It is in the area of the regulation of a company's share capital and distributions to shareholders that the inherent conflict between creditors and shareholders, and the fragile balance among shareholders internally, intersect. The share capital of a company underlies its corporate structure and represents not only its initial own funds from which creditors can be paid, but also the relative equity interests of the shareholders. The balance between shareholders can be disturbed by capital reorganisations through increase, reduction or variation of share capital or through disproportionate contributions by, or distributions to, shareholders. Share repurchases are particularly risky in this regard. Creditor interests are affected when their prior right to payment is endangered by distributions to shareholders. This study analyses the South African Law relating to share capital and distributions against the background of a comparative study of the laws of England, New Zealand, Delaware and California, as well as the provisions of the American Model Business Corporations Act. Two main approaches to creditor protection are evident. The capital maintenance doctrine, which is followed in England and Delaware, protects creditors by emphasising the notional share capital of the company as a limit on distributions. In contrast, the solvency and liquidity approach focuses on the net assets of the company and on its ability to pay its debts. New Zealand, California and the Model Business Corporations Act represent this approach. Regulatory responses to shareholder protection range from insistence on compliance with procedural requirements to minimal statutory intervention in the internal affairs of companies, instead relying on general principles of fairness and good faith. There is little correlation between a particular system's approach to creditor protection on the one hand, and to shareholder protection on the other. England, New Zealand and South Africa prescribe specific formalities, while the American approach is more relaxed. South Africa is a hybrid system. Its transition from capital maintenance to solvency and liquidity has been incomplete and its protection of equity interests is relatively unsophisticated. A number of recommendations are made for an effective and coherent approach that will safeguard the interests of creditors and shareholders alike. / School: Law / LL.D.

It is in the area of the regulation of a company's share capital and distributions to shareholders that the inherent conflict between creditors and shareholders, and the fragile balance among shareholders internally, intersect. The share capital of a company underlies its corporate structure and represents not only its initial own funds from which creditors can be paid, but also the relative equity interests of the shareholders. The balance between shareholders can be disturbed by capital reorganisations through increase, reduction or variation of share capital or through disproportionate contributions by, or distributions to, shareholders. Share repurchases are particularly risky in this regard. Creditor interests are affected when their prior right to payment is endangered by distributions to shareholders. This study analyses the South African Law relating to share capital and distributions against the background of a comparative study of the laws of England, New Zealand, Delaware and California, as well as the provisions of the American Model Business Corporations Act. Two main approaches to creditor protection are evident. The capital maintenance doctrine, which is followed in England and Delaware, protects creditors by emphasising the notional share capital of the company as a limit on distributions. In contrast, the solvency and liquidity approach focuses on the net assets of the company and on its ability to pay its debts. New Zealand, California and the Model Business Corporations Act represent this approach. Regulatory responses to shareholder protection range from insistence on compliance with procedural requirements to minimal statutory intervention in the internal affairs of companies, instead relying on general principles of fairness and good faith. There is little correlation between a particular system's approach to creditor protection on the one hand, and to shareholder protection on the other. England, New Zealand and South Africa prescribe specific formalities, while the American approach is more relaxed. South Africa is a hybrid system. Its transition from capital maintenance to solvency and liquidity has been incomplete and its protection of equity interests is relatively unsophisticated. A number of recommendations are made for an effective and coherent approach that will safeguard the interests of creditors and shareholders alike. / School: Law / LL.D.