“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.

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.

In the case of First Rand Bank Limited v KJ Foods CC (in business rescue) (734/2015) [2015] ZA SCA 50 (26 April 2017), the main issue that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had to determine was whether the High Court of Pretoria (Court a quo) was correct in setting aside a vote by the appellant, FirstRand Bank Limited (FNB), against the adoption of a business rescue plan (plan) on the basis that it was reasonable and just to do so in terms of s153(7) of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act).

The introduction of business rescue proceedings by Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act) created uncertainty on various levels, in particular the extent and nature of certain rights previously enjoyed by creditors.

Our courts are making progress in finding a path through the muddy waters in this regard and every day a judgment is delivered that sheds some light on previous uncertain propositions.

Since 1956, legislation has required suretyship agreements to be embodied in a written document. A suretyship agreement involves three parties; simplistically if A does not pay B, then C will. C will step into the shoes of A and perform A’s obligations for them.

Sometimes different bits of legislation are, on the face of it, in conflict with each other. This is specially so when new law is introduced. The impact of new law on old law sets up contradictions, which the courts have to sort out. An interesting recent example arose in the context of business rescue.

The issue in this case was whether a payment of R389 593.49 by Ditona – a company being wound-up – to another company Eravin, was recoverable by Ditona’s liquidators as a void disposition or unrecoverable because, it was a pre-business rescue debt, which may not be enforced.

Overview

The central question in the case of Re Opti-Medix Ltd (in liquidation) and another matter [2016] SGHC 108 (Opti-Medix) was whether insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction other than the place of incorporation could be recognised by the Singapore court.

Ex parte applications were made for (a) the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and (b) the appointment of a foreign bankruptcy trustee, in respect of two companies (the Companies).

Background facts

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.

It has already been five years since the South African legislature introduced business rescue, a corporate restructuring procedure, which given the current economic climate is a concept that most corporates should now be familiar with. Despite its progressive intentions and increasing popularity, business rescue is often abused, usually by directors and stakeholders who have in-depth knowledge of the affairs of the company, the causes and consequences of the financial demise of the company, and who are often the initiators of the process.