Consider the following commonly encountered scenario: A creditor had instituted litigation proceedings against Company X and obtained a default judgment against it. Pursuant to the judgment the creditor issued a writ of execution, but is now faced with the situation where an affected person has brought an application in terms of section 131(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) to place Company X under supervision and to commence business rescue proceedings. What is the effect on the creditor?
In this article we investigate whether, in South African law, a subordination agreement could constitute a "voidable disposition" as defined in section 26 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (the Act).
Section 26 of the Act provides that every disposition of property not made for value may be set aside by the court, if the disposition was made by an insolvent (whether an individual, company or close corporation) either:
Although business rescue may be a good tool for the purpose of turning around financially distressed businesses, it also opens the door for abuse by unscrupulous debtors.
A business rescue application may be brought at any time during liquidation proceedings, even after a final winding-up order has been granted, right up until the point where a final liquidation and distribution account is confirmed by the Master of the High Court.
The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (the Minister) has recently determined a policy on the appointment of insolvency practitioners, which was published in theGovernment Gazette No 37287 on 7 February 2014 (the policy). This policy, once it commences, will replace all the previous policies and guidelines that are currently being utilised by the Master's offices to appoint insolvency practitioners and its stated intention is to "form the basis of the transformation of the insolvency industry".
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 of November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth. The first and second applicants under case 3521/2012 were ABSA Bank Limited and Maria Ramos respectively.
Section 153 (1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) is intended to afford a remedy to affected persons who support a business rescue plan that has been
The section can be broken down into five key elements:
Hogan Lovells Publications | 01 April 2020
Analysis of the Royal Decree-Law 11/2020 of 31 March, which adopts additional urgent measures in the social and economic field to address the COVID-19 crisis
Publicaciones de Hogan Lovells | 01 abril 2020
Algunas cuestiones de interés en relación con el impacto del COVID-19 en las financiaciones estructuradas
El impacto del virus COVID-19 está siendo significativo en todo tipo de industrias y lugares del mundo y, por consiguiente, surgen también muchas cuestiones que analizar en el ámbito de las financiaciones estructuradas.
The recent Court of Appeal case involving Topland Limited and Smiths News Trading Limited was a salutary lesson about the strict rules that protect guarantors and the perils of forgetting them. The facts of the case were relatively simple: Topland owned a commercial property, leased to the rather aptly named Payless DIY Ltd, which became insolvent. Topland brought a claim against the tenant’s guarantor, Smiths, for arrears of over £280,000 and required them to take a new lease for the remainder of the term.
The bankruptcy court in In re Ocean Rig UDW Inc., 17-10736 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2017) determined that a decision by an offshore drilling company from the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) to shift its Center of Main Interest (COMI) to the Cayman Islands prior to defaulting on bonds and initiating reorganization proceedings there and in the U.S., was “prudent.” The Court held that the change offered the debtors the best opportunity for successful restructuring and survival under difficult financial conditions and did not preclude U.S.