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: 
 

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. 

A lot is written about structuring robust intellectual property licensing programs, whether from the perspective of licensors or licensees of intellectual property rights. This requires a careful consideration of legal, tax and regulatory issues that impact on the licensing arrangement.

The legal risks can’t always be managed adequately through the careful negotiation and drafting of a licence agreement. Some of these risks need to be managed independently of the drafting of any agreements.

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".

In terms of section 64B(5)(c) of the Act the following amounts will be exempt when distributed in the course of or in anticipation of the liquidation, winding up, deregistration or final termination of the corporate existence of a company or close corporation, provided that certain steps are taken within 18 months from the date of the liquidation distribution, namely;

In the 2011 budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced that the Government will consider exempting taxable capital gains or ordinary revenue imposed on an insolvent debtor if the debt owing by the debtor is cancelled or reduced.

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.