Remuneration of business rescue practitioners - the requirement to prove claims against the insolvent estate

 A recent development in the ever-evolving jurisprudence associated with business rescue proceedings relates to the remuneration of the business rescue practitioner in the event that a business rescue fails. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Diener N.O. v Minister of Justice (926/2016) [2017] ZASCA 180 has recently confirmed that the practitioner’s fees do not hold a ‘super preference’ in a liquidation scenario and the practitioner is required to prove a claim against the insolvent estate like all other creditors.

Filed under:
South Africa, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, Liquidation
Authors:
Timothy Baker , Siviwe Mcetywa
Location:
South Africa
Firm:
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr
Remuneration of business rescue practitioners - the requirement to prove claims against the insolvent estate

A recent development in the ever-evolving jurisprudence associated with business rescue proceedings relates to the remuneration of the business rescue practitioner in the event that a business rescue fails. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Diener N.O. v Minister of Justice (926/2016) [2017] ZASCA 180 has recently confirmed that the practitioner’s fees do not hold a ‘super preference’ in a liquidation scenario and the practitioner is required to prove a claim against the insolvent estate like all other creditors. 

Filed under:
South Africa, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, Liquidation, Unsecured creditor, South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
Authors:
Timothy Baker , Siviwe Mcetywa
Location:
South Africa
Firm:
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr