Corporate Insolvency Law and Reforms in South Africa

Author(s):  
Amit Kumar Kashyap ◽  
Harsha Asnani

Every country has provided business recuse system and a regime for the protection of insolvent debtors. South Africa has had this legal infrastructure since 1926 when the statutory procedure of judicial management was introduced by the Companies Act 1926. The chapter discusses the judicial management, mechanisms to secure unpaid debts, carrying on business during insolvency, and the new corporate rescue procedures applicable for South African companies as provided in Companies Act 2008. The chapter also puts a light on corporate insolvency informs in South Africa.

Author(s):  
Zingaphi Mabe

The problems faced by debtors in South Africa is not that there are no alternatives to insolvency proceedings, but that the available alternatives do not provide for a discharge of debt as with a sequestration order, which is ultimately what the debtor seeks to achieve. Debtors in South Africa can make use of debt review in terms of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 or administration orders in terms of the Magistrates' Court Act 32 of 1944 to circumvent the sequestration process. However, both debt review and administration orders do not provide for a discharge of debt and provide for debt-restructuring only, in order to eventually satisfy the creditor's claims. Attention is given to the sequestration process and the alternatives to sequestration as they relate specifically to the discharge or lack of a discharge of a debtor's debts. The South African law is compared to Kenyan Law. This article seeks to analyse the alternatives to the bankruptcy provisions of the newly enacted Kenyan Insolvency Act 18 of 2015 in order to influence the possible reform of insolvency law in South Africa. Like the South African Insolvency Act, the old Kenyan Bankruptcy Act (Cap 53 of the Laws of Kenya) also did not have alternatives to bankruptcy. The old Kenyan Bankruptcy Act, however, contained a provision on schemes of arrangement and compositions. The Kenyan Insolvency Act now caters for alternatives to bankruptcy and provides a wide range of alternatives to bankruptcy, some of which allow debtors in different financial positions to obtain a discharge.    


Author(s):  
Dr. Surendran Pillay ◽  
Dr. Rajendra Rajaram ◽  
Kajal Ramnanun

Corporate rescue in South Africa has been bedevilled by many challenges. The new South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”), which came into effect in May 2011 contains a new chapter titled “Business rescue and Compromise with Creditors”. Post commencement finance (PCF) is finance or credit approved for a company in business rescue, which is regulated by section 135 of the South African Companies Act. The Act provides for companies to secure PCF as turnaround investment to secure its financial well-being. However, it is difficult for a distressed business to access PCF as it is challenging to operate on a cash basis when they face the likelihood of insolvency or forced sale of their assets to remain sustainable. This was evident during the recent global financial crises when obstacles to accessing PCF were identified as the chief deterrent for businesses that require rescue or reorganization (Pretorius and Du Preez, 2013). A review was performed to assess what the impact was, of a distress company obtaining PCF in KZN. Empirical research includes a qualitative research design engaged to explore the impact of PCF on the success of business rescue efforts for distressed companies in KZN. Insights and understandings were drawn from the participation of business rescue practitioners in Kwa Zulu Natal. This included addressing the challenges of obtaining PCF and what finance is available. The findings from the literature review confirm that the barriers to obtaining PCF are the most limiting factors in rescuing businesses in distress in KZN and the challenges include the time frame within the business rescue plan and that financial institutions are not prepared to support a business rescue without collateral.


Author(s):  
Amit Kumar Kashyap ◽  
Urvashi Jaswani ◽  
Anchit Bhandari ◽  
Yashowardhan S. N. V. Dixit

The Corporations Act of 2001 regulated the probable insolvency proceedings of all companies incorporated in Australia and companies incorporated or possessing separate legal. For personal insolvency, a specific legislation called Bankruptcy Act is there, but the basic framework of corporate insolvency law has been there since the inception of Corporations Act 2001 enactment, which includes all the aspects of company formation, management, governance, and dissolution. The authors have highlighted recent reforms; however, the main concentration of this chapter is on the legal infrastructure of corporate insolvency law at present as the reforms are not yet in force. The chapter also puts forth the problems faced by corporate debtor and creditors in the proceedings of insolvency resolution and has also expressed the scenario of cross-border insolvency in Australia in light of UNICTRAL Model law of cross-border insolvency which has been adopted by the Australian government in 2008.


Author(s):  
Cherrie Olivier

This essay deals with the ‘advantage to creditors’ requirement imposed by the Insolvency Act, in South African law. This essay is divided into four parts. Firstly, the requirement will be examined in order to establish the objective it aims to achieve. It will then go on to describe the various ways in which the requirement is implemented during the sequestration process in order to achieve this objective. The second part will discuss how courts interpret the relevant provisions with reference to case law. In the third part, South African insolvency law will briefly be compared to foreign insolvency law in order to raise some potential concerns about the emphasis on the ‘advantage to creditors’ requirement in our law. Finally, with due regard to the current legal institutions and proposals for legal reform in South Africa, conclusions will be drawn as to the necessity of revisiting the scope and implementation of this requirement.


Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
André Boraine

It is a well-known fact that the legal systems of South Africa and Namibia, or rather the former South West Africa, were rather identical until the advent of independence of the latter on 21 March 1990. This note thus deals with aspects of the development of insolvency law in South Africa and Namibia since Namibia became independent. What is also important is the fact that both Namibia and South Africa adopted a constitution that is based on a Bill of Rights (see the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia of 1990 and the South African Constitution of 1996). Some developments in insolvency law based on these features are therefore also considered in this note. As indicated, upon independence Namibia retained significant portions of South African law including its legislation. Owing to the shared background of Roman-Dutch-law and English-law influences, both Namibia and South Africa can still be classified as having mixed legal systems. Like South Africa, Namibian insolvency law is not contained in one single statute although it is still largely regulated by the South African inherited Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (hereinafter “the Insolvency Act”), which deals first and foremost with the sequestration of individuals and related matters. Namibia also inherited the South African Companies Act 61 of 1973 but the South African Close Corporations Act 69 of 1984 was largely adopted as the Close Corporation Act 26 of 1988 that came into operation on 25 July 1994. These pieces of legislation, amongst others, deal with the liquidation or winding-up of companies and close corporations respectively. Apart from these statutory enactments, precedents and common-law principles also apply in the absence of specific statutory provisions. The Insolvency Act of 1936, however, remains the principal source of both South African and Namibian insolvency law and the other enactments render certain provisions of the Insolvency Act applicable. At present and as far as the principles are still comparable, precedents set by South African and Namibian courts remain relevant in both jurisdictions. In order to align some of the terminology with structures and developments in Namibia, the 1936 Insolvency Act was amended in a number of respects by the Namibian Insolvency Amendment Act 12 of 2005. The wording of the Insolvency Act was also thereby amended to make it gender-friendly. However, when dealing with either system it is important to ascertain to what extent statutes that applied in both jurisdictions have been adopted, subsequently amended and/or replaced. The Namibian government has for instance introduced a new Companies Act 28 of 2004 that is bound to replace the South African-based Companies Act of 1973. Although a new insolvency statute is not in the pipeline in Namibia, an amendment act to the 1936 Insolvency Act has been published during 2005 (the 2004 Companies Act was assented to on 19 December 2004 but it will only come into operation once so proclaimed). In South Africa a new Companies Act 71 of 2008 has been introduced but it is also still due to come into operation. New insolvency legislation that will unify the insolvency of individuals and companies is on the table in South Africa but it is not clear when this process will come to fruition. Another general feature is that judgments of the South African and Namibian high courts are clearly still influential in both jurisdictions but as amendments and separate legal developments will deviate from the former common norm, judgments will clearly have to be treated with circumspect in future. In the absence of a comprehensive textbook dealing with the Namibian version of insolvency law, South African textbooks will remain of some use to that jurisdictions but also subject to the same qualifications expressed above.


Author(s):  
Sikha Bansal

The chapter, while making a background study of the principles underlying corporate insolvency laws and corporate insolvency laws prevalent in non-Asian economies (i.e., United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and South Africa), tracks the history of corporate insolvency law in select South-Asian and South-East Asian countries (i.e., Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand). The chapter seeks to acquaint the readers with the efforts which led to the various reforms in these jurisdictions.


2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 581-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rizwaan Jameel Mokal

This paper argues that the pari passu principle of insolvency law does not fulfil any of the functions often attributed to it. It does not constitute an accurate description of how the assets of insolvent companies are in fact distributed. It has no role to play in ensuring an orderly winding up of such companies. Nor does it underlie, explain, or justify distinctive features of the formal insolvency regime, notably, its collectivity. The case-law said to support the pari passu principle serves actually to undermine its importance. And the principle has nothing to do with fairness in liquidation. The substantive argument in the paper concludes by examining the actual role of the principle. The arguments made here have important implications for almost every debate about insolvency law, from the status of secured and preferential creditors to the appropriate role of corporate “rescue” procedures.


Author(s):  
Tanya Rheeder

The discussion to follow aspires to take a closer look at the birth of the Roman debt collecting system and trace the development for approximately a thousand years, with the aim of clarifying the present state of the law by showing its evolution over time. However, before venturing into the depths of ancient Rome, a thorough understanding of the application of Roman law in South Africa is crucial.


Author(s):  
Kathleen van der Linde

The prominent divide between bankruptcy and reorganization procedures in South African insolvency law is also evident in the treatment of executory contracts. The general position in both types of proceedings is that executory contracts are not automatically terminated. The commencement of proceedings affects or may affect the other contract party’s ability to exact performance under the contract, who may then claim damages for non-performance. This broadly similar result is, however, based on different legal constructions for bankruptcy and reorganization, and may lead to different practical outcomes. Each type of proceeding also has its own set of exceptions to the general rule.


That South Africa has a mixed legal system is aptly illustrated by the origin and current structure of its insolvency law. Roman-Dutch law, including the procedure of cessio bonorum, was introduced when the Dutch East India Company established a presence at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652. The Ordinance of Amsterdam of 1777 is still regarded as the basis of South African insolvency law. The first local insolvency legislation was enacted under British rule. While the 1829 Cape Ordinance introduced some English bankruptcy principles, it retained certain features of the Ordinance of Amsterdam. The English influence was extended in the subsequent Cape Ordinance 6 of 1843 which in turn formed the basis of insolvency legislation in Natal as well as in the former pre-union republics, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. After unification in 1910, the Insolvency Act 32 of 1916 was passed. It was replaced by the current Insolvency Act 24 of 1936. This legislation does not codify the law of insolvency but applies alongside the common law principles derived from Roman-Dutch law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document