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:

Overview

The central question in the case of Re Opti-Medix Ltd (in liquidation) and another matter [2016] SGHC 108 (Opti-Medix) was whether insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction other than the place of incorporation could be recognised by the Singapore court.

Ex parte applications were made for (a) the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and (b) the appointment of a foreign bankruptcy trustee, in respect of two companies (the Companies).

Background facts

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.

It has already been five years since the South African legislature introduced business rescue, a corporate restructuring procedure, which given the current economic climate is a concept that most corporates should now be familiar with. Despite its progressive intentions and increasing popularity, business rescue is often abused, usually by directors and stakeholders who have in-depth knowledge of the affairs of the company, the causes and consequences of the financial demise of the company, and who are often the initiators of the process.

As restructuring and cross-border insolvency issues become increasingly global, an understanding of the influence of different cultures and some of the key drivers is critical. The INSOL panel was diverse, with members from Asia (Helena Huang, King & Wood Mallesons), North America (Renee Dailey, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP), South Africa (Paul Winer, ENSafrica) and Latin America (The Honourable Judge Maria Cristina O’Reilly, National Commercial Court, Argentina).

Ever since the Companies Act, 2008 came into force, the courts have been inundated with cases pertaining to the interplay between the moratorium established by business rescue, the creditors’ claims and the effect of the business rescue plan.