Employees who sue their employers must disclose that lawsuit if they file for bankruptcy—right? Maybe not. In Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Eleventh Circuit overruled prior precedent and impaired a valuable defense for early dismissal or settlement with bankrupt plaintiffs. This decision will affect strategy for employers that face litigation from bankrupt plaintiffs.
Legal Background
On July 19 2017, the National Treasury published the Draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 2017. The bill proposes to clarify the tax implications that arise when a person assumes contingent liabilities under the corporate reorganisation rules contained in Sections 41 to 47 of the Income Tax Act (58/1962).
A Melomed Finance (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Harris Jeffrey (SGHC Case no: 2016/A5028) (Judgment handed down 23 June 2017)
The South Gauteng High Court, sitting as a court of appeal, recently handed down a judgment to the effect that a verbal acknowledgement of debt when made at an enquiry held into the affairs of a company, in terms of s417 and s418 of the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973 (s417 enquiry), can be used as evidence in subsequent civil litigation to recover the amount so acknowledged.
Some bankruptcy experts predict an increase in business failures for government contractors in the coming years. Increased demands and constraints on government spending will stress both prime contractors and subcontractors. As federal regulations generally place the burden of compliance on prime contractors, a financially distressed subcontractor is a concern not only for the sub, but also for the prime contractor.
A sub’s financial problems jeopardize the sub’s ability to perform its subcontract and, thus, pose serious threats to a prime contractor, including:
Since 1956, legislation has required suretyship agreements to be embodied in a written document. A suretyship agreement involves three parties; simplistically if A does not pay B, then C will. C will step into the shoes of A and perform A’s obligations for them.
The introduction of business rescue proceedings by Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act) created uncertainty on various levels, in particular the extent and nature of certain rights previously enjoyed by creditors.
Our courts are making progress in finding a path through the muddy waters in this regard and every day a judgment is delivered that sheds some light on previous uncertain propositions.
In the case of First Rand Bank Limited v KJ Foods CC (in business rescue) (734/2015) [2015] ZA SCA 50 (26 April 2017), the main issue that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had to determine was whether the High Court of Pretoria (Court a quo) was correct in setting aside a vote by the appellant, FirstRand Bank Limited (FNB), against the adoption of a business rescue plan (plan) on the basis that it was reasonable and just to do so in terms of s153(7) of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act).
BUSINESS RESCUE, RESTRUCTURING AND INSOLVENCY: THE COURT’S POWER TO SET ASIDE THE DISSENTING VOTE OF A CREDITOR IN BUSINESS RESCUE PROCEEDINGS If satisfied that it is reasonable and just to do so, a court may set aside a dissenting vote on a business rescue plan. In Collard v Jatara Connect (Pty) Ltd & Others [2017] ZAWCHC 45, the court did exactly that. Explaining his decision, Judge Dlodlo stated that there should be no reason to prefer a winding up application over a business rescue plan that will pay the employees of the company in full and result in a better return for creditors.
After several years of drafting, debate, compromise and fine tuning, it appears that major changes to the administration of consumer bankruptcy cases are imminent. On April 27, 2017, Chief Justice John Roberts submitted to Congress amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that will have a profound impact on consumer bankruptcy cases.
“Whenever any person (hereinafter called the insurer) is obliged to indemnify another person (hereinafter called the insured) in respect of any liability incurred by the insured towards a third party, the latter shall, on the sequestration of the estate of the insured, be entitled to recover from the insurer the amount of the insured’s liability towards the third party but not exceeding the maximum amount for which the insurer has bound himself to indemnify the insured” – s156 of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936 as amended (Act).