It’s an open secret that the commendable goals envisaged by the legislature with the introduction of the business rescue proceedings in Chapter 6 of our Companies Act are being hampered as a result of poorly drafted statutory provisions that govern the business rescue process. Section 141(2)(a)(ii) is however not one of these vague provisions.

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:

Dead Horses

When is a dead horse really a dead horse? Given that ‘insolvency’ opens the door to various procedures for creditors and others, it should (in theory) be fairly easy to define. In practice, however, it is not.

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.

What can the UK and South Africa learn from each other by comparing the business rescue regime with administration?

South Africa’s relatively recent business rescue regime (introduced in 2011) has exploded into a popular process for “affected persons” facing a company in financial distress. It shares some aspects with the administration procedure in England and Wales (UK). Lessons can be drawn from both the similarities and the differences between the two procedures that may benefit restructuring and insolvency practitioners both in the UK and South Africa.

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".

Since the inception of business rescue, misconduct by business rescue practitioners (BRPs) has been one of the biggest causes of complaint (and headaches) by creditors. More and more disgruntled creditors and other affected persons are pursuing the removal of rogue BRPs of companies in business rescue.

In terms of section 139 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, a BRP may only be removed from office in terms of section 130, or as provided for in section 139. Furthermore, only the court is authorised to remove a BRP from office, both in terms of sections 130 and 139.

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. 

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.)

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: