The creditors of a company in financial distress are often faced with various options. A debtor company can either be liquidated, placed in business rescue or enter into a compromise with its creditors without first being placed in liquidation. Although an offer of compromise, at first glance, may seem very attractive to creditors, there may be many pitfalls of which creditors must be aware.
Creditors face daily uphill battles when trying to collect money from debtors. Not only has the National Credit Act, No 34 of 2005 made it more onerous on creditors to recover debts due to them, but creditors must constantly be aware of the threat of a claim prescribing.
The Prescription Act, No 68 of 1969 (Act) provides that a debt is extinguished by prescription after the period set out in the Act.
Original news
Mikki v Duncan [2016] EWCA Civ 1312, [2017] All ER (D) 157 (Feb)
To start, let me introduce some familiar characters. First, an impecunious claimant who has the benefit of after the event (ATE) insurance, but the disadvantage of an incompetent solicitor. Second, a successful defendant with the benefit of a costs order and a final costs certificate, but the disadvantage of a slippery ATE insurer who has avoided the claimant’s ATE policy because of failures by the aforesaid incompetent solicitor. Different ways around this problem have been tried, and generally failed.
In Freshvest Investments (Pty) Ltd v Marabeng (Pty) Ltd (1030/2015) [2016] ZASCA 168, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was afforded the opportunity to pronounce on the so called Badenhorst rule which assumes its name from Badenhorst v Northern Construction Enterprises (Pty) Ltd 1956 (2) SA 346 (T).
Affirmative action measures were introduced in South Africa to reconcile the injustices of the past. Although policies have been implemented for the achievement of equality for persons previously disadvantaged, at what point do these policies unjustifiably infringe the rights of persons affected by them?
- On 29th September 2004 the Trustees of the Ashtead United Charity allocated Mrs Janet Watts accommodation in an almshouse, in fact one of 14 residential flats the Charity owned at Ashstead in Surrey. In May 2015 they issued proceedings for possession based on the allegations that Mrs Watts had acted in an anti-social manner, swearing, spitting, and aggression. This was a breach of the terms of the Appointments Letter under which she was allocated the property.
Facts
The appellant is a company trading in electrical goods which regularly supplied Edge Electrical Ltd ('Edge'). Their standard terms provided Edge with a short period of credit before payment was required.
Facts
Angove’s PTY Ltd (‘Angove’s’) is an Australian winemaker which for many years had employed D&D Wines International Ltd (‘D&D’) to distribute its products to retailers. In addition, D&D also purchased wine for itself direct from Angove’s. Their business relationship was governed by an Agency and Distribution Agreement (‘ADA’) entered in December 2011. Amongst its provisions, the ADA entitled the parties to terminate the agreement with immediate effect upon either becoming insolvent.