The media is brimming with articles on the rise of cryptocurrencies and digital assets. Whether it’s news on the rising value of Bitcoin, the acquisition of digital art for large amounts of money, the release of the latest Kings of Leon album as an NFT (non fungible token), or articles on people who have invested in cryptocurrency scams, crypto assets are taking center stage.

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.

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?

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.

Can a creditor cancel an agreement with a company in business rescue and what is the consequence of a business rescue practitioner suspending an agreement before cancellation?

The lawfulness of cancelling a contract during business rescue

Judge Megarry in Re Rolls Razor Limited¹, aptly describes the necessity of insolvency enquiries:

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.

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). 

One of the first cases involving the operation of section 153(1)(a)(ii) of the Companies Act 71  of 2008 is the matter of Copper Sunset Trading 220 (Pty) Ltd t/a Build It Lephalale (In Business Rescue) and Spar Group Limited (First Respondent) and Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd (Second Respondent).  This matter was decided under case 365/2014 in the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) functioning as Limpopo Division, Polokwane.

Human resources practitioners are often called upon to advise and lead employee consultation in a business restructure. Sometimes, a legal review of the statutory consultation notice issued under section 189(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the LRA) is also undertaken.