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.

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.

Bond restructurings Implementation mechanisms: schemes vs. exchange offers December 2015 ■ a principal haircut; ■ extended maturity; and / or ■ a change in coupon (rate and/or whether the coupon is cash-pay or PIK). Exchange offers are based entirely on voluntary participation. They can only succeed if a critical mass of bondholders agrees to participate. A “carrot and stick” approach is used to incentivise participation and penalise holdouts. For background on the use of schemes of arrangement as restructuring tools, see here.

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.

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: