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.

This case¹ concerned a challenge to a High Court judgment which was entered against Mr Hanley for failure to repay monies borrowed pursuant to a loan agreement. Mr Hanley asserted that he had never received a letter of demand for repayment of the loan monies borrowed. The Court noted that the notice of demand went, in error, to another Mr Hanley that had no connection to the Defendant.

In the recent case of Constantia Insurance Company Limited v Master of the High Court, Johannesburg (23968/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 121 the High Court considered whether the provisions of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936 (Act) permit the Master to consider liquidators’ additional submissions in response to a creditor’s substantiation of its claim.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Swart v Starbuck & Others 2016 ZASCA 83, reaffirmed the necessary authorisation for a trustee of an insolvent estate to sell an insolvent estate’s immovable property.

Mr Swart’s estate was finally sequestrated on 1 November 2005. On 24 January 2006, three provisional trustees were appointed by the Master of the High Court. At the time of Mr Swart’s provisional sequestration, he owned certain immovable properties (Properties).

In Leahy v Doyle & anor [2016] IEHC 177, the High Court issued orders of restriction in respect of directors of two companies (Gingersnap and Scappa), under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014). While the companies were different, the liquidator and the directors were the same.

Background 

In McAteer & anor v McBrien & ors [2016] IEHC 229, the High Court made an order restricting three directors pursuant to Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014).  The first named respondent (A) was the husband of the second named respondent (B) and father of the third named respondent (C) and all were directors of the Company on the date of the liquidation.

Background

Facility agreements ordinarily oblige a borrower to prepay the facility on the occurrence of certain events, including, if a borrower receives insurance proceeds or asset sale proceeds during the loan term. The rationale for this is that lenders wish to use this unexpected windfall to mitigate the risk of non-payment. This is also the approach of the Loan Market Association (LMA) in its standard facility agreements.

Employment contracts were previously deemed to be suspended on the date of liquidation, being the date that the application for liquidation of the company is presented and issued at court in terms of s348 of the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973 (Old Companies Act). However, this position has since changed.

The High Court (Binchy J), has recently made restriction orders in respect of directors in two separate applications before it.

Section 133 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 places a general moratorium on legal proceedings, while the company is under business rescue. This provides a company with time and resources to be rehabilitated through the implementation of a business rescue plan. As a result, there is some debate as to whether creditors are precluded from perfecting their security, such as a notarial bond, under business rescue.