On 20 May 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) delivered judgment in the matter of African Banking Corporation of Botswana v Kariba Furniture Manufacturers & others(228/2014) [2015] ZASCA 69, dealing, amongst other things, decisively with the proper interpretation of the words 'binding offer' as they appear in s153(1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act, 71 of 2008 (Act).

Section 134 of Act 71 of 2008 is extremely important because it is there to protect the interests of both the company in business rescue and the creditors and other third parties related to the company.

On 20 May 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeal (in the matter of African Banking Corporation of Botswana v Kariba Furniture Manufacturers & Others) clarified one of the biggest uncertainties arising out of the business rescue provisions of the Companies Act. The Court has now clarified the meaning of the term “binding offer” in a manner which not only brings clarity to the business rescue regime in general, but also will provide greater comfort to banks and other creditors.

In terms of Section 153 (1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act, a creditor who votes against the adoption of a business rescue plan runs the risk of having their claim purchased by another party at a value of what the creditor would have received on liquidation of the company.  In the terms of the bankruptcy laws of the United States of America this procedure is referred to as a "cram down" which is imposed on creditors in business rescue situations.

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) published Binding Private Ruling No. 198 on 7 July 2015 (Ruling). The Ruling deals with the distribution by a South African resident company (Subsidiary) of its loan account to its South African holding company (Holding Company) in anticipation of the Subsidiary’s deregistration.

The applicable provisions in the Income Tax Act, No 58 of 1962 (Act) are s10(1)(k), s47, s64D and s64FA(1)(b).

The relevant facts relating to the Ruling are as follows:

Tax authorities across the globe are working aggressively to collect taxes which they believe are collectable in their respective jurisdictions. States are entering into bilateral and multilateral agreements aimed at assisting each other in the collection of information and taxes. South Africa has actively taken part and in some respects been a regional leader in issues relating to the gathering of information and sharing thereof with other states to ensure that taxes are paid where they should rightfully be paid.

Although a tenant's insolvency does not automatically terminate the lease or confer a right upon a landlord to cancel the lease, a landlord is not left without any remedies where a tenant is in breach of the lease before the tenant is wound-up.

A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Ellerine Brothers (Pty) Limited (Ellerine) v McCarthy Limited, clarified the legal position.

Ever since the new business rescue regime, contained in Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 came into force in May 2011 there has been much anticipation as to how courts would treat sureties who had stood and provided security for the debts of a company (principal debtor) that subsequently went into business rescue and had a business rescue plan adopted: would such suretyships remain unaffected and enforceable?

On 2 September 2014 the Constitutional Court heard an appeal against a final order of sequestration granted by the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape High Court) on 14 August 2013 sequestrating the joint estate of Mr Ivor Charles Stratford, the former chairman of the Pinnacle Point Group, and his wife Mrs Sheila Margaret Stratford (the Stratfords). 

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.