This brief alert is a follow-up to our previous article published on 1 February 2017, on the SCA judgment and is aimed at reporting on the Constitutional Court judgment.

The Policy

Following on from our previous tax alerts regarding the various proposed amendments pursuant to the draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, 2018 (draft TLAB) published for public comment on 17 July 2018, we discuss in this Tax Alert another significant proposed legislative amendment, specifically related to the allowance for doubtful debts set out in s11(j) of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act). 

The global M&A market has remained strong from the end of 2017 into 2018, with the total deals announced in the first half of 2018 making it the best period for global M&A yet. With stockholders pressuring larger companies to grow their revenues and the strong liquidity position of many companies, it is a sellers’ market.

A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision provides insight into “bad faith” claims-buying activity; specifically whether a creditor’s purchase of claims for the express purpose of blocking plan confirmation is permissible. In In re Fagerdala USA-Lompoc, Inc., the Court found it was—the secured creditor did not act in bad faith when it purchased a subset of all general unsecured claims and voted those claims against confirmation because it was acting to further its own economic interest as a creditor, without some extrinsic ulterior motive.

It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?

The Gauteng Division of the High Court recently delivered a judgment in the matter of The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Logikal Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Others, Case No. 96768/2016, in which the court had to interpret, among other things, what comprises a “class” of creditors as contemplated in s155(2) of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008.

The Supreme Court of Appeal provided clarity in Diener N.O. v Minister of Justice & Others (926/2016) regarding the ranking of the business rescue practitioner’s (BRP) claim for remuneration and expenses. The SCA also clarified whether such claim was conferred a “super preference” over all creditors, secured and unsecured in subsequent liquidation proceedings.

The Supreme Court recently addressed two bankruptcy issues. In its opinion, the Court resolved a circuit split regarding the breadth of the safe harbor provision which protects certain transfers by financial institutions in connection with a securities contract. In Village at Lakeridge, the Court weighed in on the scope of appellate review and whether a bankruptcy court’s factual determination should be reviewed for clear error or de novo. These decisions are notable because they provide guidance on previously murky issues of bankruptcy law.

 A recent development in the ever-evolving jurisprudence associated with business rescue proceedings relates to the remuneration of the business rescue practitioner in the event that a business rescue fails. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Diener N.O. v Minister of Justice (926/2016) [2017] ZASCA 180 has recently confirmed that the practitioner’s fees do not hold a ‘super preference’ in a liquidation scenario and the practitioner is required to prove a claim against the insolvent estate like all other creditors.

A recent development in the ever-evolving jurisprudence associated with business rescue proceedings relates to the remuneration of the business rescue practitioner in the event that a business rescue fails. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Diener N.O. v Minister of Justice (926/2016) [2017] ZASCA 180 has recently confirmed that the practitioner’s fees do not hold a ‘super preference’ in a liquidation scenario and the practitioner is required to prove a claim against the insolvent estate like all other creditors.