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).

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:

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.

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.

This brief alert is a follow-up to our previous article published on 1 February 2017, on the SCA judgment and is aimed at reporting on the Constitutional Court judgment.

The Policy

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”.

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:

The Gauteng Division of the High Court recently delivered a judgment in the matter of The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Logikal Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Others, Case No. 96768/2016, in which the court had to interpret, among other things, what comprises a “class” of creditors as contemplated in s155(2) of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008.

Following on from our previous tax alerts regarding the various proposed amendments pursuant to the draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, 2018 (draft TLAB) published for public comment on 17 July 2018, we discuss in this Tax Alert another significant proposed legislative amendment, specifically related to the allowance for doubtful debts set out in s11(j) of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act). 

What is the “fatal flaw” in our law? The Insolvency Act, 1936 (Insolvency Act) has always made provision for the holder of a pledge and cession in security over “marketable securities” (Secured Party), upon the insolvency of the security provider (Security Provider), to immediately realise those marketable securities through or to a stockbroker on a recognised stock exchange. However, in terms of s83(10) of the Insolvency Act (as it currently stands), once the pledged securities have been so realised they must be paid over to the liquidator.