Since the inception of business rescue, misconduct by business rescue practitioners (BRPs) has been one of the biggest causes of complaint (and headaches) by creditors. More and more disgruntled creditors and other affected persons are pursuing the removal of rogue BRPs of companies in business rescue.
In terms of section 139 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, a BRP may only be removed from office in terms of section 130, or as provided for in section 139. Furthermore, only the court is authorised to remove a BRP from office, both in terms of sections 130 and 139.
Section 44 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 governs the instances when a company may provide financial assistance for the purchase of the company's securities. (It is important to note that section 44(1) carves out the application of the entire section 44 for financial assistance given in the ordinary course of business by a company whose primary business is lending money.)
Section 133 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides for a general moratorium on legal proceedings against a company in business rescue.
I wrote an article published in the June issue of Without Prejudice in which this question was considered. I criticised the then binding judgment of Chetty t/a Nationwide Electrical v Hart NO and Another (12559/2012) [20141 ZAKZDHC 9 (25 March 2014), as it was held in that case that arbitration proceedings do not constitute legal proceedings for purposes of section 133 of the Act.
Judge Megarry in Re Rolls Razor Limited1, aptly describes the necessity of insolvency enquiries:
Can a creditor cancel an agreement with a company in business rescue and what is the consequence of a business rescue practitioner suspending an agreement before cancellation?
The lawfulness of cancelling a contract during business rescue
Section 134 of Act 71 of 2008 is extremely important because it is there to protect the interests of both the company in business rescue and the creditors and other third parties related to the company.
On 2 September 2014 the Constitutional Court heard an appeal against a final order of sequestration granted by the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape High Court) on 14 August 2013 sequestrating the joint estate of Mr Ivor Charles Stratford, the former chairman of the Pinnacle Point Group, and his wife Mrs Sheila Margaret Stratford (the Stratfords).
The advent of the new Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) brought with it a shift from a creditor-protectionist society towards a business rescue model that is debtor-protectionist. In consequence, there has been a swarm of applications taking advantage and exploiting this new scheme. This shift has unfortunately led to considerable abuse of the business rescue procedure.
Judge Andre van Niekerk handed down an interesting judgment in the High Court of South Africa (North Gauteng Division) on 30 September 2013. In my respectful opinion the judgment is insightful and is correct. The facts are fairly simple. Miles Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd (MPH) had a tax liability of R37 441 090.59 to the commissioner of the South African Revenue Services (SARS). SARS had levied a tax assessment in this amount on MPH, which included penalties and interest.
It is common practice to find directors of a company standing surety for the company in order to secure its debts. The consequence could be severe for the sureties, because if the company is unable to pay its debt, the creditor can take legal action against the directors or other third parties in their capacity as sureties, unless the company pays its debts and the sureties are released from liability.