(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2016)

(N.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2016)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 16, 2016)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 16, 2016)

It is now generally accepted that the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act) is an overhaul of our corporate law landscape. This shift is even more evident with the introduction of a new business rescue regime and along with it, the general moratorium on legal proceedings against a company in business rescue.

Section 133 of the Act provides that no legal proceedings including enforcement action may commence or continue against a company undergoing business rescue, save where amongst other exceptions, consent is granted by the court or obtained from the business rescue practitioner.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 12, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to terminate the automatic stay. The creditor and the debtor entered into a sale contract prepetition for sale of the debtor’s real property. The debtor argued that the sale contract terminated prepetition, and the creditor argued that it should be permitted to pursue its claims on the contract in state court. The court finds that the debtor has no equity in the property and that it is not necessary to an effective reorganization. Thus, stay relief is appropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 1, 2016)

The bankruptcy court addresses the issue of whether the debtor’s prepetition claim for a surcharge before the Public Service Commission is property of the estate. The pre-petition receiver for the debtor argued that it was not, because the debtor abandoned its assets prepetition in the PSC action. The court disagrees, finding that legal title was not severed in the prepetition proceedings, and thus the bankruptcy trustee has control and authority over the surcharge claim. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Prescription is one word which every creditor (and attorney) dread. Prescription extinguishes a debt and there is very little a creditor can do once that proverbial ship has sailed.

The Prescription Act, No 68 of 1969 (Prescription Act), on a good day, has its challenges, but the situation is even more uncertain when an insolvent estate is concerned.

Rogers J, with Nuku J concurring, in the recent judgment of Van Deventer and Another v Nedbank Ltd 2016 (3) SA 622 (WCC) shed some very needed light on this issue.

(7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016)

In Hattingh v Roux NO & Others 2011 (3) SA 135 (WCC), the plaintiff, Hattingh, sought to show that the defendant, Roux junior, intentionally and unlawfully injured Hattingh by executing an illegal and highly dangerous manoeuvre during a scrum in an Under 19 rugby match between two Western Cape high school teams.

Among other issues considered by the court was the delictual ground of intent: whether Roux junior, if he had in fact executed the manoeuvre which injured Hattingh, acted negligently or intentionally in doing so.