Nearly four years after its decision in Stern v. Marshall raised new doubts about the place of bankruptcy courts in our legal system, the Supreme Court has finally put those doubts to rest. This week, in Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935, the Court held that even for claims that must otherwise be resolved by an Article III court, a bankruptcy court may still adjudicate the matter based on consent.

On 20 May 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) delivered judgment in the matter of African Banking Corporation of Botswana v Kariba Furniture Manufacturers & others(228/2014) [2015] ZASCA 69, dealing, amongst other things, decisively with the proper interpretation of the words 'binding offer' as they appear in s153(1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act, 71 of 2008 (Act).

As parties to litigation, creditors often find themselves in a predicament where the individual they have a claim against has assets of insignificant value. The same individual may, however, be a trustee of a discretionary trust owning substantial assets. Faced with this difficulty, creditors are left with little choice but to ask a court to 'go behind the trust' in an attempt to find assets to execute judgment against.

In two recent cases decided in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), namely,Willow Waters Homeowners Association (Pty) Limited v KOKA NO and others [2015] JOL 32760 (SCA) and Cowin NO v Kyalami Estate Homeowners Association (499/2013) [2014] ZASCA 221, the SCA was asked to consider:

The in duplum rule is a common law rule that provides that arrear interest ceases to accrue once the sum of the unpaid (accrued) interest equals the amount of capital outstanding at the time (and not the amount of capital originally advanced). "In duplum" directly translates to "double the amount". 

Swiss Investigating Magistrate Entitled to U.S. Documents

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) published the ISDA 2014 Resolution StayProtocol (the “Protocol”) on November 12, 2014 in response to continued efforts by regulators to build additional flexibility into the statutory regimes that would apply in the event of the insolvency of a major financial institution.

Ever since the new business rescue regime, contained in Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 came into force in May 2011 there has been much anticipation as to how courts would treat sureties who had stood and provided security for the debts of a company (principal debtor) that subsequently went into business rescue and had a business rescue plan adopted: would such suretyships remain unaffected and enforceable?

Although a tenant's insolvency does not automatically terminate the lease or confer a right upon a landlord to cancel the lease, a landlord is not left without any remedies where a tenant is in breach of the lease before the tenant is wound-up.

A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Ellerine Brothers (Pty) Limited (Ellerine) v McCarthy Limited, clarified the legal position.

Crumbs Bake Shop Inc. shut down in July and filed for bankruptcy in New Jersey court that same month. The bankruptcy court ordered an auction sale, and a purchaser has come forward to buy all of the company’s assets.