LL.M. (Commercial Law) / South African company law has seen many changes in respect of corporate rescue, due to inter alia globalisation, increase in open trade, instant and freer communication and the need for better regulation of companies and stakeholders. As a result, the previous rescue mechanism of judicial management was widely criticised and poorly implemented. The Companies Act 71 of 20081 has however now replaced judicial management with business rescue. Business rescue encompasses many facets, most importantly the moratorium in section 133. Section 133 has already, and will even more so in future, have a dramatic impact on the launching or continuation of any legal or enforcement proceedings against a company undergoing business rescue, the status and enforceability of its contracts and the rights of affected parties (ie creditors, shareholders and directors). This study will discuss the general nature and effects of rescue moratoria and the moratoria (or lack thereof) created under the Companies Act 61 of 1973,2 the 2008 Companies Act and the administration procedure in England. The moratorium under each relevant rescue procedure will be analysed according to its purpose, nature, effects and procedure. As such, this study will attempt to set out why the section 133 moratorium is the cornerstone to the business rescue procedure and vital in securing the turnaround of the company. The section 133 moratorium will, to a great extent, determine whether business rescue is a saving grace in South Africa. I will discuss why I welcome business rescue (and its moratorium) and consider it an improvement on judicial management, but also what I regard as its inherent weaknesses. This study will conclude with my proposals regarding prudent amendments that have to be made to the 2008 Companies Act.

LL.M. (Commercial Law) / The introduction of Chapter 6 of the Companies Act No 71 of 2008 into the South African corporate insolvency setting had a noteworthy impact on procedures as we knew it and replaced its predecessor, judicial management in terms of the Companies Act no 61 of 1973. Chapter 6 provides for business rescue proceeding, its main function being to assist and rehabilitate financially distressed companies. The significance of this chapter is that it promotes proactive action to be taken by companies in initiating business rescue proceedings when possible financial distress becomes apparent. Business rescue proceedings can commence by making use of S 129 of the Companies Act No 71 of 2008 or of S 130 of the Companies Act No 71 of 2008. S 129 allows for the board of directors of the company to pass a resolution permitting business rescue proceedings to apply to the relevant company. S 130, on the other hand, makes provision for an affected person to apply to the High Court with a query regarding a company and business rescue proceedings. A remarkable number of new provisions were introduced relating to business rescue procedures and with their introduction came the responsibility of our Courts to interpret its rightful place within our law. As a result, the valuable question of when our courts should aim to rescue a company and when to liquidate the company’s assets in order to settle its debts, must be asked. Both proceedings have the same aim; that is helping the financially distressed company pay its debts. However, both also employ vastly different methods to achieve their aims and with different consequences. Business rescue aspires to rescue the company by restructuring its financial arrangements in order to allow for the business of the company to be sold as a going concern. Business rescue further aims to help the company settle all its claims against it in full. Liquidation, on the other hand, aspires to sell all the company’s assets and divide the profit of the sale to settle the claims of the company’s creditors. The company will thereafter be dissolved. This dissertation aims to analyse the suitability of business proceedings compared to liquidation proceedings by purposefully examining the requirements for both proceedings as well as their advantages. Furthermore, this dissertation will provide for a comparative study between the Australian and South African business rescue proceedings respectively.

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

LL.M. (Commercial Law) / Section 81(1)(d) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 allows a company, one or more of its directors or shareholders to apply to a court of law to wind up a solvent company. In essence, they can do so under three specified circumstances namely, where the directors are deadlocked in the management of the company and the shareholders are unable to break the deadlock, the shareholders are deadlocked in voting power and have failed for a period that includes at least two consecutive annual general meeting dates, to elect successors to directors whose terms have expired, or it is otherwise just and equitable for a company to be wound up. Item 9 schedule 5(1) of the Companies Act 2008 states that chapter 14 of the Companies Act 1973 continues to apply in regard to winding-up and liquidation of companies under the Companies Act 2008 as if the Companies Act 61 of 1973 has not been repealed. By virtue of this schedule, section 347 of the Companies Act 1973 still remains applicable. However, section 347(1) of the Companies Act 1973 still makes reference to section 346 of the Companies Act 1973 which is no longer applicable for winding-up of a solvent company and for that very reason it appears as though the intention is that section 347(1) of the Companies Act 1973 should not apply in such circumstances, I recommended that an amendment be made to the Companies Act 2008 to rectify this discrepancy. In light of the inclusion of section 347(2) of the Companies Act 1973, by virtue of item 9 schedule 5 of the Companies Act 2008, an application brought by shareholders places a definitive onus and an additional burden on the applicants to prove that they have exhausted all remedies available to them and they had no other alternative but to bring a winding-up application as a last resort. The all encompassing provision of section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act 2008, I argued, should allow for a winding-up of a company, even in respect of the weaker forms of deadlock, where it does not fit neatly within section 81(1)(d)(i) and section 81(1)(d)(ii) of the Companies Act 2008. The word ‘otherwise’, in my opinion, has been correctly included in section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act 2008. The courts will inevitably be 8 | P a g e left to determine the perimeters of section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act in relation to the sections 81(1)(d)(i) and 81(1)(d)(ii) of the Companies Act 2008. I discovered striking similarities to the wording of the just and equitable provision and this wording has been consistent in various versions of the companies acts (both current and previous) in various jurisdictions. The ejusdem generis principle, I argued, is not applicable and the just and equitable provision needs to be looked at independently of the other grounds. From the recent case law arising on the interpretation of section 81(1)(d) of the Companies Act 2008, it is clear that the various principles which were developed during the era of the previous companies acts were still applicable and relevant to the Companies Act 2008, unless the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa decides otherwise.

L.LM. (Corporate Law) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

LL.M. (Commercial Law) / The Companies Act 71 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed by Parliament on 19 November 2008 and assented to by the President on 8 April 2009. The Act came into force on 1 May 2011 and contains the provisions regulating the new business rescue proceedings that replace judicial management under the Companies Act 61 of 1973. However, since the introduction of Chapter 6 of the Act, the courts South Africa still appear to be finding their feet with regard to many of the Act’s provisions. In spite of this, the new business rescue practice has become an important part of the South African corporate framework. The outbreak of recent case law has started to shape the direction, which business rescue, as interpreted by the Courts, is taking. An important debate among the courts is whether the courts should rescue a business entity or liquidating the businesses assets in order to settle claims against it. While a liquidation aims to divide the profit from the sale of assets amongst creditors and to dissolve the company, business rescue legislation provides for a restructuring of the financial structure of a distressed debtor to save the business as a going concern and to assist the settlement of claims against the business in full. The business rescue proceedings have been provided for by legislation in the Act, however, the result of the vast recent court decisions show that the Act may not be relied upon unconditionally without proper regard to the circumstances of each case. This research analyses the appropriateness of business rescue as opposed to liquidation by specifically looking at the requirements for a successful business rescue order. This research further analyses whether the decisions of the courts in present case law are on the correct path when interpreting the business recuse provisions in terms of the Act.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2015 / ENGLISH ABSTRACT : The Companies Act 71 of 2008 introduces a completely new system for the regulation of distributions by a company to its shareholders. The preferred method for protecting the interests of creditors in distributions is now based on a solvency and liquidity test. Regrettably, the provisions setting out the requirements for distributions on the one hand and the solvency and liquidity test on the other have been poorly drafted. This thesis first explains and then applies an innovative interpretation theory to these provisions with a view to piecing together coherent content. The thesis finds that creative interpretations will not suffice in various places, meaning that substantive revision is required. The thesis concludes with brief amendment proposals and accompanying commentary. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING : Die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 bied ‘n radikaal nuwe sisteem vir die regulering van uitkerings van 'n maatskappy aan sy aandeelhouers. Die voorkeur metode om die belange van skuldeisers in uitkerings te beskerm, is nou op ‘n solvensie- en likwiditeittoets gebaseer. Ongelukkig is die wetlike bepalings wat die vereistes vir uitkerings aan die een kant uiteensit, en die solvensie en likwiditeit toets aan die ander kant, swak opgestel. Hierdie tesis verduidelik eerstens die bepalings, en pas dan 'n innoverende interpretasie teorie op hierdie bepalings toe, met die doel om 'n samehangende inhoud daar te stel. Die tesis bevind dat kreatiewe interpretasies op verskeie plekke nie voldoende sal wees nie. Dit beteken dat substantiewe hersiening noodsaaklik is. Ten slotte bied die tesis kortliks wysigings-voorstelle met meegaande kommentaar.

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

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

The Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“2008 Companies Act”) will have far reaching effects on the manner in which a company is formed and operated under South African company law and in particular entrenches the procedure that must be followed by a company when acquiring its own shares. The radical amendment of the capital maintenance rules by the introduction of the solvency and liquidity tests to the Companies Act 61 of 1973 has been carried forward under the 2008 Companies Act. These tests impose an obligation on a company to ensure that the company is both solvent and liquid at the time of the acquisition of its own shares and for a stated period thereafter. The 2008 Companies Act further brings the duties and liabilities of the directors in line with their current fiduciary duties in terms of common law. / Mercantile Law / LLM