Even the taxman must stand in line with other Creditors before the Liquidator. This is according to the recent Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") decision of CSARS v Van der Merwe NO. This appellate case dealt with a dispute about whether or not certain provisions of the Customs and Excise Act created an embargo in favour of the Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services (“CSARS”), thus preventing a Liquidator from taking possession of goods in terms of the Insolvency Act until all duty and VAT is paid.

The Policy Framework Behind Section 34 of The Act

The policy of the law is to afford protection to a trader's creditors against his dispossessing himself of his property without paying his debt before the disposition or from the proceeds thereof. This framework policy is well set out in the case of Paterson vs Kelvin Park Properties CC (1998) 1AII SA 22 (E) where it was held:-

On 1 September 2016, Hanjin Shipping Co Limited ('Hanjin') successfully applied for and obtained an order whereby it was placed under rehabilitation. Such an order was obtained within 24 hours of the company making application to the Korean courts, without notice or input from other interested parties, most notably Hanjin's creditors.

Business rescue was introduced by the 2008 Companies Act and commenced in 2011. It provides for a regulated process in terms of which a company in financial distress is allowed the opportunity of engaging with its stakeholders and creditors to find a solution, which generally would result in the recue or restructuring of its financial affairs.

Can an application for business rescue be brought even after a company has been placed in final liquidation?  The short answer, thanks to a recent Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") decision, is yes.

In Richter v Absa Bank Limited 2015, an interpretation of 'liquidation proceedings' within the context ofsection 131(6) of the Companies Act, 71 of 2008 ("the Act"), was central to the issue before the SCA.  

Section 131(6) of the Act reads as follows:

The Policy Framework Behind Section 34 of the Insolvency Act 2 Of 1936 ("the Act")

The policy of this section of the Act is to afford protection to a trader's creditors against his dispossessing himself of his property without paying his debt before the disposition or from the proceeds thereof.  This framework policy is well set out in the case of Paterson vs Kelvin Park Properties CC 1998:

On 8 July 2015, the Western Cape High Court, in the matter of University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic and Others v Minister of Justice And Correctional Services and Others, found section 65J(2)(b)(i) and section 65J(2)(b)(ii) of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1994 (“MCA”) inconsistent with the constitution and invalid to the extent that they fail to provide for juducial oversight over the issuing of an emolument attachment orders (“EOA”) /garnishee order against a judgement debtor.  This decision has serious i

In terms of Section 153 (1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act, a creditor who votes against the adoption of a business rescue plan runs the risk of having their claim purchased by another party at a value of what the creditor would have received on liquidation of the company.  In the terms of the bankruptcy laws of the United States of America this procedure is referred to as a "cram down" which is imposed on creditors in business rescue situations.