The ‘dual jurisdiction’ regime has long been entrenched in South Africa’s corporate insolvency law. This principal arises from the provisions of the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973 (Old Act), which provides that jurisdiction over a company is determined by the location of both its registered address and its principal place of business with the creditor having the choice of jurisdiction.

With the enactment of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (New Act), the question that then follows is: Does this principle of jurisdiction continue to apply under the New Act?

There has always been a degree of uncertainty when it comes to a business rescue practitioner’s costs and expenses incurred in the business rescue proceedings of an entity when the business recue proceedings are, for whatever reason, converted to liquidation proceedings.

Section 133 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 places a general moratorium on legal proceedings, while the company is under business rescue. This provides a company with time and resources to be rehabilitated through the implementation of a business rescue plan. As a result, there is some debate as to whether creditors are precluded from perfecting their security, such as a notarial bond, under business rescue.

Employment contracts were previously deemed to be suspended on the date of liquidation, being the date that the application for liquidation of the company is presented and issued at court in terms of s348 of the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973 (Old Companies Act). However, this position has since changed.

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) released Binding Private Ruling 210 (Ruling) on 11 November 2015. The Ruling sets out the tax consequences of a ‘liquidation distribution’, as defined in s47(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act), followed by an ‘amalgamation transaction’ as contemplated in s44(1)(a) of the Act.

Use of cookies on this website We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you agree to our use of cookies. To close this message click close. December 15, 2015 Since the promulgation of the Companies Act 2008 (the Act), there has been a lack of clarity regarding the effect of the reinstatement of a deregistered company in terms of the Act.

Bond restructurings Implementation mechanisms: schemes vs. exchange offers December 2015 ■ a principal haircut; ■ extended maturity; and / or ■ a change in coupon (rate and/or whether the coupon is cash-pay or PIK). Exchange offers are based entirely on voluntary participation. They can only succeed if a critical mass of bondholders agrees to participate. A “carrot and stick” approach is used to incentivise participation and penalise holdouts. For background on the use of schemes of arrangement as restructuring tools, see here.

Section 133 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides for a general moratorium on legal proceedings against a company in business rescue.

I wrote an article published in the June issue of Without Prejudice in which this question was considered. I criticised the then binding judgment of Chetty t/a Nationwide Electrical v Hart NO and Another (12559/2012) [20141 ZAKZDHC 9 (25 March 2014), as it was held in that case that arbitration proceedings do not constitute legal proceedings for purposes of section 133 of the Act.

The commercial landscape in South Africa was forever changed when business rescue was introduced by Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act).

The proverbial "blind leading the blind" comes to mind when one recalls the great uncertainty which existed, and to an extent still exists, in the minds of business owners, creditors, employees and even business rescue practitioners as to the meaning of certain of the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Act.

On 8 July 2015, the Western Cape High Court, in the matter of University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic and Others v Minister of Justice And Correctional Services and Others, found section 65J(2)(b)(i) and section 65J(2)(b)(ii) of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1994 (“MCA”) inconsistent with the constitution and invalid to the extent that they fail to provide for juducial oversight over the issuing of an emolument attachment orders (“EOA”) /garnishee order against a judgement debtor.  This decision has serious i