The recent administration of heavily indebted Uganda Telecom Limited (“UTL”) aims to achieve the best outcome for creditors and shareholders. Below, we unpack the implications of the administration for UTL’s creditors and other stakeholders.

The Western Cape High Court^[1] has recently passed judgment in a decision which reiterates the bounds of the duties of directors of holding companies to subsidiary companies.  Even though the case involved a damages claim against the liquidators of the holding company (in liquidation), the principle applies equally to directors.

Section 44 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 governs the instances when a company may provide financial assistance for the purchase of the company's securities. (It is important to note that section 44(1) carves out the application of the entire section 44 for financial assistance given in the ordinary course of business by a company whose primary business is lending money.)

The Business rescue process as set out in Chapter 6 of the 2008 Companies Act (operative since 2011) has opened up new and creative opportunities to resolve complex and protracted shareholders’ disputes.

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.

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:

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.

Un deber fiduciario es una obligación de índole legal consistente en velar por los intereses y actuar en beneficio de otra persona.

The new company shareholders, who have accessed ownership of the securities by ordinary purchase or by enforcement of a pledge of securities, must beware above all of the hitherto dormant claims of former shareholders and directors.

Introduction