One thing we have learnt from the hit series ‘Murder She Wrote’, other than the fact that the star of the show Angela Lansbury never aged during its 12 years of airing, is that it is often the one closest to us that does the most harm.

In order for an application for business rescue to successfully suspend commenced liquidation proceedings, it must be served on the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC), together with all affected persons in terms of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act). This position was confirmed in the Gauteng Local Division’s decision handed down on 10 March 2016.

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.)

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.

There have been a myriad of decisions on business rescue proceedings since the inception of the new Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“the Act”).  More recently, our courts have considered section 153(1)(b)(ii) of the Act which introduces the concept of a ‘binding offer’.

INTRODUCTION

This section allows one affected person to make an offer to purchase at liquidation value, the voting interests of those persons who opposed the adoption of the business rescue plan.

On 12 October 2015, the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Honourable John Jeffrey indicated that we are shortly to receive a revised and consolidated unified Insolvency Bill (“Bill”).

Insolvency Law, as we know it presently is, in addition to substantial case law precedent, governed by –

The Policy Framework Behind Section 34 of the Insolvency Act 2 Of 1936 ("the Act")

The policy of this section of the Act is to afford protection to a trader's creditors against his dispossessing himself of his property without paying his debt before the disposition or from the proceeds thereof.  This framework policy is well set out in the case of Paterson vs Kelvin Park Properties CC 1998:

ISSUE

Whether employees who have lodged a claim in the Labour Court against an employer that has gone into liquidation may proceed with their claim if they have not provided the liquidator with the requisite notice as required by South Africa’s company laws?

SUMMARY

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.