The advent of the new Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) brought with it a shift from a creditor-protectionist society towards a business rescue model that is debtor-protectionist. In consequence, there has been a swarm of applications taking advantage and exploiting this new scheme. This shift has unfortunately led to considerable abuse of the business rescue procedure.

A party with a statutory right to an admiralty claim in rem, which had issued its claim after the Admiralty court had ordered the sale of a vessel, did not lose its right to enforce the  claim¹. The claim in rem could be enforced against the sale proceeds provided that the person  liable in personam was the beneficial owner of the sale proceeds.

Facts

The in duplum rule is a common law rule that provides that arrear interest ceases to accrue once the sum of the unpaid (accrued) interest equals the amount of capital outstanding at the time (and not the amount of capital originally advanced). "In duplum" directly translates to "double the amount". 

Judge Andre van Niekerk handed down an interesting judgment in the High Court of South Africa (North Gauteng Division) on 30 September 2013.  In my respectful opinion the judgment is insightful and is correct.  The facts are fairly simple.  Miles Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd (MPH) had a tax liability of R37 441 090.59 to the commissioner of the South African Revenue Services (SARS). SARS had levied a tax assessment in this amount on MPH, which included penalties and interest.

The New Companies Act No. 71 of 2008 replaced the old Companies in May 2011. Pursuant to the Amendment of the Old Companies Act, Chapter 6 of the new Companies Act introduces the Business Rescue Procedure (BRP). Business Rescue is a procedure that facilitates the rehabilitation and restructuring of a company that is undergoing financial difficulties. The business rescue procedure aims to maximise the possibility of the business to remain solvent.

The definition of financial distress in the Act is as follows:

La nouvelle loi des sociétés d’Afrique du Sud (The New Companies Act No. 71  of 2008) a remplacé l’ancienne loi des sociétés (The Old Companies Act) en mai 2011. Conformément à l'amendement de l’ancienne loi des sociétés, la nouvelle loi introduit le redressement d'entreprises. Le redressement d'entreprises est une procédure qui facilite la réhabilitation d'une entreprise en difficultés financières. La procédure de redressement d'entreprise vise à maximiser les possibilités de l'entreprise à demeurer solvable.

In recent years, the Companies and Intellectual Properties Commission (“CIPC”) (and its predecessor, the Companies and Intellectual Property Registration Office (“CIPRO")) has been carrying out mass de-registrations of companies and close corporations for failure to file their annual returns. This phenomenon, and its severe negative effects on third party creditors, has been the focus of much legal scholarship. However, a short while ago it came to our attention that CIPC’s de-registration campaign also extends to companies that have been placed in liquidation.

1. 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.

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: