This paper examines the different share valuation methods and principles likely to be used by a court in determining the fair value of dissenting shareholders’ shares in appraisal proceedings in terms of section 164(14) of the Companies Act 2008. It is submitted that the valuation principles and methods used by the courts will affect the operation of the triggering actions contemplated in subsections 164(2)(a) - (b). It is proposed that section 164 court appraisals are likely to be guided by the valuation methods and principles developed in section 252 and section 440K court appraisals under the Companies Act 1973, as well as by the decisions of the courts in the state of Delaware relating to share valuations under the appraisal remedy. It is further proposed that the purpose ascribed to the appraisal remedy will influence the application of these valuation methods and principles. / Mercantile Law / LL.M. (Corporate law)

This paper examines the different share valuation methods and principles likely to be used by a court in determining the fair value of dissenting shareholders’ shares in appraisal proceedings in terms of section 164(14) of the Companies Act 2008. It is submitted that the valuation principles and methods used by the courts will affect the operation of the triggering actions contemplated in subsections 164(2)(a) - (b). It is proposed that section 164 court appraisals are likely to be guided by the valuation methods and principles developed in section 252 and section 440K court appraisals under the Companies Act 1973, as well as by the decisions of the courts in the state of Delaware relating to share valuations under the appraisal remedy. It is further proposed that the purpose ascribed to the appraisal remedy will influence the application of these valuation methods and principles. / Mercantile Law / LL. M. (Corporate law)

This thesis critically examines the statutory unfair prejudice remedy provided for in section 163 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (‘the Act’). Section 163 is evaluated against its equivalents in England, Australia and Canada. Section 163 is considered against its predecessors to determine whether problems associated with the formulation and application of its predecessors have now been eradicated. It is argued that although it is important to ensure that company legislation is able to provide protection of an international standard to shareholders to be able to attract capital investment in a competitive market, one has to be cautious of slavishly following legislative trends in foreign jurisdictions. The South African legislature indiscriminately incorporated only parts of the Canadian unfair prejudice remedy in section 163. This approach also resulted, amongst others, in the introduction of foreign concepts. The legislature further failed to take cognisance of the unique historical developments relating to the unfair prejudice remedy in South Africa. This has led to the reintroduction of problems experienced with previous formulations of the statutory unfair prejudice remedy in South Africa and left certain problems relating to the interpretation and application of the statutory unfair prejudice remedy unresolved. Consideration is also given to the interrelationship between section 163 and some of the statutory remedies in the Act. Section 163 is also assessed in the context of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. In conclusion, recommendations for possible legislative amendments are made and an interpretational framework for the interpretation and application of the statutory unfair prejudice remedy in section 163 is provided. / Mercantile Law / LL. D. (Mercantile Law)