Magister Legum - LLM / In recent times, South Africa (‘SA’) has seen many corporate failures due to poor corporate governance. It spans across Johannesburg Stock Exchange (‘JSE’) listed companies, State Owned Enterprises (’SOE’s’)1 as well as non-listed companies,2 ranging from business such as mutual banks and companies that specialise in agricultural products to companies who deal in furniture and household goods. The ramifications of such failures were felt across all corners of SA and beyond.3 Reflecting on the above failures, one will find a common thread of poor corporate governance having played a hand in their catastrophic downfall.4 One such corporate failure was that of Steinhoff International, the once darling stock of investors in SA and abroad.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2013 / The study will analyse section 37C of the Pension Funds Act, 24 of 1956. This section limits the deceased’s freedom of testate by placing the death benefits and the control of the board of trustees who are tasked to distribute such benefits equitably among the dependants and nominees of the deceased. Section 37C of the Act was enacted to protect dependency by ensuring that the dependants of the deceased are not left in destitute. In order to achieve this, three duties are placed on the board of trustees namely, to identify the dependants and nominees of the deceased member; to effect an equitable distribution of the benefit among the beneficiaries; and to determine an appropriate mode of payment. This section sees to all the interest of the dependants without discriminating consequently there are three classes of dependants that are created under section 37C namely; legal dependants, non-legal dependants, and future dependants.

Prior to the introduction of section 37C into the Pension Funds Act. 24 of 1956, the benefit payable as a result of the death of a member would devolve in accordance with his last will and testament or the provisions of intestate succession. The advent of section 37C brought a statutory regime which expressly excludes freedom of testation and rather looks to the board of a fund to distribute the death benefit. The board may only pay the dependants of a deceased (either factual or legal) or the persons he has recorded on his nomination form. The section relies on the board to exercise its discretion in a manner which results in an equitable distribution of the death benefit notwithstanding that it does not provide any guidelines as to how this is to be achieved. Accordingly, numerous decisions are challenged by the identified beneficiaries because they are unhappy with the manner in which the board exercised its discretion. This results in complaints being lodged with the Pension Funds Adjudicator. Many such complaints should never have arisen or could have been easily solved by a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the board. The problem is that these complaints are adding to an already burdened office. Adequate training and understanding of the obligations of section 37C would probably result in fewer complaints to the Adjudicator. This dissertation examines whether the determinations which have been issued by the Adjudicator in respect of section 37C indicate a need for such training and understanding and, if they do, what possible remedies there might be to cure such a problem. Recommendations arising from this are that trustees must receive training focused on section 37C and proposed practical protocols to assist a board when exercising its duty to make an equitable distribution. / Jurisprudence / LL.M.

Prior to the introduction of section 37C into the Pension Funds Act. 24 of 1956, the benefit payable as a result of the death of a member would devolve in accordance with his last will and testament or the provisions of intestate succession. The advent of section 37C brought a statutory regime which expressly excludes freedom of testation and rather looks to the board of a fund to distribute the death benefit. The board may only pay the dependants of a deceased (either factual or legal) or the persons he has recorded on his nomination form. The section relies on the board to exercise its discretion in a manner which results in an equitable distribution of the death benefit notwithstanding that it does not provide any guidelines as to how this is to be achieved. Accordingly, numerous decisions are challenged by the identified beneficiaries because they are unhappy with the manner in which the board exercised its discretion. This results in complaints being lodged with the Pension Funds Adjudicator. Many such complaints should never have arisen or could have been easily solved by a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the board. The problem is that these complaints are adding to an already burdened office. Adequate training and understanding of the obligations of section 37C would probably result in fewer complaints to the Adjudicator. This dissertation examines whether the determinations which have been issued by the Adjudicator in respect of section 37C indicate a need for such training and understanding and, if they do, what possible remedies there might be to cure such a problem. Recommendations arising from this are that trustees must receive training focused on section 37C and proposed practical protocols to assist a board when exercising its duty to make an equitable distribution. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.