Text in Afrikaans / Daar is 'n toenemende bewuswording van die noodsaaklikheid van effektiewe beskerming vir minderhede. Die rede vir hierdie toenemende erkenning aan die behoefte aan minderheidsbeskerming is waarskynlik toe te skryf aan die beset dat dit nie alleen die minderheidsaandeelhouers is wat skade ly in geval van benadelende optrede nie, maar ook die ekonomie. Maatskappye word ingevolge die beginsel van meerderheidsbewind bestuur, met die gevolg dat die minderheid onderworpe is aan die wil van die meerderheid. Die minderheid kan hulself hierdeur in 'n onbenydenswaardige posisie bevind, veral indien die meerderheid hul mag aanwend om hul eie belange te bevorder. Gemeenregtelik is die reel in Foss v Harbottle 'n struikelblok vir minderheidsaandeelhouers wat gedingvoering beoog. In 'n poging om die gebrekkige gemeenregtelike beskerming van minderhede te ondervang, is bepaalde statutere maatreels ingevoer. Die evaluasie van hierdie maatreels geskied aan die hand van 'n regsvergelykende ondersoek na verskeie buitelandse stelsels, waarvan die van Nieu-Seeland en Kanada uit staan vanwee die innoverende aard van hul statutere beskermingsmaatreels. Die gevolgtrekking is dat die beskerming wat die Suid-Afrikaanse statutere maatreels aan minderhede bied, onbevredigend is om verskeie redes. Eerstens is hierdie maatreels dikwels te eng bewoord wat daartoe lei dat die aanwendingsveld van die maatreels beperk is. Tweedens hou die maatreels nie tred met ontwikkelings elders in die wereld en veranderende omstandighede en behoeftes in die praktyk nie. Derdens ontbreek goed geformuleerde remedies wat aanvullend tot artikel 252 van die Wet sal wees. Daar is verder bevind dat ad hocwysigings van bestaande maatreels nie die gewenste resultaat gaan bereik nie en 'n algehele hervorming van die Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappyereg word aanbeveel. Ten slotte word konkrete voorstelle in die vorm van konsepwetgewing gemaak en word vergesel van verduidelikende notas. Hierdie wetgewing is hoofsaaklik aan die hand van die Nieu-Seelandse en Kanadese modelle geformuleer. / There is a growing awareness of the need for effective protection of minority shareholders. This can probably be ascribed to the acknowledgement of the fact that prejudicial conduct harms not only minority shareholders, but also the economy at large. Companies are governed by the principle of majority rule; consequently the minority is subjected to the will of the majority. This often places the minority in an invidious position, especially when the majority use their power to further their own interests. The rule in Foss v Harbottle presents a stumbling block to minority shareholder action. Certain statutory measures have been introduced in an effort to counter defective minority protection. These statutory measures are evaluated in the light of a comparative study of several foreign jurisdictions, the most prominent of which are New Zealand and Canada, because of the innovative nature of the measures which they employ. The conclusion arrived at is that, for various reasons, the protection afforded minorities by the South African statutory measures is unsatisfactory. Firstly, the wording of these measures is narrowly construed; this in turn results in a narrow field of application. Secondly, these measures are not in step with developments elsewhere in the world and with the changing circumstances and needs in practice. Thirdly, well-formulated remedies needed in order to supplement section 252 of the Act are non-existent. It has also been found that ad hoc amendments of existing measures will not achieve the required result, and consequently a complete reform of South African company law is recommended. Finally, specific recommendations in the form of draft legislation are made; these are accompanied by explanatory notes. This draft legislation was formulated primarily along the lines of the New Zealand and Canadian models. / Private Law / LL.D.

In this paper, I have attempted to highlight the problems that face investors, both black and white, in South Africa, especially in the light of the effects of the new legislation promulgated after apartheid was abolished. The legislation with which I am most concerned, is the legislation which was promulgated to promote the entry of blacks into the South African economy. In chapter one, I deal with the concept of empowerment from the constitutional view point and the problem of its definition. I also discuss out the relevant new legislation that in my argument I believe impacts on corporate activity and then deal with the distinction between an "arrangement" within its ordinary meaning in corporate law distinct from that as defined in the in the Companies Act 61 of 1973. In chapter two, I deal with the dangers facing an individual investor, the benefits of incorporation, the problem of the existence of money revolving schemes, and the effects of a lack of education amongst previously disadvantaged investors. In chapter three, I deal with joint ventures, their benefits, the effect of the Competition Act 81 of 1998 on joint and potential areas of conflict between black and white partners. Certain aspects of fraudulent and negligent conduct of directors are examined. In Chapter four, I deal with the methods of executing mergers and acquisition in relation to empowerment companies, their advantages and disadvantages, certain procedures necessary for the protection of investors like due diligence inquiries, the protection offered by the present company legislation and the common law and criticisms of the courts to protect shareholders. I look at a case study and special considerations in mergers and acquisitions. In chapter five, I look at the problem of capital in empowerment companies, the various methods that have been used to raise capital, and the loopholes in the law that affect some of these arrangements. I have focused specifically on special purpose vehicles and buyouts. In chapter six, I deal with the impact of government action and government policy on empowerment and I have compared this with what has happened in other countries. I conclude by recommending that the Black Empowerment Commission should be given teeth to take corrective measure towards empowerment. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Natal, Durban, 2001.

Mercantile Law / LL. M. (Corporate Law)

Text in Afrikaans / Daar is 'n toenemende bewuswording van die noodsaaklikheid van effektiewe beskerming vir minderhede. Die rede vir hierdie toenemende erkenning aan die behoefte aan minderheidsbeskerming is waarskynlik toe te skryf aan die beset dat dit nie alleen die minderheidsaandeelhouers is wat skade ly in geval van benadelende optrede nie, maar ook die ekonomie. Maatskappye word ingevolge die beginsel van meerderheidsbewind bestuur, met die gevolg dat die minderheid onderworpe is aan die wil van die meerderheid. Die minderheid kan hulself hierdeur in 'n onbenydenswaardige posisie bevind, veral indien die meerderheid hul mag aanwend om hul eie belange te bevorder. Gemeenregtelik is die reel in Foss v Harbottle 'n struikelblok vir minderheidsaandeelhouers wat gedingvoering beoog. In 'n poging om die gebrekkige gemeenregtelike beskerming van minderhede te ondervang, is bepaalde statutere maatreels ingevoer. Die evaluasie van hierdie maatreels geskied aan die hand van 'n regsvergelykende ondersoek na verskeie buitelandse stelsels, waarvan die van Nieu-Seeland en Kanada uit staan vanwee die innoverende aard van hul statutere beskermingsmaatreels. Die gevolgtrekking is dat die beskerming wat die Suid-Afrikaanse statutere maatreels aan minderhede bied, onbevredigend is om verskeie redes. Eerstens is hierdie maatreels dikwels te eng bewoord wat daartoe lei dat die aanwendingsveld van die maatreels beperk is. Tweedens hou die maatreels nie tred met ontwikkelings elders in die wereld en veranderende omstandighede en behoeftes in die praktyk nie. Derdens ontbreek goed geformuleerde remedies wat aanvullend tot artikel 252 van die Wet sal wees. Daar is verder bevind dat ad hocwysigings van bestaande maatreels nie die gewenste resultaat gaan bereik nie en 'n algehele hervorming van die Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappyereg word aanbeveel. Ten slotte word konkrete voorstelle in die vorm van konsepwetgewing gemaak en word vergesel van verduidelikende notas. Hierdie wetgewing is hoofsaaklik aan die hand van die Nieu-Seelandse en Kanadese modelle geformuleer. / There is a growing awareness of the need for effective protection of minority shareholders. This can probably be ascribed to the acknowledgement of the fact that prejudicial conduct harms not only minority shareholders, but also the economy at large. Companies are governed by the principle of majority rule; consequently the minority is subjected to the will of the majority. This often places the minority in an invidious position, especially when the majority use their power to further their own interests. The rule in Foss v Harbottle presents a stumbling block to minority shareholder action. Certain statutory measures have been introduced in an effort to counter defective minority protection. These statutory measures are evaluated in the light of a comparative study of several foreign jurisdictions, the most prominent of which are New Zealand and Canada, because of the innovative nature of the measures which they employ. The conclusion arrived at is that, for various reasons, the protection afforded minorities by the South African statutory measures is unsatisfactory. Firstly, the wording of these measures is narrowly construed; this in turn results in a narrow field of application. Secondly, these measures are not in step with developments elsewhere in the world and with the changing circumstances and needs in practice. Thirdly, well-formulated remedies needed in order to supplement section 252 of the Act are non-existent. It has also been found that ad hoc amendments of existing measures will not achieve the required result, and consequently a complete reform of South African company law is recommended. Finally, specific recommendations in the form of draft legislation are made; these are accompanied by explanatory notes. This draft legislation was formulated primarily along the lines of the New Zealand and Canadian models. / Private Law / LL.D.

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

In his 2012 Budget Review, the Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan acknowledged that the introduction of the "new" Companies Act had given rise to certain anomalies in relation to tax and subsequently announced that the South African government would undertake to review the nature of company mergers, acquisitions and other restructurings with the view of possibly amending the Income Tax Act and/or the "new" Companies Act, to bring the two legislations in line with one another. These anomalies give rise to the present research. The literature reviewed in the present research revealed and identified the inconsistencies that exist between the "new" Companies Act, 71 of 2008 and the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962, specifically the inconsistencies that exist in respect of the newly introduced amalgamation or merger provisions as set out in the "new" Companies Act. Moreover, this research was undertaken to identify the potential tax implications insofar as they relate to amalgamation transactions and, in particular, the potential tax implications where such transactions, because of the anomalies, fall outside the ambit section 44 of the Income Tax Act, which would in normal circumstances provide for tax "rollover relief". In this regard, the present research identified the possible income tax, capital gains tax, value-added tax, transfer duty tax and securities transfer tax affected by an amalgamation transaction, on the assumption that the "rollover relief" in section 44 of the Income Tax Act does not apply.

The capital maintenance doctrine presupposes that a company’s capital must not be returned to its shareholders. The doctrine was anchored on three rules, one of which was that a company cannot acquire its own shares as this amounted to a diversion of capital to the shareholders whose shares were acquired. This rule was partly rationalized as protecting the interests of shareholders. In South Africa the rule was embodied in s 85 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. However, it was amended by s 9 of the subsequent Companies Amendment Act 37 of 1999 to provide that a company can acquire its own shares if certain substantive and procedural requirements were satisfied. Upon the enactment of Companies Act 71 of 2008, the requirements have not been substantially altered. They are partly geared towards protecting shareholders by ensuring that shareholders are treated equally and fairly. Moreover, the Johannesburg Securities Exchange Limited (hence the JSE Limited) was empowered by the Companies Act 61 of 1973 to promulgate requirements to be met when a company wishes to acquire its own shares. The Companies Act 71 of 2008 does not in express terms empower the JSE Limited to develop requirements to be met when a company wishes to acquire its own shares. However, the Act expressly requires that a listed company wishing to acquire its own shares must also comply with the requirements of the relevant exchange. Such requirements can therefore be deemed to subsist even amidst the new Act as an internal regulation of the JSE Limited. The said requirements are also partly aimed at protecting shareholders, largely by ensuring that adequate information is availed to shareholders to empower them to make informed decisions. / Private Law / LL. M. (Company Law)

LLM / Department of Mercantile Law / For a considerable period of time the primary goal of corporations was seen as being to increase the wealth of the investors (shareholders). Priority was given to shareholders’ profit maximisation at the very expense of stakeholders` interests in corporate governance. Stakeholders` interests were seen to be falling outside the range of the needs and objectives of the corporate world. However, in contemporary times, schools of thought have emerged which proposed that the corporations should not solely focus on maximising profit for the benefit of shareholders but should consider the interests of stakeholders in the management of their affairs. This issue has attracted enormous debate and arguments have been brought forward to support the view that those in management positions should consider stakeholders` interests in the corporate governance. However, there is no unanimity among scholars on what should be the right approach. It is against this backdrop that the study therefore assesses how companies are practically run in order to determine whether the interests of stakeholders are considered in corporate governance as much as they should. This dissertation explores, through doctrinal and empirical methods, the conflicting theories and existing debates on corporate governance and to show that it is for the good of the company as an entity that there be equal recognition and treatment of the two groups of the competing interests in corporate operations. The research employed the doctrinal research approach in order to evaluate the positions advocated by the different schools of thought as well as to give a comparative analysis of the position of the law in cognate jurisdictions on this matter. The empirical research approach, through questionnaires, was used to collect qualitative data from different stakeholders of different categories of chosen companies in order to ascertain from the perspective and actual experiences of stakeholders the extent to which companies consider the interests of stakeholders. The research established that, in the main, companies do not consider the interests of stakeholders and in cases where they do, the interests of shareholders are still dominant to those of stakeholders. Recommendations are made from inferences drawn from the study on how to guarantee an enhanced protection of the stakeholders’ interests in the corporate scheme. / NRF

This thesis considers the typical structure and requirements of a traditional securitisation scheme in South Africa. The models used in other jurisdictions cannot be applied unchanged in South Africa. South African securitisation structures make use of a security special purpose vehicle (SPV), because of uncertainties about the provisions of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 relating to the trustee for debenture-holders. An evaluation of the functioning of a security SPV leads to the conclusion that a trustee for debenture-holders should still be appointed within the security SPV structure to represent the interests of the investors. The trust for debenture-holders can be a true trust. The use of general notarial bonds over claims, pledges of claims and fiduciary security cession is examined to determine the effectiveness of each one during securitisation. Aspects of several Acts, Notices and other regulatory measures are considered where they are relevant to securitisation. Of specific importance is the Exemption Notice Relating to Securitisation Schemes, 2008. The Notice requires that both rights and obligations of the originator must be transferred to the SPV. The requirement that the obligations of the originator must be transferred leads to the conclusion that the Notice requires a transfer of claims by means of cession and a transfer of duties by means of delegation. For several reasons, delegation is not a suitable method of transfer during securitisation. Foremost among these reasons is that delegation is a form of novation, which means that the claims cease to exist and are replaced with new claims between the debtors and the SPV. Security rights that were accessory to these claims will then also cease to exist. The amendment to the Notice is recommended so that transfer of claims by means of cession will suffice for compliance with the Notice. The South African courts‘ approach to simulated transactions is evaluated to determine the possibility that the sale of the assets to the SPV may be viewed as a simulated transaction. This thesis evaluates the provisions in insolvency law that could be raised to impeach the sale of the assets in the event of the originator‘s insolvency. The risk of avoidance of the transaction on either ground is small. / Mercentile Law / L.L.D. (Mercentile Law)

South African company law has provided for the rescue of financially distressed companies since 1926 when the statutory procedure of judicial management was introduced by the Companies Act 46 of 1926. Unfortunately, judicial management has never been regarded as a successful corporate rescue procedure and for most of its existence it has been severely criticised on many grounds. The Companies Act 61 of 1973 that replaced the Companies Act 46 of 1926 did very little to improve this situation and judicial management remained underutilised. As a result, the Companies Act 71 of 2008 now introduces two newly-created corporate rescue procedures in the form of business rescue proceedings and the compromise with creditors. This study analyses judicial management and the new corporate rescue procedures to establish whether the identified weaknesses of judicial management have been adequately and effectively addressed in the new procedures. A comparative study with similar procedures in England and Germany is undertaken to determine whether the South African legislature has delivered on its promise to create a system of corporate rescue that will meet the needs of a modern South African economy. Several weaknesses in the new procedures are identified and a number of recommendations are made to improve the relevant provisions and to assist in providing South African company law with an efficient and acceptable corporate rescue regime. / Mercentile Law / LLD (Mercentile Law)