Section 154 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act) provides that a business rescue plan (BR plan) may provide that a creditor, who has acceded to the discharge of the whole or part of a debt owing to that creditor, will lose the right to enforce the debt or part of it. Furthermore, if a BR plan has been approved and implemented, a creditor is not entitled to enforce any debt owed by the company immediately before the beginning of the business rescue process, except to the extent provided for in the BR plan.

The legal principles relating to execution against movable property are more or less settled, less so the law relating to execution against immovable property. This is mainly because the right to housing is enshrined in s26 of the Constitution and the issue of land has become somewhat emotive and politicised in the recent past.

The judicial managers of offshore oil and gas group Swiber have announced a restructuring plan for the company – which includes handing over shares to its professional services providers in part-payment of fees.

Judicial managers Bob Yap Cheng Ghee, Ong Pang Thye and Tay Puay Cheng of KPMG published the plan on 7 May, urging creditors to vote in favour to avoid Swiber’s liquidation.

Hong Kong’s restructuring scene is one of the most cross-border in the world, with three-quarters of its listed companies incorporated offshore and most restructurings having a mainland China connection. But the territory still lacks a statutory regime for cross-border recognition – as recently brought into focus in the restructuring of Singaporean engineering company CW Group. What does this mean for international insolvencies in the region?

In many, if not all, commercial transactions, timing is everything, either for a distressed seller or a purchaser stumbling upon a deal that may almost be too good to be true. There is often no time to waste and a deal must be closed as soon as possible. In the haste of closing a deal, whether in the form of a sale of business or a sale of assets, the parties often agree not to comply with the provisions of s34(1) of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936 (Act), each willing to take the risk in not doing so.

Section 34(1) of the Act provides that:

It is trite that the purpose of business rescue proceedings is to rehabilitate companies that have fallen on hard times, with a hope of either rescuing them or to provide a better return to creditors than what they would receive on a liquidation. This was reiterated in the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment of Van Staden and Others NNO v Pro-Wiz (Pty) Ltd (412/2018) [2019] ZASCA 7 (8 March 2019).

EY's Hunter Kelly and Alan Hudson have been appointed administrators over UK construction services company Interserve, hours after it failed to secure shareholder approval for a restructuring plan.  

Kelly and Hudson were appointed over Interserve Plc, the holding company for the Interserve Group, on 15 March after the plan failed to win approval at a shareholders' general meeting earlier the same day. 

The Bill aims to amend, among others, the Insolvency Act, 1936 (Insolvency Act) to provide that secured creditors holding property pledged as security for the obligations of a South African party arising under a “master agreement” may:

Singapore’s new restrictions on ipso facto clauses are welcome news to the local restructuring community, and a strong step towards establishing it as one of the region’s premier restructuring hubs. But how will these restrictions affect innocent counterparties and existing commercial contracts, ask partner Guan Feng Chen and associate Jonathan Tang at Morgan Lewis Stamford?

New restrictions on ipso facto clauses

We identify and explain four of the court’s key findings below:

1. “In all matters where execution is sought against a primary residence, the entire claim, including the monetary judgment, must be adjudicated at the same time”.