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.

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.

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.

The case of Kythera Court v Le Rendez-Vous Café CC trading as Newscafé Bedfordview case number 2016/11853 GLDJ reiterated the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decision in Cloete Murray NO & another v Firstrand Bank Ltd T/A Wesbank 2015 (3) SA 438 (SCA) that an agreement can be cancelled during business rescue as the unilateral act of cancellation does not constitute enforcement action in terms of s133(1) of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 ( Act).

There is little doubt that even the most thought-out, meticulous and well-structured business rescue plan cannot succeed unless there is some degree of financial support in the form of post-commencement finance (PCF) available, to allow the business to sail through the choppy waters of financial distress.

The Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”) finally comes into force on 1 August 2016.

The 2010 Act makes it easier for a third party to bring a claim against an insurer when the insured party has become insolvent. The 2010 Act will replace the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”) and is designed to extend and improve the rights of third party claimants.

In Umso Construction (Pty) Ltd v Member of the Executive Council for Roads and Public Works Eastern Cape Province and Others ((20800/2014) [2016] ZASCA 61), the Supreme Court of Appeal considered the legal position where, following the award of a tender, it is discovered that the preferred bidder had been placed under business rescue during the bid evaluation process.

Policyholders contemplating insurance coverage settlements with low-level insurers should use caution to preserve their ability to access higher-level excess policies. Excess insurers are increasingly disputing that underlying policies are properly exhausted where policyholders elect to settle with underlying insurers for less than full limits. The issue can be further complicated if the policyholder seeks protection under the bankruptcy laws against long-tail liabilities, as a recent case illustrates.

Earlier this year, both the lower and upper houses of Malaysia’s parliament, passed the Companies Bill 2015 (“theBill”) which will harmonise Malaysia's insolvency laws and bring them more in line with modern international standards. Once the Bill comes into effect (it is currently awaiting Royal Assent), it will replace Malaysia’s existing Companies Act 1965.

In Roering & Another NNO v Mahlangu (581/2015) [2016] ZASCA 79 heard recently, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) considered the circumstances that might justify a witness under subpoena applying for enquiry proceedings to be set aside or for the witness to be excused from attending those proceedings.

The general rule is that a subpoenaed witness is compelled to attend, subject to procedural requirements being met, and the evidence sought being relevant to the insolvent company or entity.