The national lockdown in South Africa has left many companies financially distressed and unable to meet their contractual obligations. Looming on the landlord’s horizon may well be its approach to tenants who are placed under business rescue.

It is imperative that companies in financial distress prioritise their continued existence and consider business rescue as an alternative to liquidation. One of the major advantages of the business rescue process is the moratorium (stay) on legal proceedings which aims to give financially distressed companies sufficient breathing space to trade out of its insolvency. A temporary moratorium automatically comes into operation upon the filing of a resolution placing the company into business rescue or the issuing of an application for an order to this effect.

It is imperative that companies in financial distress prioritise their continued existence and consider business rescue as an alternative to liquidation. Business rescue is a robust procedure that allows South African companies in financial distress or trading in insolvent circumstances to file for business rescue and with the assistance of a business rescue practitioner, reorganise and restructure the business with the aim of returning it to a more stable and profitable entity.

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the South African economy with several enterprises struggling to remain profitable. Their continued operation remains threatened by the imposition of trade restrictions pursuant to the national lockdown and South Africa’s subsequent economic downgrade to junk status.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.

What happened?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.