The Coronavirus (COVID-19) has had a significant impact on businesses in Uganda and the world over, with governments having to enforce lockdown measures to contain the spread of the virus. In Uganda, statutory instruments were published by the Ministry of Health directing certain places of business to remain closed and prohibiting movement of public transport and private cars for approximately 56 days, leading to interruptions in business operations, a reduction in consumer demand and low cash flows to meet expenses and debts owed to creditors.
On 1 February 2019, the South African Minister of Finance published the Financial Matters Amendment Bill (the “Bill”) containing a long-awaited amendment to section 83 of the Insolvency Act, 1936.
On 8 April 2019, the South African Financial Sector Conduct Authority and Prudential Authority (collectively, the “Authorities”) published yet another draft of the Joint Standard on Margin Requirements for Non-Centrally Cleared OTC Derivatives (the “Margin Requirements”). The last draft had been published in August 2018.
The Fourth Schedule of the Insolvency Act is amended to amend priority in which preferential creditors have to be paid.
Under the Fourth Schedule of the Insolvency Act (the “IA”), unpaid wages and salaries, up to a maximum of Rs 50,000, must now be paid after the liquidator or Official Receiver has settled the cost of the liquidator under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph of the Fourth Schedule.
The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission reported that between 2011 and 2018, a total of 2 867 South African companies initiated business rescue proceedings in terms of Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, 2008 (the “Companies Act”), with South African Airways SOC Limited (“SAA”) being the latest addition to this list. The purpose of these proceedings is to provide distressed companies with a fresh start by creating the potential for them to be rescued, to avoid insolvency and to ultimately be wound-up.
It has been long-established by the classic fundamental principles of corporate law that companies are separate and distinct persons from their shareholders, directors and officers. From this flows the general principle that it is the company, and the company alone, that can be liable for its obligations. This holds even in cases of companies linked by direct and indirect share participation and which are, in their entirety, dominated by a parent company, often a mere holding company without any business activity. These are referred to in corporate jargon as “corporate groups”.
Since 1 January 2013, section 19 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (the “Act”) and paragraph 12A of the Eighth Schedule to the Act (the “Eighth Schedule”) have determined the tax implications where a debt owing by a taxpayer is cancelled, waived, forgiven or discharged for no consideration (or for consideration that is less than the amount of the debt).
The case of Uganda Telecom Limited v Ondama Sammuel t/a Alaka & Co (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2018) presented the Ugandan courts with an opportunity to test the provisions of the Insolvency Act, 2011 in the context of an ongoing company administration process. The case shows how the Ugandan legal system operates to protect a debtor under administration from legal proceedings by its creditors. Uganda Telecom Limited (“UTL”) has been under administration since May 2017.
Once legal proceedings relating to a debt have started, does the subsequent substitution of one of the parties affect the prescription period for the debt? This was the crux of the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) case of Sentrachem Limited v Terreblanche.
A substitution occurs when a party to legal proceedings is replaced by another party, with no effect on the cause of action.
The recent administration of heavily indebted Uganda Telecom Limited (“UTL”) aims to achieve the best outcome for creditors and shareholders. Below, we unpack the implications of the administration for UTL’s creditors and other stakeholders.