Chances are those well-known eloquent lyrics have stirred up some patriotic spirit from somewhere deep within even the most sporting averse of us.

With the 2016 summer of sport fast upon us the effect of the Euros, Wimbledon and the Olympics could have a significant impact on the economy (and the nerves) of the nation.

In case you have just returned from Outer Space- the UK Government has announced that it is holding a referendum on 23 June 2016 on the question:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”

In the meantime, whilst the UK decides whether to Brexit or not, the EU Commission is taking a “business as usual” stance.

The UK’s EU Referendum on membership is looming on the horizon – What are the legal implications of a so-called “Brexit” for restructuring and insolvency professionals?

The EU Referendum Act 2015 obtained Royal Assent on 17 December 2015 and provides for the following question to be put forward for voting in a referendum in the UK until the end of 2017: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”

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.

Following on from our recent blog on ‘How the UK General Election Might Influence the Recast Insolvency Regulation’ and whether the UK will still be part of the EU in 2017 when it comes into force, we consider the ‘hokey cokey’ of the upcoming EU referendum.

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

The European Advocate General has today given his opinion in the “Woolworths case” (and two other cases) on the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when the duty to consult appropriate representatives is triggered under the European Collective Redundancies Directive (the Directive).

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.

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.

Section 153 (1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) is intended to afford a remedy to affected persons who support a business rescue plan that has been 

The section can be broken down into five key elements: