchanges inasmuch as they do not require clearing and settlement facilities. They are usually pre-funded, allowing transactions to be cleared automatically on the systems. Hence, they may be directly accessed by clients to execute their trade without the requirement for a third-party intermediary to place the orders on their behalf. The Commission shall license the STTS. Hence, any person wishing to establish and operate a system for the trading of Security Tokens in Mauritius shall apply for a Trading Securities System licence, subject to the requirements in the guidance notes.
Financial Crimes Division of the Intermediate Court: The Courts Act 1945 has been amended to introduce a Financial Crimes Division of the Intermediate Court, which came into force on 5 September 2020. This division shall have the jurisdiction to hear and determine a financial crime offence. A financial crime offence means an offence committed under the statutes specified in the Sixth Schedule of the Courts Act 1945 and includes any other offence that is connected or ancillary to an offence committed under the statutes. Among the various specified statutes are the Companies Act, the FIAMLA, the FSA 007, the PCC Act, the Trusts Act 2001 and the Securities Act.
Fitness and propriety: The Commission has revised the guidelines on fitness and propriety, which were initially issued on 5 March 2003. Its provisions should be read in conjunction with the provisions of relevant leg isolation and/or directions that may be issued by the Commission. The guidelines clarify the criteria to be taken into consideration by the Commission in assessing the ‘fitness and propriety’ of an applicant/licensee. The guidelines are applicable to the following non-exhaustive list of persons:
- all the share holders of the applicant and/or licensee;
- any beneficial owner of the applicant and/or licensee;
- any controller of the applicant and/or licensee;
- any director of the applicant and/or licensee;
- any officer of the applicant and/or licensee;
- any incumbent officer such as the Money Laundering Reporting Officer, the Deputy Money Laundering Reporting Officer and the Compliance Officer;
- any representative or agents of the applicant and/or licensee;
- trustees and management committees of occupational pension plans;
- external and outsourced auditors of regulated entities;
- the principal representative of a foreign financial institution that is conducting insurance business or business of a financial nature; and
- an insurance agent, broker and sales representative and any such person as may be determined by the Commission.
The criteria for assessment of ‘fit and proper’ are as follows:
- honesty, integrity, diligence, fairness, reputation and good character;
- competence and capability; and
- financial soundness.
In introducing these revised guidelines, the Commission seeks not only to establish an international benchmark for licensing and for ongoing regulation of licensees and/or applicants, but also to, inter alia, protect the interests of investors by deterring dishonest, incompetent, unskilled or otherwise inappropriate operators in Mauritius and to encourage high standards of conduct within the financial markets of Mauritius. It is to be noted that the FSA empowers the Commission to reassess the fitness and propriety of any licensee and to accordingly take measures based on the assessment, should the need so arise.
The year ahead
As 2020 is coming to a close, the generally steady growth in the global fund finance market continues, with investors continuing to reap the benefits of hefty distributions at record rates, and Mauritius further enhancing itself as a fund domicile as well as a preferred jurisdiction for setting up global funds targeting investment opportunities in India and Africa.
Mauritius has indeed proved itself to be a highly responsive jurisdiction to evolving market demands, and the results are a more efficient and user-friendly company product that offers flexibility in structuring, and certainty when engaging in transactions requiring securing company assets in the global funds market. The effectiveness of Mauritius ‘anti-money laundering defences has been endorsed by the country’s FSA, while International Monetary Fund and FATF assessments point to clear evidence of action, such as enforcement.
Its quick implementation of a series of innovative changes to existing legislation has ensured that Mauritius will remain one of the premier locations in which to do business. These changes to the legislation encourage the highest standards of conduct without stifling the innovation of investors, and further enable them to compete on a global platform. We remain cautiously optimistic for a robust fund finance market in 2021 – and we further expect the number of facilities consummated to continue to grow at a solid clip as fundraising improves and the product further penetrates the private equity market, and a greater number of existing facilities get refinanced.
For the original chapter in GLI – Fund Finance 2021 please visit: https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/fund-finance-laws-and-regulations/mauritius
1 Page 43 of the Annual Report 2017/18 of the Commission:
2 FSC Newsletter – June to August 2020: https://eservices.rnu/t/ViewEmail/j/0F84B5B73DBE327C2540EF23f30FEDED/B66A08BE9AB52D9EFE6l94DE962A274B
and FSC Newsletter – March to May 2020: