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.

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. 

The Supreme Court of Appeal provided clarity in Diener N.O. v Minister of Justice & Others (926/2016) regarding the ranking of the business rescue practitioner’s (BRP) claim for remuneration and expenses. The SCA also clarified whether such claim was conferred a “super preference” over all creditors, secured and unsecured in subsequent liquidation proceedings.

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.

In Ex Parte Nell and Others NO 2014 (6) SA 545 (GP) (28 July 2014), the board of a company passed a resolution placing it in business rescue in accordance with s129 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Companies Act). In terms of this section, a financially distressed company may, without any prior judicial oversight or consultation with its creditors, achieve a general moratorium against legal proceedings.

Dead Horses

When is a dead horse really a dead horse? Given that ‘insolvency’ opens the door to various procedures for creditors and others, it should (in theory) be fairly easy to define. In practice, however, it is not.

Certain debtors have become masters of delay and indeed professional insolvents, leaving creditors and failed businesses in their wake. 

The legal moratorium is a protective mechanism inherent in business rescue proceedings. Another safety net available to debtors is the possibility of rehabilitation of insolvent estates. Debtors use these and other methods to take advantage of the system and their creditors, delaying the winding up process and impeding creditors’ recovery.

The creditors of a company in financial distress are often faced with various options. A debtor company can either be liquidated, placed in business rescue or enter into a compromise with its creditors without first being placed in liquidation. Although an offer of compromise, at first glance, may seem very attractive to creditors, there may be many pitfalls of which creditors must be aware.

“Whenever any person (hereinafter called the insurer) is obliged to indemnify another person (hereinafter called the insured) in respect of any liability incurred by the insured towards a third party, the latter shall, on the sequestration of the estate of the insured, be entitled to recover from the insurer the amount of the insured’s liability towards the third party but not exceeding the maximum amount for which the insurer has bound himself to indemnify the insured” – s156 of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936 as amended (Act).

BUSINESS RESCUE, RESTRUCTURING AND INSOLVENCY: THE COURT’S POWER TO SET ASIDE THE DISSENTING VOTE OF A CREDITOR IN BUSINESS RESCUE PROCEEDINGS If satisfied that it is reasonable and just to do so, a court may set aside a dissenting vote on a business rescue plan. In Collard v Jatara Connect (Pty) Ltd & Others [2017] ZAWCHC 45, the court did exactly that. Explaining his decision, Judge Dlodlo stated that there should be no reason to prefer a winding up application over a business rescue plan that will pay the employees of the company in full and result in a better return for creditors.