Magister Legum - LLM / Before the 1990s, corporate governance was a very rarely used term within the business world.1 Corporations over time have become more influential, larger and more complex within the global economy; therefore to ensure that they are operating on an economic and ethical basis, corporate governance has become more defined.2 Corporate governance can be defined as the procedures and methods that are used in order to ensure the functioning, direction and structure of a corporation.3 Not only can its key elements be described as procedures and methods but also a system of principles, policies, procedures, and clearly defined responsibilities and accountabilities. Corporate governance has roots in ethical behavior and business principles, with the goal of creating long-term value and sustainability for all stakeholders, thus including directors.4 This practice of good corporate governance by directors is used to promote equity and deters fraud and other deceptive practices.

Magister Legum - LLM

LL.M. (Commercial Law) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Doctor Legum - LLD / The ideals of shareholder and creditor protection are affected by legislation pertaining to the validity of a company’s transactions. Until legislative reforms introduced in the twentieth century, a company’s capacity and the ultra vires doctrine traditionally limited the company’s ability to contract. Therefore, the legal framework regulating corporate capacity influences a company’s interactions with outsiders. The goal of the law in this regard should be to facilitate commerce while providing adequate protection to all affected stakeholders. South Africa’s Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) contains several novel provisions regarding a company’s capacity, the desirability of which is questionable. Special purpose vehicles (SPVs) are used for various purposes in commerce, from asset holding in the financial services sector to concluding complex financial functions in corporate finance. For instance, traditional securitisation is a financial engineering technique that makes use of corporate SPVs. Traditional securitisation is a valuable risk management, earnings management, and corporate financing tool. Incorporators of securitisation SPVs often include capacity restrictions in the constitutions of such entities as a means of reducing the likelihood that the SPV will be subject to liquidation proceedings.This thesis analyses the capacity provisions in the Act to determine whether they provide a commercially desirable framework to facilitate the activities of SPVs used in traditional securitisation schemes. The thesis argues that the capacity provisions in the Act in their current form are undesirable because they place third parties at too great a risk in exchange for inconsistent and unreliable shareholder protection. Executory ultra vires contracts concluded by limited capacity companies are at the same time valid and capable of being restrained by a single shareholder, director or prescribed officer of the company. It is argued that the Act’s approach to corporate capacity is detrimental to commercial certainty and creditor protection, and that capacity restrictions under the current framework do not provide any more shareholder protection than ordinary authority limitations would. Consequently, it is argued that the capacity provisions in the Act do not make a positive contribution to the “insolvency-remoteness” of SPVs used in traditional securitisation schemes. It is recommended that the capacity provisions in the Act should be substantially amended, or deleted.

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)