The Sapin II Act of November 8 2016 amended the regime governing directors' liability in an insolvency scenario in order to encourage the recovery of honest directors of failed businesses.
“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).
In the case of BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Intertrans Earl SA (Pty) Ltd & Others (34716/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 310 (25 November 2016), the court had to consider two important issues: firstly, whether suspension of a contract by the business rescue practitioner in terms of s136(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Companies Act, No 1971 of 2008 (Act) suspends not only the obligations of the business rescue practitioner to perform in terms of the contract entered into between the parties, but whether it also suspends the obligations of the other contracting parties.
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.
In november 2016 is door de Hoge Raad bevestigd dat de vernietiging van een faillissement geen effect heeft op door een curator voordien verrichte beschikkingshandelingen. De curator kan rechtshandelingen verrichten tot het moment waarop de vernietiging in kracht van gewijsde is gegaan. Wel dient de curator terughoudend gebruik te maken van zijn bevoegdheden gedurende de periode waarin een vonnis tot faillietverklaring is vernietigd, maar deze vernietiging nog niet onherroepelijk is geworden.
Juridisch kader
De kwaliteit van de debiteurenportefeuille is van belang voor de beoordeling van de vraag of een tussentijds dividendbesluit door de beugel kan. Dat blijkt uit een uitspraak van de Hoge Raad d.d. 23 september 2016.
Hierna volgt een korte bespreking van een arrest dat met name van belang is voor de praktijk. Een praktijk waarin curatoren steeds vaker geconfronteerd worden met ICT-leveranciers die zich opstellen als dwangcrediteuren (ik roep Oilily in herinnering), maar niet onder de reikwijdte van artikl 37b Fw vallen.
The latest piece in the jigsaw of Hong Kong's corporate winding-up regime is the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 ("Amendment Ordinance"), which enters into legal effect as of today, 13 February 2017.
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).