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.

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.

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:

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.

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".

The Court of Appeal has declined jurisdiction to wind up Yung Kee Holdings Limited (the "Company"), a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands ("BVI"), upholding the decision of Harris J at first instance that the Company did not have "sufficient connection" with Hong Kong. 

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. 

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: 
 

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?

Ministerial Decisions  

Ministry of Manpower

Decision No. 611/2012  

Dissolves the trade union of the employees of Sojex Oman due to its failure to appoint sufficient members for the General Assembly.

Promulgated on 10 November 2012         Effective on promulgation  

Ministry of Manpower  

Decision No. 612/2012

Dissolves the trade union of the employees of Gulf Air due to its liquidation.