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.
For the benefit of our clients and friends investing in European distressed opportunities, our European Network is sharing some current developments.
Recent Developments
Recent Developments
Recent Developments
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.
Recent Developments
Recent Developments
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
For the benefit of our clients and friends investing in European distressed opportunities, our European Network is sharing some current developments.
Recent Developments
For the benefit of our clients and friends investing in European distressed opportunities, our European Network is sharing some current developments.
Recent Developments