Once legal proceedings relating to a debt have started, does the subsequent substitution of one of the parties affect the prescription period for the debt? This was the crux of the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) case of Sentrachem Limited v Terreblanche.
A substitution occurs when a party to legal proceedings is replaced by another party, with no effect on the cause of action.
Ever since the Companies Act, 2008 came into force, the courts have been inundated with cases pertaining to the interplay between the moratorium established by business rescue, the creditors’ claims and the effect of the business rescue plan.
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.
It is common practice to find directors of a company standing surety for the company in order to secure its debts. The consequence could be severe for the sureties, because if the company is unable to pay its debt, the creditor can take legal action against the directors or other third parties in their capacity as sureties, unless the company pays its debts and the sureties are released from liability.
- In our business rescue training workshops prior to the implementation of the Companies Act, No. 71 of 2008, clients were advised that where the debt of a debtor is compromised in terms of a business rescue plan, the debt of the surety and co-principal debtor may be extinguished because of the accessory nature of the suretyship debt to the principal debt.
It has a long been a principle of company law that the debts of a company are not the debts of its shareholders. It may be a surprise to some that this principle does not apply to certain tax debts thanks to section 181 of the Tax Administration Act No.28 of 2011 (“section 181”). This section allows shareholders to be held jointly or individually liable for the tax debts of their company. At first glance it seems unfair to punish those who do not manage the day-to-day running of a company.
A common misconception surrounding an ante nuptial contract is that it provides married parties some protection when insolvency ensues. However, this is not necessarily the case. As many a solvent spouse discovers upon insolvency of their partner, the policy of the collection of maximum assets for the advantage of creditors actually overwhelms all other policies in South African insolvency law.
A service provider can rely on a debtor/creditor as security for its claim. This type of lien, conferred by virtue of an agreement between the creditor and the debtor, is a sub-species of a broader right to retain physical control of another’s property, whether movable or immovable, as a mechanism for securing payment of a claim, until the claim has been met. In other words, the service provider, who makes provision for such a lien in its contract, can refuse to release goods which are in its possession until it has received payment.
Can one proceed with legal action against a surety where the principal debtor is under business rescue? A recent judgment considered this question.
Briefly, the facts were that the Plaintiff issued summons against the Defendant based on a suretyship which the Defendant executed, binding himself for the debt of two entities - both of which were in liquidation.
With the global recession still being felt, times are tough and many companies are struggling to collect debts from errant customers or clients. In these cases, a winding-up application is arguably the most effective way to collect substantial debt as the following example shows.