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.

Since May 2002, we have had a regime which ensures that an insolvency proceeding started in one of the EU’s member states is, without further formality, recognised in all other member states (except for Denmark) and which determines the law applicable to such proceedings. That regime is provided for in the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings (1346/2000/EC) (the EIR).

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.

Annual Review of English Construction Law Developments May 2017 An international perspective CMS_LawTax_CMYK_28-100.eps Contents 3 Introduction 5 The interpretation of exclusion and limitation clauses: clarity restored 9 Good faith in the exercise of termination rights 13 Concurrent delay: recent developments and continued uncertainty 19 Contractual warranties and representations: telling the difference 23 On demand securities: the fraud exception in cases of legal uncertainty 31 On-demand securities: compliance with formalities and the doctrine of strict performance 37 Indirect and consequ

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).

Court refuses application for pre-action disclosure of insurance policy

The High Court has refused an application for pre-action disclosure of the public liability insurance policy of a company that, if litigation were pursued against it, was likely to become insolvent.

Background

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.

A draft bill on amendment to the Bankruptcy Code (Act XLIX of 1991 on bankruptcy proceedings and liquidation proceedings) was introduced into the Parliament on 12 April 2017 and is currently under review. If the draft bill was approved and published, the new rules would be applicable to the new liquidation proceedings and to new management liability related lawsuits. Lawmakers would grant a 2-month period to prepare for the changes.

Key areas for change are:

1. Fiduciary security interests would be elevated to the same level as pledge-type security

The recent Amendment on the Czech Insolvency Act (the “Amendment”) enters into force on 1 July 2017.

The Amendment states that a creditor is entitled to be satisfied from its security even when its contingent or future claim (such as bank guarantee) becomes actual after the start of the security provider’s insolvency.

The new Amendment on the Czech Insolvency Act (the “Amendment”) will enter into force on 1 July 2017.

The Amendment introduces a “liquidity gap” test, which will be used when a debtor (entrepreneur) needs to determine whether it is considered insolvent or not. The liquidity gap is the difference between a debtor’s due debts and its readily available funds. A debtor will only be considered insolvent if the liquidity gap is higher than 10% of its overdue debts.